After some apparent hiccups in the college football playoff formulation process last week, it was back on like Donkey Kong today in Chicago. The BCS commissioners plus Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick* came to a “consensus” that they would recommend to their respective bosses (the university presidents) a 4-team seeded playoff with the “best four teams” to be chosen by a selection committee (using criteria such as conference championships and strength of schedule) and the semifinals to be played among the existing BCS bowls.
(* If anyone doubted that Notre Dame is anything but irrelevant in today’s college football world, note that every news story about the college football playoff today referred to “the BCS commissioners and Notre Dame AD” and Jack Swarbrick was the spokesman for the working group in front of the media. Plus, Swarbrick got to bat down an Orangebloods report about Notre Dame “likely” moving its non-football sports to the Big 12, but that’s an issue we’ll explore for another day.)
Here are a couple of instant reactions about what finally appears to be the new college football playoff format:
(1) A Committee to Form the Committee – I have long been an opponent to the use of a selection committee for various reasons, such as the concern that only one or two people could end up swaying the fate of a particular team. The random rogue committee member scares me much more than a handful of idiot sportswriters (cough, Skip Bayless, cough) that might be voting in a larger poll. However, I’ve been coming around to the thought of it where it’s at least palatable in the sense that it’s a way for the conference commissioners to kick the can down the road regarding the selection process. Some years, it might make sense to have 4 conference champs playing in the playoff. In other seasons, 4 SEC schools might be the 4 best teams in the country. Maybe #5 Pac-12 champ Oregon should have gotten into the playoff over #4 Stanford in 2011, but #5 Big Ten champ Wisconsin shouldn’t have gotten into the playoff over #4 Stanford in 2010 (or vice versa). There’s so much variability from season to season that any prescribed requirements (e.g. conference champs only, 3 conference champs plus 1 wild card, taking the straight top 4 in the BCS rankings, etc.) would have all yielded unsatisfactory results in certain seasons.
This is the dilemma. We, as college football fans, generally want to have concrete criteria in terms of determining the national champion. However, most of us also care about the practical outcome, where putting 4 teams into a playoff that the average fan can plainly see are not the best 4 teams in the nation is bothersome, as well. I’ve long said that what fans really want is an objective computer program that spits out the exact same result as a subjective human poll. We hate the thought of using the results of a human poll because of the perception that there might be bias, but we generally agree with the results of that same human poll because it reflects what we have seen with our own eyes. When push comes to shove, the general public (and the powers that be and TV networks) cares more about the output (the outcome of which 4 teams are in playoff) than the inputs (the criteria in choosing such teams). The use of a selection committee is a further extension of the output-focused approach.
There are few suggestions that I have for the use of a selection committee:
- Appoint one representative from each FBS conference to the committee along with having a pool of 10 or so “at-large” representatives. This would make the committee compact enough that there can be in-depth discussions among its members, but large enough to mitigate the vote of a representative that has eaten too many paint chips.
- Do not allow committee members that have a conflict of interest (e.g. an SEC representative discussing an SEC school) to discuss or vote on the applicable school.
- Similar what the NCAA Tournament does, allow the mainstream media to participate in an extensive mock session of the selection process so that the public can understand what exactly happens in the war room.
- Make all data that the selection committee will use in the selection process, such as computer rankings and strength of schedule calculations, available to the public every week throughout the season.
I’m still a little bit skeptical about using a selection committee, but I can wrap my arms around the concept a little bit better today compared to last month.
(2) Where the Rose Bowl Stands – Big Ten and Pac-12 fans had a bit more interest in the actual logistics of where the semifinals would be played because of the potential implications on the Rose Bowl. While there was initially a plan to slot the semifinal games according to bowl tie-ins (e.g. a #1 Big Ten team would play the #4 team in the Rose Bowl), it appears that flex option is unlikely according to Brett McMurphy of CBS Sports. Instead, the semifinals would rotate among the BCS bowls on a regular basis. (Note that no one should be surprised if 1 or 2 other bowls, such as the Cotton and/or Outback, would get elevated and become part of that rotation.) When I asked Teddy Greenstein about this last month, he indicated that this was also the preferred course of action for the Big Ten athletic directors.
It initially surprised me that the Big Ten didn’t support the flex option, but it makes sense if you think about the downside risk. Many people have been focused upon the prospect of a top 2 Big Ten or Pac-12 team always getting slotted into a semifinal in the Rose Bowl, which would actually enhance the stature of the game even more than today. However, there’s the flip side that a non-semifinalist Big Ten or Pac-12 champ could get kicked out of the Rose Bowl. If USC were to go on a run like it did in the early-2000s, for instance, the Big Ten champ could end up outside of the Rose Bowl for several seasons in a row. My longstanding general theory about the thinking of university presidents is that they about maximizing their take in the worst case scenario more than shooting the moon in the best case scenario, and this guarantee that the Rose Bowl will be a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 affair (even if they might not be conference champs) fits such thinking.
Personally, I hope that there will at least be a provision that a Big Ten and/or Pac-12 semifinalist will get slotted in the Rose Bowl whenever the semifinal is being hosted there. The same would go for the Big 12 and SEC with their “Champions” Bowl (which will hopefully be the Sugar Bowl) when it’s a semifinal host.
There will still be further critical details to be hammered out such as the revenue distribution (where it appears, as expected, that the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will keep the lion’s share of the money by applying plausibly justifiable on-the-field criteria) and where the Big East stands in relation to the power conferences, but it’s nothing short of amazing that a 4-team playoff has gone from a pipe dream 6 months ago to possibly a week away from approval. Considering that it took over 100 years for college football to institute a #1 vs. #2 national championship game, we’re moving at warp speed.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Christian Science Monitor)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
I would never want to see all four teams from one conference no matter the conference. I don’t think that would be too popular for most of the country. Only die-hard “best” four absolutists would want that. Most people are not absolutists.
No playoff is meant to determine a so-called best team. That isn’t possible without a full round-robin schedule. Most sports entities can’t schedule a true round-robin given all the other considerations like number of teams vs. number of games on the schedule. A playoff is used to determine a champion, not the “best” team. I think if college football fans would think about a playoff in those terms, they might avoid conniption fits when one or two of their perceived “best” four teams are left out in favor of a conference champion.
LikeLike
Agreed, if for no other reason that no one really knows how good individual conferences are. There’s a perception that certain conferences are better (SEC, Big 12, Big 10, etc…). And most years that perception is probably right. But perception does not always equal reality. And with so few meaningful out of conference games, it’s difficult to truly know how a conference stacks up against another one in a given year. I’d generally recommend erring on the side of caution and inviting teams from more conferences than loading up on one conference.
After all, LSU proved on the field it should be selected over Alabama last season. Alabama being picked over OSU or Stanford/Oregon was purely conjecture. It was an educated guess at what the rankings should be, but at the end of the day a guess nonetheless. Even educated guesses can be wrong, so providing more access (within reason) makes sense.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct. I don’t even know what “best” team even means. Its an unanswerable question. I think, for a lot of people, the “4 best teams” essentially means “4 SEC teams.” And we all know who I am talking about there.
LikeLike
I’m struck by the wisdom here, particularly when contrasted with the lack of it on display by the group of commissioners.
I think they’ve devised a system that is most likely to magnify the weaknesses of the current system while at the same time minimizing the benefit from revising the postseason in the first place.
LikeLike
How are the commissioners showing lack of wisdom? By defending their best interests? Its easy for people not involved to set up a 4 team bracket like you are playing a stratomatic tournament in your basement. Basically every commissioner has fought for what is best for their group of institutions. Just because it doesn’t align with your desired playoff doesn’t indicate a lack of wisdom.
LikeLike
This format doesn’t defend anything. Its a Maginot Line.
LikeLike
Your suggestions are good, although I disagree in calling a 22-person committee “compact.” 12 seems more likely, and to me more desirable. If a group is too large, no one owns the decision, so bad decisions are more likely.
Any idea how they might calculate schedule strength? I keep reading RPI, but that formula is owned by the NCAA and this is not an NCAA tournament.
LikeLike
The actual RPI formula is a secret owned by the NCAA, but other individuals and organizations, including ESPN and news websites, have derived their own take on the formula and used it without getting sued by the NCAA.
Also, the original BCS formula had a strenth of schedule component that was calculated from RPI.
LikeLike
There is an improved version of the RPI out there that corrects some mathematical problems with the RPI. As we all know, the RPI is 25% your W%, 50% your opponents’ W% and 25% your opponents’ opponents’ W% (with some weighting for home vs road games – 1.4 and 0.6 for hoops, 1.3 and 0.7 for baseball). The problem is that the formula only takes out overlapping games from the W%, not the other 2 categories so a team can can elevate themselves by smart scheduling. The corrected formula fixes this and does a better job of matching ranking methods.
http://sebaseball.kislanko.com/PASOS/present.html
I’m not saying they are going to use this, but it might be a decent idea. I’m sure they’ll find a way to pick something less accurate, though. If I had to guess, the NCAA will let them use the RPI or they’ll develop their own version of it.
LikeLike
I like your suggestions for the committee, although I disagree that a 22-person committee is “compact.” In a large group, no one owns the decision, so a bad decision is more likely. 10-12 seems reasonable and still large enough to have meaningful discussion.
Any idea how they may calculate schedule strength? I keep reading RPI but that formula is owned by the NCAA and this is not an NCAA tournament.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
OU
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
Will the polls still exist? Should they?
LikeLike
The AP will almost certainly continue, while Harris will be discontinued since it will no longer have any purpose. The coaches’ poll will probably go away except for possibly a final end of the year ranking.
LikeLike
Coaches poll is sponsored by USA Today. Its not going to stop. Harris should go away.
LikeLike
It’s more of a matter of whether any polls will actually be used as part of some official formula similar to the BCS rankings. The AP and coaches’ polls will continue to exist (just like they do in basketball) as they are administered outside of the BCS itself, but the latter may not be used in any official calculations anymore. The AP poll hasn’t been used in official calculations for several years, anyway, so there’s no reason why it wouldn’t continue. Ultimately, no one has any authority to tell the AP to stop taking a poll (and if someone tried to do that, it would probably just make the sportswriters more determined to fight back to carry on with it). The Harris Poll only existed for the purposes of the BCS rankings as a replacement when the AP poll dropped out of the calculations, so that will likely go away.
LikeLike
I actually wouldn’t be shocked if they asked the coaches to discontinue their poll (or at least delay its publication). The coaches work for the presidents who have ultimate authority (that is why they were able to mandate that the coaches vote for whichever team wins the BCS NCG number 1 in the final rankings).
LikeLike
In which case, the USA Today will take some of the the retired coaches from the Harris poll and continue to have a coaches poll.
LikeLike
Roll Tide!
LikeLike
Pingback: College Football Playoffs Have Finally Arrived (Say Conference Commissioners) | Atlantic Coast Convos
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
I posted this at the very end of Frank’s ACC post, however since there’s a new thread here, I will post it. In some ways, would it make more sense if the Rose Bowl were not part of the semi-final rotation to increase the chances each year it will be a PAC 12/Big 10 matchup?
If the Rose Bowl were not in the playoff rotation, these would have been the matchups going back to 2004. Some very attractive matchups that wouldn’t take away from the lure of the Rose Bowl at all. I think 2010 and 2011 would have been great matchups.
2011: Stanford vs Wisconsin
2010: Stanford vs Ohio State
2009: Oregon vs Ohio State
2008: USC/Utah vs Penn St (USC/Alabama toss up for 4th playoff spot)
2007: USC/Illinois
2006: USC/Wisconsin (Polls had USC #7 that year..it’s doubtful committee selects them)
2005: Oregon vs Notre Dame (Penn St and Ohio St both make playoff, ND is replacement team at next Big 10 team was rated #18)
2004: California vs Michigan
I don’t know…I think a good solution for the Rose Bowl is to have the playoff semi-finals take place the 4th Saturday of December….leave the Rose and future Champions Bowl out of the rotation and have those two games headline New Years Day. Play the championship game sometime in early January.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Rose Bowl would want this. It would permanently leave them as the #4 bowl of the year (behind the national championship and semi-finals). It might work with the semi-finals in December, but I don’t think they are likely to end up there.
LikeLike
@Eric – Agreed. It’s as much about the Rose Bowl’s elite status as it is about a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup. Ultimately, if you want to be an elite bowl in this new playoff world, you’re going to have to be a semifinal site. I think that as long as Big Ten and/or Pac-12 semifinalists get sent to the Rose Bowl in the years when it’s a semifinal host, everyone would be about as happy as they could be in this system.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Conference Realignment: ACC, Big 12 Continue Courting Notre Dame | Atlantic Coast Convos
The fits last week were kind of interesting. From the reports that were coming out about a month ago, I posted this exact same result as it appeared there was pretty much a consensus on this. Perhaps last week was negotiating ploys on the revenue allocation.
I suspect the committee will be like the basketball committee and evaulate where to send teams. In a year the Rose Bowl is a semi-final and say, USC is #1 and Ohio St. is #3 or #4, they will seed Ohio St. #4 and send both to the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s going to be an interesting thing.
I mean the discussion has always been about determining the #4 team.
But that’s not the only thing to determine, who’s #2 relative to #3. How does that affect bowl slotting.
McMurphy can say that they’re not going to use the flex plan, but isn’t the choosing of seeding actually the flex plan? Especially since there may not be a BCS poll system or anything like that anymore?
LikeLike
Now, instead of all of us expecting the BCS poll to spit out a result that matches the polls, we’ll expect the committee to match the polls. Virtually any deviance from the polls is going to be extremely controversial, so we’ll see how much the committee is willing to run counter to the poll rankings we’ve had thrown at us all year long.
Interesting decision on the host bowls. Let’s hope the Rose Bowl can host a #1-#3 or #2-#4 Big Ten-Pac 12 semifinal. If 4 bowls are part of the rotation, the Rose is seldom going to get a “true” Rose Bowl pairing, particularly if you force 1-4 and 2-3 matchups. If 6 bowls take part, at least the Rose is out of the semis 67% of the time.
LikeLike
I’ve read the news a little different than Frank on this point. While there may eventually be new BCS bowls, it’s sounded to me like the rotation will through the 4 existing bowls. Even if we get 2 new bowls, I suspect they won’t be part of the rotation.
I agree that the selection committee is going to very closely follow the polls most years. They’ll by pass a few who lose their conference, but don’t expect anyone outside the top 6 ever to make it.
I think a pure seeded playoff is much less likely than a semi-seeded one. Beyond preserving the Rose Bowl, the committee is going to need the ability to avoid rematches and hopefully encourage more regional games. In that light, I think they’ll be able to switch 2 close teams. Last year for instance we probably would have had #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 Oklahoma State, and #5 Oregon in. I think the semi-finals would have varied depending on the bowls used.
Orange Bowl: LSU vs. Oklahoma State
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Alabama
or
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. Oregon
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma State vs. Alabama
LSU was the clear #1, but the rest were pretty close so it really wasn’t a big deal switching them around a little. In scenario #1, LSU stays in the southeast and Oregon gets its traditional tie-in with the Rose Bowl. In scenario #2 LSU gets its traditional tie-in with the Sugar Bowl and Oklahoma State it’s with the Fiesta.
LikeLike
The bigger issues arise when there are multiple conflicting things you are trying to do. The worst case scenario I can come up with is something like this:
#1 Notre Dame
#2 Ohio State
#3 LSU
#4 USC
Let’s say the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are the 2 in the rotation that year (although practically I suspect that they’ll separate those 2 as they are the biggest). The results (if I’m right in how they’ll do this) would probably be:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Notre Dame vs. #3 LSU
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
In this set-up, the #1 team in the nation essentially gets a game that feels a lot like an away game (and actually so does the #2 team, although that’s a little different). This is one reason I don’t favor locked in semi-finals (if they were based on tie-ins, Notre Dame could have an agreement with some other BCS bowl to host them here). If the Rose and Sugar were locked in though, it would be difficult to set-up anything else. Ohio State vs. LSU in the Sugar Bowl and Notre Dame vs. USC in the Rose Bowl would ignore tradition and still give you the traveling road issues (and a rematch issue to with Notre Dame and USC).
LikeLike
You accidently wrote Ohio State when you meant to write Michigan.
LikeLike
nice, GLS… How ’bout a fantasy like Minnesota???
LikeLike
Eric,
In that scenario, I would hope the committee does the right thing and has Notre Dame play USC in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State vs LSU in the Rose Bowl. I think the manipulation of seedings to preserve tradition is not right and doesn’t make it a playoff anymore. It really makes it a plus-one. I think it’s an intersting scenario you brought up. I do think the top seed, as a reward for being the #1 seed, should be placed at a bowl site of their preference. So if Notre Dame is the #1 seed, and the Sugar and Rose Bowls are the rotation that year, thenND should choose which bowl to play in. If they select the Sugar, then everything else falls into play.
LikeLike
It’s definitely not a plus one (with a plus one the bowl match-ups do not directly determine the next match-up, here they do).
I have the opposite viewpoint overall. If you put USC and Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State and LSU in the Rose Bowl, then you preserved the 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3, but at a cost of a) tradition and b) geography (not a single school is anywhere near their semi-final destination), c) set-up a rematch of Notre Dame’s last game. A pure is 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 is not worth that cost.
I know it’s all subjective so no one is right or wrong here, but to me we are talking about 4 teams who are relatively even. Keeping tradition with the bowls far outweighs the value of strict seeding.
LikeLike
I would hope/think that a #1 Notre Dame would not play a de facto road game @LSU for the semifinal. No, I think the Irish would make a triumphant return to the Rose Bowl, where the Four Horsemen capped their legend.
In that scenario, I think it will be all fuzucked. ND will play LSU in LA to avoid a rematch and home site for the lower rannked team. Southern Cal will head to Bourbon St.. I think a LOT of treams will opt for the Rose if given a choice
LikeLike
I suspect they will develop a football “RPI” like they have for basketball and they will go into the room with the AP & coaches polls, that RPI and a group of computer polls. And, of course, they will have the results of all the teams. It will probably take them about 5 minutes to get down to about a dozen teams that are ranked highly in one of their polls or systems and then they will go to work.
LikeLike
As I said before, if a selection committee is used they will probably just discontinue all the current polls used in the BCS to avoid the deviation problem.
LikeLike
Other than the Harris poll, none of those are specifically for the BCS. Sagarin has his ELO-chess model which is a modification of his normal model, but he is doing a poll regardless of the BCS.
LikeLike
And having all of those models and keeping them public gives them a certain level of cover if they deviate, because these models will give some different results if the teams are anywhere close. I don’t see a committee picking Stanford over Oregon last year. It would be interesting to see how they evaluated Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that the only evaluation Ok St vs Bama would be to evaluate which seeded spot they would get since both likely would be in the playoff. Ok St would probably have gotten the #2 seed, and Bama would’ve probably gotten the # 4 seed (I would bet that a committee would’ve tried to pair LSU and Bama in order to keep two SEC teams from playing in the final game) .
LikeLike
The question isn’t whether the computer models will continue to be published, it is whether or not they will publish their BCS rankings which drop out things like MOV.
Plus, with no formal role in the process and no one to compile, adjust, and average them I suspect they will be little discussed.
LikeLike
Polls will still exist for entertainment purposes if nothing else. There’s really nothing the conferences can do to stop that. The public will still read, watch, or hear about AP Poll rankings. While the poll won’t be formally used as a method of selection, it will still be there with regard to the court of public opinion.
LikeLike
Go Buckeyes.
LikeLike
My guess on where this is going: assuming that the “new BCS” (whatever it will be called) consists of just the national semifinals and the conferences can contract for bowl slots for the rest of the games, I think when all is said and done there will essentially be 4 tiers of bowls each season:
1. Two national semifinals (2 of Rose/Orange/Sugar/Fiesta)
2. The Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1 game and the SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1 game
3. Two New Year’s Day games featuring ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2 and Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2.
4. Everything else.
So let’s say in odd years the semifinals are Sugar and Fiesta. Games could be as follows:
Early games on January 1: Capital One Bowl (Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2) and Orange Bowl (ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2)
Mid-day games on January 1: Rose Bowl (Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1) and Cotton Bowl (SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1)
Late game on January 1: Fiesta Bowl
January 2: Sugar Bowl
In even years the semifinals would be Rose and Orange. Games as follows:
Early games on January 1: Capital One Bowl (Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2) and Cotton Bowl (ACC #1 vs. ND or Big Twelve #2)
Mid-day game on January 1: Rose Bowl
Late games on January 1: Fiesta Bowl (Big Ten #1 vs. Pac 12 #1) and Sugar Bowl (SEC #1 vs. BIG Twelve #1)
January 2: Orange Bowl
LikeLike
To clarify: #1 and #2 means choice of teams from each conference after the 4 national semifinal participants are chosen by the committee. If a conference’s champion is not one of the 4 national semifinalists it would be #1.
LikeLike
So if B10 gets 2 teams into semifinals, then B10 #3 goes to Rose Bowl?
LikeLike
More on concussions
http://deadspin.com/5920006/can-science-see-inside-an-nfl-players-skull-before-its-too-late
LikeLike
So we’re swapping a beauty pageant with two winners for a beauty pageant with four. It’s still not a playoff.
LikeLike
Loki – it already was a playoff, this just doubles the size. Baseball used to have a postseason that sent two teams to the World Series without any other rounds; was that not a playoff? Any time two teams meet on the field after the regular season to settle it all, you’ve got a playoff. But out of curiosity, what do you think college football would have to do to get a real playoff?
LikeLike
When baseball had two they were the teams that won on the field. Not two selected by the BBWA. Everyone knew that if you won your group you were in. D1A football will not have a champion until every conference winner is in a playoff.
LikeLike
So all 11 (or is it 10 – does the WAC still count?) conference winners, plus some wild cards to round it out? I’d watch that. I don’t think that keeps it from being a playoff, though. A playoff is when two teams meet on the field in the post season to settle something that wasn’t settled in the regular season (or to settle it again, in the case of LSU-Alabama).
LikeLike
BCS was a bowl game matchup. This actually is a playoff. Its just that not everyone gets invited to the party and the requirements to get invited aren’t ever going to be clear. In the FCS, until they did the expansion last season, not everyone was invited. For years, Division III only invited a handful of schools and even going unbeaten didn’t guarantee an invite.
LikeLike
Bullet, it’s still a beauty pageant. If one of the “wrong teams” like an Iowa State or an Indiana wins its conference with no more than one loss, it might still be bumped from a playoff slot by a wild-card with more TV appeal. And it will be an even longer shot for a one-loss ACC conference champ that’s not a brand name.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“D1A football will not have a champion until every conference winner is in a playoff.”
So we need a 15 team playoff (11 champs, 4 independents and no wildcards)? or are wildcards OK as long as all the champs are also in it? Why not go with the 128 team tournament just to be safe?
LikeLike
How in the world is it not a playoff? They are taking the top 4 teams, having them play an elimination round, and having the winners face off. At the very least its a tournament and I don’t see how it could possibly not be a playoff.
LikeLike
It sounds like we’re getting a BCS Plus Two setup that has many of the same problems that the current Bowl Championship Series enjoys. While the door is open a bit more with four teams participating in it, we’re still going to see as high a level of controversy with the selections as we see with the current BCS.
Any selection committee comprised of former college football coaches is going to be suspect, despite the transparency that’s being promised in the system. These coaches all have their own biases and conference loyalties along with their good old boy networks and coaching trees with former assistants who now have head coaching jobs. Fans throughout college football will look at some of these individuals and be able to point towards bias–real or imagined–in the decision being made. That perception only gets reinforced by the proposal to have the committee balanced by region and by allowing members to recuse themselves from certain decisions. If I were putting a committee together and wanted people who were knowledgeable about football, then I’d hire a bunch of former NFL coaches who are a long arm’s length away from the college game to pick the top four teams. I don’t want “insiders” doing it because we’ll have the same sort of finger pointing that we see in the current BCS system.
I watched the BCS program on ESPN last night and was shaking my head at the assumption being put forward that teams would actually strengthen their non-conference schedules because they’d want to get a higher strength of schedule (SOS). Unless SOS was given a weight of 50% or more by the selection committee, then the best way to get int the BCS Plus Two is the same as the current BCS–win all your games. Now that conferences are larger than 1998 plus they’re playing more conference games plus most of them have a conference championship game, there’s actually no incentive to make the non-conference schedule more difficult. If the playoff was expanded to eight teams and/or some number of conference champions were given autobids, then you’d have the sort of positive motivator in place that would allow teams to play harder non-conference schedules.
Take Michigan’s 2012 schedule. If UM had opened with Eastern Michigan instead of Alabama, but played Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State on the road plus games with Michigan State and Iowa and participated in the Big Ten Conference Championship game, then I’d be hard pressed to imagine a 13-0 UM team not being one of the four selected (that is, unless Phil Fulmer had the deciding vote on the committee and wanted to get revenge on Michigan for Charles Woodson winning the Heisman over Peyton Manning back in 1997).
The only really positive thing I can take away from this is that we’re looking at another transitional step toward a larger playoff. Even Larry Scott acknowledged that the major controversies will continue until we get to an 8- or 16-team playoff. The fans and media will have the same problems with the BCS Plus Two as the current system and the conference commissioners will continue to get flack and pressure for additional change.
I will laugh if the Presidential Oversight Committee doesn’t approved the seeded four-team playoff and tells the conference commissioners they want a Plus One instead. Not likely to happen, I suppose, but it’d be funny as hell.
I’ll also laugh if New York City, Boston, Chicago or some other cold weather location with an outdoor stadium get selected as the site for the national championship game. That poor Alabama defensive tackle from Mobile that Nick Saban always talks about is going to have to play in the cold and possible snow in The Meadowlands, Gillette Stadium or Soldier Field. (Saban mentioned how it wouldn’t be “right” for this fictitious individuals to have to play a semi-final game at Camp Randall Stadium in Wisconsin in late December). If those locales were to put together the highest bid, would college football shrink away from the extra money and look for a warm weather location instead?
LikeLike
@cutter – “we’re still going to see as high a level of controversy with the selections as we see with the current BCS.” Controversy, yes, but not as high as before. There’s controversy over the 64th (65th? 66th? 68th?) team in the basketball tournament, but it’s not very loud – no one thinks that team is going to win it all. The #3 ranked football team, however, just might be the best team in the country, so the controversy there is quite intense. The #5 ranked team might be able to make the same argument, but not quite as convincingly. Basically, the larger a playoff gets, the less griping there is about the last team in. So, controversy, but not quite at the same level.
And a “BCS Plus Two” isn’t really the right way to describe it. That would imply that you would play the BCS bowls, re-rank all the teams, and THEN select your top four for the playoffs, which isn’t what’s happening. This is an expanded playoff.
I agree that college football is missing out on something by not having cold weather post season games. If the SEC doesn’t want to go north in December, well, then they should have a better season and earn one of the top two seeds. On-campus playoff games would be absolutely off the hook. That’s my biggest gripe with this plan – not only do you keep the bowls involved, but fans of the teams in the championship game will now have to travel twice in the space of a couple of weeks.
LikeLike
It’s like everyone’s forgetting that just a couple of years ago Oklahoma got pasted in the CCG and got into the Championship.
There will never be a result that even comes close to the controversy from that under a selection committee.
LikeLike
Nebraska was the really controversial one. CU beat them 62-36 and Nebraska got in before CU or Pac 12 champ Oregon. Nebraska did have 1 loss vs. their two, but it was to one of them in the last game of the season. When #2 FSU got in ahead of #3 Miami who they lost to it was also pretty controversial.
OU wasn’t a case of them not belonging (as was the opinion of Nebraska) as they had been dominant all season prior to that and were the only unbeaten. The controversy was whether LSU and USC deserved to be there more. OU had a bad game in a game most people were saying didn’t matter (and it didn’t-they still got in).
LikeLike
There won’t be any choices as controversial as those under a selection committee choosing 4 teams.
I realize that there’s a fear of smoke-filled backrooms, but the fact is that it’s likely to generate far less controversy because in most years the 4 teams will be obvious and the 5th or 6th teams that get left out won’t really have that much of a case.
Not anywhere near the case that the #3 and #4 teams had in previous controversial years…
LikeLike
And then there was 2004 Auburn. It’s amazing how little fuss that raised, considering that it’s the most clear-cut case of a school being wronged by the BCS.
LikeLike
@Jake: that one raised a lot of fuss, and was far from the most clear-cut example. Auburn had an atrocious OOC slate, and the SEC was way down that year (multiple bad non-AQ losses, SECE winner Tennessee lost at home to a .500 Notre Dame team, etc.)
@zeek: The #4 team is very rarely clear-cut. See http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/21/3105594/college-football-playoffs-selection-committee . If anything the 1-2 tends to be clear-cut about half of the time, while 4-5 is very rarely clear.
LikeLike
And then there was 2004 Auburn. It’s amazing how little fuss that raised, considering that it’s the most clear-cut case of a school being wronged by the BCS.
2008 Utah might have something to say about that. Hell, if you look at the numbers you can make a case that Utah was better than Auburn back in 2004.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree with all of that, my main point is just that the argument over #4/#5 will typically pale in comparison to the previous arguments over #2/#3.
As mentioned by many, we’ve had so many controversies over #2/#3 that are much much bigger than anything you can come up with over #4/#5.
Undefeated TCU, undefeated Auburn, Oklahoma/USC, Florida/Michigan, etc.
Those finishes are all going to look more controversial than anything we get in the future over arguments over #4/#5. It may not seem that way now, but it’s going to be fairly obvious that the leftout teams at #4/#5 teams are going to have a lot more flaws than the current situation arguing over #2/#3.
Right now we’ve had situations where we’ve left out undefeated teams that looked worthy along with some seeming brain farts by the computers.
Arguing over whether certain teams should be #4/#5 is going to be a lot less controversial because both teams will have a lot more flaws than the typical #2/#3 teams we’ve seen left out in the past.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Yeah, I agree with all of that, my main point is just that the argument over #4/#5 will typically pale in comparison to the previous arguments over #2/#3.”
I disagree. The arguments over who gets in will be bigger because more teams can make a case for being #4. What will happen when a non-AQ gets left out despite being #4 in the polls? Or will the polls have a new, lower glass ceiling to keep them out entirely?
“As mentioned by many, we’ve had so many controversies over #2/#3 that are much much bigger than anything you can come up with over #4/#5.”
We had controversies at 2/3 because that was the cutoff. The 4/5 demarcation has often been fuzzier.
“Those finishes are all going to look more controversial than anything we get in the future over arguments over #4/#5. It may not seem that way now, but it’s going to be fairly obvious that the leftout teams at #4/#5 teams are going to have a lot more flaws than the current situation arguing over #2/#3.”
Bull. A team’s going to lose it’s last game and drop to #5 after being #1 most of the year and people will never let it go. There will be a large group of 1 loss teams with several getting left out and fans will howl. Fans bitch. That’s what they do. And if you thought non-AQ fans complained before, wait until they get screwed out of the #4 spot.
“Right now we’ve had situations where we’ve left out undefeated teams that looked worthy along with some seeming brain farts by the computers.”
We had 5 undefeateds 1 year. Feel free to explain how the team left out wouldn’t complain.
“Arguing over whether certain teams should be #4/#5 is going to be a lot less controversial because both teams will have a lot more flaws than the typical #2/#3 teams we’ve seen left out in the past.”
That’s pure assumption.
LikeLike
It’s the BCS Plus Two because it continues an unsatisfactory selection process that substitutes a problematic poll system for a yet to be determined selection committee subject to individual biases, loyalties, etc. In that respect, it hasn’t changed.
It’s the BCS Plus Two because it continues to be welded to the bowl system instead of having the games on campus sites. Again, it’s a continuation of what the BCS does right now.
It’s the BCS Plus Two because it will essentially no consideration to conference championships outside of a set of instructions given to a committee with individuals who will interpret and/or weigh them in their own individual fashion. If one of the members wants Team A over Team B, he can come up with most any metric to justify his decision.
Yes, they would probably not duplicate the decision that put Oklahoma into the BCS playoff that you mention. Common sense prevails. But would OU have been in a four-team playoff? Since being conference champion isn’t one of the paths for getting into the playoff, we can’t say yes or no on that point.
If you don’t think there will be less controversy because we’re four teams instead of two, then I want to disabuse you of that particular notion. There’s no basis to think the relative margin between deciding between #2 and #3 compared to #4 and #5 is going to be any different. There are going to continue to be razor thin reasons, criteria, metrics, why Team A is #4 and Team B is #5. So instead of pointing at the BCS poll, the vox populi and the Fourth Estate are going to criticize the committee instead when the inevitable controversy rolls in.
So yes, this is still the BCS Plus 2. Is it structurally different? Sure. Instead of picking two teams using a lousy selection process we’re going to pick four teams using a different, yet still lousy, selection process. Instead of having one BCS championship game at a bowl site, we’re going to have two playoff games at–wait for it–bowl sites. Callling this an expanded playoff is like saying the present BCS system is a two-team playoff.
If you want a real expanded playoff, put it at eight teams, give some number of conference champions an autobid and make provisions for including the top at large teams. Let’s have a representative group of programs that are capable of making a national championship run in the pool. Let them play it on the field, preferably on campus sides. Make whatever committee or rating system as reasonable and free from perceived bias as possible.
LikeLike
Oklahoma definitely would have been in a 4 team playoff under this system. They were without a doubt one of the 3 best teams that year. Because there are usually 1 or 2 unbeatens, there just isn’t going to be significant controversy over the #5 team. 2008 would be the most controversial year in the BCS era. There were probably 6 teams with good arguments, but there really wasn’t much question before the bowls about who the top 4 were. There would be some mild controversy in 2007 where nearly everyone had 2 losses, but #6 Missouri and #5 UGA had their own conference champs ahead of them.
Noone is saying there won’t be some difficult decisions. Just that the controversy will be muted vs. leaving out #3.
LikeLike
Cutter :
We’ll see but I think you’re right. The controversy will increase as the pressure of leapfrogging “ugly” teams in this beauty contest for tv dollars will increase.
LikeLike
Pingback: Huge Win for the ACC–Four Team Playoff In College Football on the Horizon? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
I hope the powers that be come up with something like this:
1) Add the Cotton Bowl to the rotation of majors.
2) Alternate the Big 12/SEC “Champions Bowl” between the Sugar and Cotton. If you can create a Big 12/SEC matchup from the chosen 4, that semifinal will be that year’s “Champions Bowl.”
3) If you can create a B1G/Pac-12 matchup from the chosen 4, that semifinal will be the Rose Bowl
4) Otherwise institute a fair rotation of the semifinals among the five majors.
LikeLike
I noticed that Swofford said in the ESPN article that they had agreed to the principles of how the additional revenues would be distributed. That is perhaps the most significant thing. That was a big hurdle. The CBS report is the only one I have seen that speculates on what those principles would be. And even that can be interpreted many ways-tiers, by team, number of teams vs. poll points.
LikeLike
Delany also said that the devil is in the details. So, I’d think this is perhaps still the point where the “principle” of the matter needs to be hammered out.
LikeLike
How will the Bowls work under this scenario? If the plan is to rotate the semi-finals in the Bowls, what then happens to those traditional bowl match-ups? For example, the Rose Bowl is normally a Pac 12-Big 10 match-up. In this hypothetical, the Rose Bowl is hosting a semi-final and the Pac-12 champ makes the playoffs. But the Big 10 champ does not. What Bowl does the Big 10 champ go to? If the other Bowls already have pre-determined match-ups, does that bump the Big 10 champ down the chain? Will there still be any kind of BCS like system for the major bowls not in the rotation?
LikeLike
We can protect the Rose Bowl’s B1G/Pac 12 matchup, either as a national semifinal or outside of the two semifinals.
If both a Pac-12 and B1G team are among the chosen 4, then they are slotted into the Rose Bowl as a national semifinal. The last time that would have happened would probably have been 2005 with USC v. Penn State
In all other cases, the most worthy Pac-12 and B1G representatives (either the champions or the next-best team not in the chosen 4) will be selected for the Rose Bowl.
For example, in the 2011 season, assuming conference champion Oregon is selected for the playoff over Stanford, the Rose Bowl would get Stanford — as the highest-ranked Pac-12 representative — and Wisconsin,the B1G champion.
Of course in 2010 things wouldn’t have worked out so well on paper. Assuming Oregon is selected as Pac-12 champ and Stanford as an at-large team, the matchup would have been unranked Washington (with USC bowl-ineligible) v. B1G champion Wisconsin.
Taking it back a few years (I’m assuming a 3 champs + 1 at-large selection by the committee):
2009 — Oregon (Pac-12 champ) v. Ohio State (B1G champ)
2008 — Oregon (No. 10-ranked, with USC in the playoff) v. Penn State (B1G champ)
2007 — USC (Pac-12 champ) v. Michigan (No. 18-ranked, with Ohio State in the playoff)
2006 — California (No. 18-ranked with USC in the playoff) Wisconsin (No. 7-ranked with Ohio State and Michigan in the playoff)
LikeLike
I get that much, I was looking more at the other Bowls. For example, do the other major bowls (not in that year’s semifinal rotation) keep traditional tie-ins or do they fall under some so BCS-lite selection? If you have traditional tie-ins, it could leave a major conference looking on the outside. I was using the Big 10 as an example, but the Pac-12 might be a better example. If the Rose is a designated semi-final and the Pac-12 champ does not qualify for the playoffs, where does the Pac-12 champ go? Are they forced to go to the Pac-12’s second bowl (a significant step down from the Rose traditionally) or would some of the major Bowl slots be kept open much like the current system?
One benefit of the current BCS system is the number of high profile match-ups, something not always true in the pre-BCS/Bowl Alliance days.
LikeLike
Nobody knows for sure.
Months ago they talked about adding some bowls and staging a bunch of top games BCS-style so the non-AQs could still earn some big pay days, but there were no details.
I’d like to see the B10 and P12 make an agreement with another bowl to take the Rose Bowl match-up in the years when the Rose is a semi. I don’t know if that would fit withing their system, but I think it would. If the Fiesta loses the B12 champ, I’d think they would jump at the chance to get B10/P12 every other year.
LikeLike
Really thorough and well written post. However, I’m not quite as on board with the new changes as everyone else is. I think it poses some problems and more so than what other people think. More fair for sure but, as a casual college football fan, I don’t know if I’m quite behind the playoff changes. This is a big change and definitely will quiet down the BCS critics but it’ll be more interesting to see how this affects College Football over the next 5 or so years and if there are going to be even more changes down the road. Also, you think you could take a gander over at my latest blog post because I would absolutely love to hear what you have to say http://chrisross91.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/bcs-slippery-slope/
LikeLike
Off topic, but since I’ve been a longtime member of Frank’s blog community, I wanted to share.
My third book was released today. The greatest PSU games of recent times…and a mini-college football history book. http://www.amazon.com/Ring-Bell-Twenty-Two-Greatest-Victories/dp/1622870107/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340309870&sr=1-1&keywords=ring+the+bell+penn+state
Kindle version should be out tomorrow (much cheaper, if you are into ebooks).
Very relieved and excited!
LikeLike
I didn’t know you lived in Africa, but now I get your screen name.
LikeLike
Well done! -Hope it does well.
LikeLike
Hope it does well, and I remembered you were in africa, but I forgot what part
It seems long ago when it was just a few folks on here, and it was easier to keep track
LikeLike
Kenya. Thanks!
LikeLike
Frank,
“I’ve long said that what fans really want is an objective computer program that spits out the exact same result as a subjective human poll. We hate the thought of using the results of a human poll because of the perception that there might be bias, but we generally agree with the results of that same human poll because it reflects what we have seen with our own eyes.”
I know you’ve often said that, but I think you’re wrong on several counts.
1. I don’t know anyone that actually entirely agrees with any human poll. What people want is an objective computer program that agrees with them.
2. It’s not the “perception that there might be bias,” it’s the knowledge that there is bias. Bias in terms of a preferred conference, bias in terms of friends/enemies amongst the coaches (from media and coaches), recency bias, brand bias, etc.
3. Again, I don’t think most people actually agree with the human polls. They may be closer than the computer polls, especially early in the year, but most people have gripes about where non-AQs are ranked, too many teams from 1 league being so high, etc. People regularly trash the ballots of voters online. But the computers have been handcuffed, are secretive and spit out some odd results, especially before December, so people don’t trust them either.
I’d like to see a conference devoted to creating better football polls where experts in statistics, math, programming and such get together with the current pollsters and football experts and develop several new systems that are as scientifically valid as possible given the constraints of many teams with few games. With today’s computer power, it should be possible to account for a lot more variable than the old systems. Whether that helps or not is unknown. Perhaps a neural network with hundreds of inputs could tell us how important each factor is and how best to combine them to get good results. Maybe a little of this huge new playoff TV deal could pay for some work to be done in the area.
LikeLike
I think it is impossible to use a computer to eliminate all concerns. Any ranking objectively using many characteristics has to inject a great deal of subjective determinations. In merely deciding which “hundreds of inputs” would be used, there would be subjective determinations.
Even before getting to hundreds, people cannot agree on something “easy” like margin of victory. If USC beats Alabama by 28 we are impressed. If USC beats Alabama by 28, but runs up the score in the 4th quarter, that is less impressive. if USC beats Alabama by 28, but scores 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter based on a punt return TD with 4 minutes to go and then an interception return with 45 seconds to go, what does that mean? And so on. The goal is to win, not win by 28+. Of course, instinctively, we know that a 28 point victory is more impressive than a 1 point victory. If Alabama beats USC 28-0, that is more impressive perhaps than Oregon beating USC 48-47 on a two-point conversation in triple overtime. As you start looking at 45-17 vs 28-0, not sure what conclusions, if any, can be drawn.
Further, you then have to factor in the weirdness that can happen. Syracuse destroyed West Virginia. WVU was rather plainly “off” in that game. WVU destroyed Clemson. Clemson was rather plainly “off” in that game. Sometimes a win tells you more about the loser than the victor. How do you make a computer recognize that? And what about emotional issues? Oklahoma State losing post-tragedy. Penn State losing post-Paterno firing (i.e. what if Penn State won out after that game???). Are those losses equivalent to a team just not showing up? Better? Worse?
You also can look at whether one team just has another team figured out. For whatever reason, Rutgers cannot seem to beat West Virginia. FSU struggles with Wake Forest. No real logic to it. If FSU loses to Wake Forest, it seems more reasonable than if LSU does. After all, Wake plays FSU every year and has a good idea of what they are going to face. LSU presents new issues that Wake is not as prepared for. The flip side is that FSU should be more prepared for Wake Forest, so maybe this is a non-issue. But is this one of the hundreds on inputs? Someone has to decide.
There are just so many “objective” criteria that I do not think we’ll ever get to a consensus as to a computer program. We make subjective decisions as to what is important.
LikeLike
Agree.
Someone supporting the MOV limitations on computer programs said teams shouldn’t be penalized for the type of team they had. A pass happy team like UH last year might win 70-28 over a team. A team like LSU last year might win 28-0. Which was a better win? Hard to say. There’s also the tendency of coaches (especially the Spurrier school-Spurrier, Stoops, Leach, etc.) to run up the score vs. others (Mack Brown) who don’t.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“I think it is impossible to use a computer to eliminate all concerns.”
Of course it is. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. That said, there is plenty of room for improvement over the current state of computer polls in my opinion.
“Any ranking objectively using many characteristics has to inject a great deal of subjective determinations. In merely deciding which “hundreds of inputs” would be used, there would be subjective determinations.”
That’s a positive. That’s why there should be multiple polls. Some will use a lot of inputs, others a few. Each would be different. The key is to see which can come closest to capturing what happened on the field. I’m guessing different polls would work better in different seasons.
“Even before getting to hundreds, people cannot agree on something “easy” like margin of victory. If USC beats Alabama by 28 we are impressed. If USC beats Alabama by 28, but runs up the score in the 4th quarter, that is less impressive. if USC beats Alabama by 28, but scores 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter based on a punt return TD with 4 minutes to go and then an interception return with 45 seconds to go, what does that mean? And so on. The goal is to win, not win by 28+. Of course, instinctively, we know that a 28 point victory is more impressive than a 1 point victory. If Alabama beats USC 28-0, that is more impressive perhaps than Oregon beating USC 48-47 on a two-point conversation in triple overtime. As you start looking at 45-17 vs 28-0, not sure what conclusions, if any, can be drawn.”
Exactly. That’s why you need several models. One can ignore MOV while another emphasizes it. A third may give diminishing returns. A fourth can incorporate the time of each score and differentiate garbage points from comebacks.
“Further, you then have to factor in the weirdness that can happen. Syracuse destroyed West Virginia. WVU was rather plainly “off” in that game. WVU destroyed Clemson. Clemson was rather plainly “off” in that game. Sometimes a win tells you more about the loser than the victor. How do you make a computer recognize that?”
How do you make people recognize it? Everyone evaluates those things differently, and many people only see the score and some highlights, not the whole game. At least computers can give equal attention to every game.
“And what about emotional issues? Oklahoma State losing post-tragedy. Penn State losing post-Paterno firing (i.e. what if Penn State won out after that game???). Are those losses equivalent to a team just not showing up? Better? Worse?”
Don’t know. You can factor that in if you choose, just like injuries and finals week and trap games and anything else.
“You also can look at whether one team just has another team figured out. For whatever reason, Rutgers cannot seem to beat West Virginia. FSU struggles with Wake Forest. No real logic to it. If FSU loses to Wake Forest, it seems more reasonable than if LSU does. After all, Wake plays FSU every year and has a good idea of what they are going to face. LSU presents new issues that Wake is not as prepared for. The flip side is that FSU should be more prepared for Wake Forest, so maybe this is a non-issue. But is this one of the hundreds on inputs? Someone has to decide.”
Of course someone has to decide. That was the purpose of having more than 1 model in the first place.
“There are just so many “objective” criteria that I do not think we’ll ever get to a consensus as to a computer program. We make subjective decisions as to what is important.”
Agreed. I’m just saying that if we can model the decay of nuclear weapons as they sit in storage as well as their explosions without actually testing anything, we can probably improve on some computer formulas designed to run in a spreadsheet 15 years ago.
LikeLike
To me there is a primary reason computer rankings are preferable to human/committee. Sure, the selection of which criteria/inputs will be subjective but once selected they will be applied objectively to all teams/games. Know the rules before the season and don’t move the goalposts during the season.
LikeLike
I don’t have a real solid grasp on what the current computer models ARE, so I cannot comment on their flaws. I think the beauty of 4 teams is that it eliminates concern about #3. How we get to 4 is always going to be a problem. No matter how it is chosen or spit out of a computer.
If there is a sense that the world wants Teams A, B, C, and D… at least human beings can make that happen. The computers might not. So a world where, like basketball, RPI is useful but not gospel is probably the best solution.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“I don’t have a real solid grasp on what the current computer models ARE, so I cannot comment on their flaws.”
Quotes are from their websites:
Anderson & Hester (http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html):
The Anderson & Hester Rankings are distinct in four ways:
1. Unlike the polls, these rankings do not reward teams for running up scores. Teams are rewarded for beating quality opponents, which is the object of the game. Posting large margins of victory, which is not the object of the game, is not considered.
2. Unlike the polls, these rankings do not prejudge teams. These rankings first appear after the season’s fifth week, and each team’s ranking reflects its actual accomplishments — on the field, to date — not its perceived potential.
3. These rankings compute the most accurate strength of schedule ratings. Each team’s opponents and opponents’ opponents are judged not only by their won-lost records but also, uniquely, by their conferences’ strength (see #4).
4. These rankings provide the most accurate conference ratings. Each conference is rated according to its non-conference won-lost record and the difficulty of its non-conference schedule.
They don’t give out any details of their system.
Billingsley (http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/Dynamics_08.htm):
Let’s start from the very beginning and move through the system using the data included, in order of its inclusion in the formula, and then detail each of the components.
#1-Starting position
#2- Accumulating points
#3- Strength of opponent
#4- Instituting deductions for losses
#5- Site of the game
#6- Instituting head to head rules
…
Accumulating Points- My system is the only one I am aware of that uses an “accumulating” value system. It was designed this way to emphasize a team’s most recent game as the AP and Coaches do. As a result, a team only gets credit for playing an opponent ONE TIME. Whatever happens to that opponent from that point forward is “water under the bridge.” … Each week a team accumulates or “earns points” based on the situation surrounding the current week’s opponent and nothing else. If a team is playing a #89 team, they cannot earn more points than a team with an equal record playing a #50 opponent, or a #10 opponent etc. If a team has a bye week, their rating does not change, with two exceptions. A special rule is in place (in the head to head section) that allows an undefeated team to ALWAYS be ranked ahead of every opponent they have beaten, and allows any team experiencing a bye week to remain ahead of a team they had just beaten the week before.
Strength of opponent- This is another great topic of discussion. The value placed on the strength of an opponent is (as it should be) the core of most computer rankings. My system is unique in it’s calculation of strength of schedule as most models use wins and losses and I do not. I use an opponent’s RANK and RATING instead.
Again, no details but he explains his basic process.
Colley Matrix (http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf):
The link goes to a 23 page PDF that fully explains his method mathematically.
Colley’s matrix method for ranking college football teams is explained in detail, with many examples and explicit derivations. The method is based on very simple statistical principles, and uses only wins and losses as input—margin of victory does not matter. The scheme adjusts effectively for strength of schedule, in a way that is free of bias toward conference, tradition, or region. Comparison of rankings produced by this method to those produced by the press polls shows that despite its simplicity, the scheme produces common sense results.
This method focuses more on “deservedness” to play in the national championship game than it does predictiveness, per se, which may be of more interest to some fans and bookmakers, who often consider margin of victory, injuries and other factors in assessing the possible outcome of a particular game.
Massey ratings (http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm):
Massey’s BCS ratings are the equilibrium point for a probability model applied to the binary (win or loss) outcome of each game. All teams begin the season rated the same. After each week, the entire season is re-analyzed so that the new ratings best explain the observed results. Actual game scores are not used, but homefield advantage is factored in, and there is a slight de-weighting of early season games. Schedule strength is implicit in the model, and plays a large role in determining a team’s rating. Results of games between well-matched opponents naturally carry more weight in the teams’ ratings. The final rating is essentially a function of the team’s wins and losses relative to the schedule faced.
Perter Wolfe (http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/descrip.htm#three):
The method we use is called a maximum likelihood estimate. In it, each team i is assigned a rating value πi that is used in predicting the expected result between it and its opponent j, with the likelihood of i beating j given by:
πi / (πi + πj)
The probability P of all the results happening as they actually did is simply the product of multiplying together all the individual probabilities derived from each game. The rating values are chosen in such a way that the number P is as large as possible. This is often called a Bradley-Terry model, and is described in papers listed at Wilson’s site (see Bradley and Terry 1952, Ford 1957, Elo 1986, Keener 1993).
Sagarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system):
He uses the same system as chess. The link goes to a description of that system that provides the math. Basically each team has a rank and the expected result of the game is compared to the actual result, and the better the team you play the more you rise. As with most systems, his is private.
___
“If there is a sense that the world wants Teams A, B, C, and D… at least human beings can make that happen. The computers might not. So a world where, like basketball, RPI is useful but not gospel is probably the best solution.”
That’s all I want anyway. But make the computer info as good as it can be. There is no good reason to use something as simple as RPI.
LikeLike
Interesting.
I had never seen a description of the systems before other than Sagarin. They really are 6 different approaches, although Sagarin and Wolfe have similarities.
LikeLike
Yes, and that was the idea. Find several objective ways to look at it and average them. Some care about when a game is played, others don’t. Some consider where a game is played, others don’t. They would differ on how to treat MOV, too. Most of them would benefit from being allowed to use actual game scores rather than just Ws and Ls, and they can do that again now that the BCS is dead.
I’d add in a stats-based model like F/+ or something, too, to provide a completely different perspective. Throw those together, and you get a decent pool of polls.
LikeLike
Actually, computers give no attention to any game until they are instructed to. And only then will they consider what they are being told to consider. So who decides what the criteria are and how they are weighed? People. And so you might see an SEC contingent opposed to MOV because they are defensive oriented, while the PAC-12 might favor offense, and so on.
Given that all we are determining is the top 4 teams–and there are usually 1-3 teams that are no-brainers–is it worth it to create a purportedly perfect computer program?
Either way, my heart will not be broken. My team needs to worry about bowls, not BCS/BS/playoffs.
LikeLike
You can create multiple programs that weight things differently. The point is to provide the best possible info to the committee to help them make the best decisions possible.
LikeLike
” The point is to provide the best possible info to the committee to help them make the best decisions possible.”
I agree. I’m not sure the current BCS computer system gives that though. When two of the six computers publish essentially “alternate” models because they believe they are more accurate than what the BCS system allows them to judge I see a potential issue.
Then we come to Richard Billingsley….
““I’m not a mathematician,” Billingsley said. “I’m not even a highly educated man, to tell you the truth. I don’t even have a degree. I have a high school education. I never had calculus. I don’t even remember much about algebra. I think everyone questions everything I do. ”
Pretty interesting article on the BCS computer.
I’m all for having computers involved to help a committee make the best decisions possible, and help sort out things like SOS that humans objectively don’t do well with. That said, I’m not sure the BCS computer system is the best way of doing this.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“I agree. I’m not sure the current BCS computer system gives that though.”
I’m sure the BCS system doesn’t provide it, but it did establish a framework that could provide it – multiple computer polls that use a variety of methods.
LikeLike
Agreed. And I agree with your sentiment that the variety in methodology is part of what it makes it good. I also like how the current system automatically eliminates the high and low rankings (something some times I wish human polls might adopt as well). I guess I’d still want to see some system that is peer reviewed or at least peer accepted among the statistical community. And as long as the justification makes sense, allow the guys to include whatever they want in their formula don’t handcuff them.
LikeLike
And you’ve come back to where I started, saying I’d like to put the math guys and the programming guys and the football guys in a conference and let them come up with ideas they all agree are workable.
LikeLike
I think the complaining about seeding will be larger than we can imagine.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. It would be simple to brand the two semifinal bowls as “regionals.” The Fiesta and Rose Bowl could take turns as the West Regional, and the Sugar and the Orange as the East. The committee could declare two no. 1 seeds and assign them to the bowl sites according to proximity and conference affiliation. Then the other two unseeded teams play at the closest sites, avoiding rematches when possible.
The two teams with the best regular seasons should be rewarded by playing close(r) to home, but beyond that there isn’t much difference between nos. 3-4. It’s not as if the last place team can’t beat you; no matter what, you are going to have to beat two very good football teams to win a championship.
LikeLike
Two No. 1 seeds? So, that won’t cause complains when the AP #2 is not a No. 1 seed.
When #1 USC plays #2 Boise State in the Rose while #3 LSU plays #6 Texas Tech, people will be very happy about the outcome.
Seeding allows endless permutations. Which means there are always going to be fanbases who feel shafted, which will result in endless complaints. People on this very board have said that #1/#3 and #2/#4 is a terrible outcome, when we all realize how imprecise rankings can be. How do you think the common man will respond?
LikeLike
I agree. I also think this just makes things worse. I really believe 3 slots should be reserved for conference champs.
LikeLike
No one will want two semifinalists from the same conference…everyone will understand the bowl alliances that are historically in place. I think it’ll be less controversial than you think.
Assuming last year was LSU, Bama, OkSt, and Oregon…and assuming the four major bowls will rotate…assuming they’ll spread bowls out regionally (i.e. not Fiesta/Rose or Sugar/Orange in same year)…
It could have been:
Sugar–1 LSU vs. 3 OkSt
Rose–2 Bama vs. 4 Oregon
or
Sugar–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
Fiesta–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt
or
Rose–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
Orange–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt
or
Orange–1 LSU vs. 4 Oregon
Fiesta–2 Bama vs. 3 OkSt
The biggest “gripe” I’d see would be 2 Alabama in the first scenario having to play in the Rose Bowl against Oregon. None of the others seem truly egregious to me.
LikeLike
You list four scenarios with all four handing the SEC the top two seeds, but you don’t think people will complain? Alabama had the least impressive resume of the four.
LikeLike
Put together the most sophisticated computer algorithm in the world, and if it spits out rankings that disagree with the polls, there will be controversy. This is because because the polls have perceived credibility; after all, they’ve been determining “national champions” much longer than the BCS. Also, the polls are with us all year long and are what people pay attention to as signalling who the best teams are. If the AP has been calling Alabama #1 all year long and then a computer (or a committee) calls Alabama #3, there will be some controversy. Although with a four-team setup, the possibility of cataclysmic controversy is lessened because arguing over say, #4, will not command as much attention as arguing over #2.
LikeLike
For better or for worse… this “playoff” appears that it will have just as much controversy (or argument) as the current system— this will not hurt college football– it just extends the time to get a more suitable 8 or 16 team playoff… I agree with several posters that this is just a bigger beauty pageant, 2 more girls in the dance… The prettiest ones win… Fair or not… ‘Tis why I am and always will be in favor of a larger playoff. Then maybe an ugly fantasy like the team in my backyard might have better than a snowballs chance in hell…
NCAA football needs an infusion of new blood…
LikeLike
The other problem with the scenario you mention where Bama is #1 in the polls and the committee calls them #3: its gonna make the whole bracket suspect. I can just hear the talking heads now, “How can we trust who this committee put at #4, when they got #1 all wrong???”
I think a couple of Cutter’s posts above are absolutely correct: This is at best a partial solution, if its even that. Problems and cries of bias will start from the very day the first bracket is announced.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
“Put together the most sophisticated computer algorithm in the world, and if it spits out rankings that disagree with the polls, there will be controversy. This is because because the polls have perceived credibility; after all, they’ve been determining “national champions” much longer than the BCS.”
I don’t think the polls have nearly the credibility they used to. Plenty of people have disagreed with the published ballots of voters so that it’s become a cottage industry. The glass ceiling for the non-AQs, the inflated rankings for SEC and B12 teams (ask duffman), the traditional over-rating of ND and FSU and some other kings, etc have combined to erode the faith. At best they are viewed as a general guideline any more.
LikeLike
I think many have “seen the light” with the problems with the polls. Their credibility has weakened. But EVERY BCS “controversy” has been when the BCS rankings do not match the human polls. And virtually every year there was one of these “controversies”, the BCS formula was subsequently revised to try and avoid a similar result in the future. It got to the point where it is now, which is where the polls weigh so heavily in the BCS result.
LikeLike
Jericho,
“But EVERY BCS “controversy” has been when the BCS rankings do not match the human polls.”
I disagree. Some years it was because people thought a team was under ranked by the humans (Utah, TCU or Boise). Some years it was just having too many equivalent teams.
“And virtually every year there was one of these “controversies”, the BCS formula was subsequently revised to try and avoid a similar result in the future.”
They made a lot of changes in the early days, but not lately. Would it be better for them to keep a flawed formula?
“It got to the point where it is now, which is where the polls weigh so heavily in the BCS result.”
That’s because people don’t trust the computers, not because they agree with the humans. People don’t understand the computers and the codes are secret so they suspect something hinky.
LikeLike
But do they program “beauty contest” into the computers, that it’s supposed to recognize Team A over Team B because A is a traditional power and B is not, even though Team B may have been a more impressive performer?
LikeLike
I doubt it, but 5 of the 6 are secret.
LikeLike
Even the commissioners have been questioning the credibility of the polls. There is more disclosure of people’s ballots and more people seeing more games, so the flaws are more visible. I think the cutbacks in the newspaper industry mean when don’t have as many Tony Barnharts and Pete Thamels around. The sportswriters aren’t as good.
LikeLike
‘Best’ 4 teams is great progress towards creating more broad-based excitement and revenue from a college football postseason. The existing Bowl structure has too many limitations that make it hard to appeal to casual fans. This ‘Consensus by Committee’ recommendation means that conference commissioners are increasingly becoming sophisticated business people.
Another hurdle that needs to be addressed is revenue distribution. I can see this going one of 3 ways:
1) Go Free Market (maybe a 10% chance) – where conferences & teams get paid relative to what they directly contribute towards elite post-season play. The B12, especially UT/DDodds, would seem to be the likely sponsor of this approach. They have 2 kings (OU & UT), 3 princes (OkSt, WV & TCU) and a lot of other schools that make serious efforts with cfb; combined with a recent history of performance. The B12 may want to expand membership in the future; and a revenue disparity in their favor would be a helpful recruiting tool. Unfortunately for the B12, most conferences don’t operate under this business model. As UT has learned during the past couple of years, too much of a free market creates uncertainty where non risk-takers (see case studies of UNL, UM and TAM) seek refuge in more stable environments.
2) Keep the Status Quo (maybe a 60% chance) – where conferences & teams get paid similarly to the BCS model of AQ v non-AQ categories. This model is promoted by 14 years of precedence, as well as a lot of analytics and consensus building by conference commissioners. The dilemma with this approach is how to classify the Big East. Since the late 1990s, the Big East has lost nearly every cfb founding member. Nevetheless, the Big East has some leverage:
a) ND is affilitiated with the Big East and should object to reduction in revenue distribution to its fellow institutions. Unless ND wants to change conference alignment, it will be difficult to stay out of this quagmire.
b) Boise State is a unique cfb school. Not at the level of the 15 year Bobby Bowden FSU teams, but a decade of consistent top 10 teams and exposure creates a positive reputation.
c) Rutgers, USF, UL, UC & UConn have all improved over the past 5 years.
If TPTB keep the current model, categorizing the Big East will create animosity. If the Big East is paid like an ‘AQ’, then the smaller conferences will be envious. If the Big East is paid like a weaker conference, then a few powerful institutions will be furious.
3) Split the Difference (maybe a 30% chance) – in the previous ACC post, someone suggested to use the current payment framework…while also adding a third tier for the Big East and BYU payouts. A third tier to the current payment system addresses some problems and creates new issues:
a) There could be a lot of candidates for a middle tier. Given their relatively weak performance over the past 5 years, the ACC and ND are most at-risk with a middle tier. In addition, over the life of the BCS, there is very little difference between the ACC and PAC. Only the SEC, B12 and -to a lesser extent- B1G seem imune from the downsides of a third tier.
b) The third tier seems to promote the ‘Big Country’/football-only conference set-up that the Big East is using. Similar to the AQ label that the Big East has used to lure new members. Smaller conferences will perceive disadvanteges. The Big East will be used as a feeder when power conferences need to expand or contract.
Conference commissioners will have to do a lot of work in the next several months to keep this consensus approach moving.
LikeLike
Frank,
It’s been three years since their reporting on the Clout List scandal at U of I, so I think you can lift the ban on posting links to the Daily Illini. I know they were one sided in their approach to the story, but I think it’s time,
LikeLike
For all the playoff proponents now complaining because the expected plan is not to your liking, remember that you asked for this. You knew who was in charge of CFB and how they make decisions, and you forced the issue. Traditionalists warned you that TPTB would screw this up. Nobody wants to hear you bitch now about how bad their decisions are.
LikeLike
I’ll admit Brian it really feels odd now to hear so many people complaining like this is nothing, when from my perspective it’s a huge change that is altering the bowl system in a way I don’t like.
All perspective I guess.
LikeLike
Yeah. I just resigned myself to the sport being ruined a long time ago. My opinions haven’t changed, but I’ve accepted that this abomination is coming and I’m going to lose my favorite sport. On the bright side, it will free up a lot of time for me.
LikeLike
I’m not complaining. Its not what exactly what I would do, but I like the direction its going and its about the best I could expect. And I understand the conservative approach and the interest in keeping some of what’s good about the bowl system.
LikeLike
Not everyone is, and it’s fine to point out potential problems and such. But there are people complaining, and nobody wants to hear it right now. Celebrate getting your abomination of a postseason and wait for it to actually have problems before complaining.
LikeLike
I’m not complaining. If you want to complain though, there is always something to complain about.
I appreciated Frank’s tone in this post. He recognizes how OVERWHELMINGLY positive this thing is. If you read the major media coverage of this “consensus,” almost everything is positive. No one is saying it’s perfect, but if you want to make your sport a little better and not ruin what’s good about it, I think TPTB did a fine job this time.
LikeLike
I’ve seen several complaint-oriented articles in major media, but it has been mostly positive. Why wouldn’t it be since the media whined about the old system so much?
LikeLike
Come on now, Brian… I’m guessing that most of us that provide input on this blog have careers that are totally unaffiliated with college athletics/academics/administration/sportswriting/etc… I’m guessing that there probably aren’t any of us on this blog that have direct influence on the powers that be in this particular collegiate football decision-making process. We may somehow have indirect influence via alumni influence/donorship/etc at the school or conference level—but, that is not direct power.
Anyway, my point is directly related to the “prayer of serenity”—- I do not have the power (regardless of amount of courage) to change this decision-making. I have gained just enough wisdom (to be dangerous 🙂 to accept whatever TPTB decide to do.
Would my decision-making be different than my current opinion if I were in Delany’s or Slive’s shoes? Quite possibly… but, as it stands I am just a college football fan with an opinion or two, just like most of the other folks on this blog… I just happen to be wishful/hopeful for a multi-team playoff that is more than a beauty pageant… But, I’ll follow the Gophers and college athletics just the same tomorrow, as today…
Thankfully, most who post on this blog are very civil, with pretty decent, and sometimes downright intelligent ideas and opinions (even yours sometimes 😉 … I enjoy reading and participating in this blog because in general, it is very interesting and thought provoking… thanks to FTT for the forum…
LikeLike
That’s all I’m saying. For now, at least, all playoff proponents should just accept what the system is instead of complaining about what it isn’t. They had to know they were unlikely to get everything they wanted out of it.
There’s no reason for those who are anti-playoff to be happy or pretend that they are. If we want to point out the negatives of the new system, so be it. I don’t see much point in that now, though. We’ve had the discussions for months and we largely know where each other stands on these issues.
Until details come out, stop complaining.
Speaking of which, how is it a settled plan? We don’t know:
1. What and where the Champs bowl will be
2. What happens to the traditional bowl anchors when their game hosts a semi
3. What will the top of the bowl structure look like
4. When will the games be played, exactly
5. How will champs and SOS and OOC SOS be weighted
6. Where will the NCG be played
7. How much will TV actually pay
8. How the revenue will be split
9. Who will be on the committee
10. What info will the committee have at hand
LikeLike
ESPN being ESPN
http://texastech.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=1377831
Texas Tech’s Sept. 8 road game against Texas State may be broadcast on the Longhorn Network, an athletic department source with direct knowledge of the situation told RRS.com’s Chris Level and Aaron Dickens on Thursday.
ESPN announced earlier this month that the game would be carried on one of its platforms, but did not specify which.
Tech learned of this possibility several days ago, and according to the source, is “adamantly opposed to playing on the Longhorn Network” and is “putting serious consideration into canceling the game and playing an 11 game schedule” this fall.
LikeLike
How much of a bribe will TT require?
LikeLike
IIRC, they didn’t take 5 million + other concessions from ESPN last year to be on the LHN.
LikeLike
Are you sure it was $5 million? Kansas only got $500,000 for selling their UT game to the LHN.
LikeLike
From 8/8/11
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-1711384.html
1. The Longhorn Network’s hopes of televising live high school football games remain on hold for at least a year, but ESPN still would like to show a second Texas football game besides Rice this season. The network’s representatives have approached Texas Tech about the possibility of showing the Red Raiders-Longhorns game this year and, to make it worth Tech’s while, discussed showing other Tech games like Nevada and New Mexico over the next four seasons for $5 million, a high-ranking Big 12 school administrator familiar with the negotiations told me. So far Tech has declined. The next probable school ESPN would approach? Oklahoma State, the source said. He also said the broadcast of high school games will happen eventually.
LikeLike
Ok. I thought it was $5 million for just the UT-TTU game. But for multiple games that makes sense.
LikeLike
And they weren’t on the LHN. The football game was on FX. I somewhat sympathize with Tech, but what the in the hell are they doing playing at Texas State? When you play a road game, you fall under the home school/home school’s conference television contracts.
LikeLike
I don’t know what Tech was thinking either, but this (from the rivals link above) is interesting.
Contractually, the Western Athletic Conference, of which Texas State is a member, has the right to determine the broadcast partner for the game. Tech, however, has always expressed reservations about appearing on the Longhorn Network. Last year, ESPN approached the university about airing it’s conference game against Texas but Tech refused.
Last year, the WAC recognized the Longhorn Network as an official ESPN platform after the network agreed to air all six of UTSA’s 2012 home games.
I imagine when the contract was signed, Tech had no idea the LHN was even possible.
LikeLike
Yeah, this contract was signed awhile ago. Way before the LHN was a possibility.
(That said, agreeing to play game at a WAC school is pretty weird. Are they getting a 2 for 1 maybe?)
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that the WAC had already agreed to let the LHN air all of UTSA’s home games. Anybody know if C-USA is planning on doing the same?
LikeLike
Isn’t CUSA’s new contract with Fox or CBS?
LikeLike
I don’t know, but the fact thatUTEP isn’t having their conference games broadcast on the LHN leads me to believe that you are probably right.
LikeLike
CBS
LikeLike
Big 12 continues to take 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Bullying like this is why the Big 12 will always remain relatively unstable, as the divide between between the power schools and non-power schools will be much greater than in the B1G, SEC, or Pac-12.
LikeLike
Its a road game. Tech doesn’t really have grounds to complain. Would a game with Texas State get on the air any other way? Not likely.
LikeLike
If Tech knew when it signed the contract the LHN was an option then I agree they have no right. However, if they didn’t, I think they do have a right to complain, due to its unprecedented nature. Yes, Texas St does own the TV rights. However, this isn’t like having Tech fans buy a ticket from Texas St to see the game or paying for an exclusive web cast from Texas St. The airing of the game has a direct benefit to a third party team (Texas) that happens to be a rival in their conference. I can’t think of another instance where that happened.
LikeLike
yeah, i’m sorry for texas state. i’m sure they were really looking forward to some kind of air time for their first game. too bad.
someone speculated that texas and tech should try to get texas state and new mexico to swap games that weekend. put texas and texas state on the lhn.
LikeLike
glenn – Don’t feel too sorry for Texas St.
ESPN announced earlier this month that the game would be carried on one of its platforms, but did not specify which.
Since the LHN is the least available ESPN platform, Texas St. will get more exposure this way.
LikeLike
That was fast.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/22/report-texas-tech-could-cancel-game-on-longhorn-network/
Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com tweets that the LHN/ESPN will not pursue the Texas State-Texas Tech game. Whether the game will be broadcast through another channel remains to be seen, but the “development” isn’t much of a surprise given the instant brouhaha.
LikeLike
So when are the two semi-finals gonna be played?
Are they gonna aim for both to be played on New Years Day?
Or on separate nights? If the Rose Bowl is definitely gonna be a semi-final, then I’m assuming it would remain in it’s New Years Day afternoon time slot.
I’m assuming the pairings will be Rose/Orange and Sugar/Fiesta (keeping a pacific time zone bowl each year).
If they do different days, that would place one of the semi-finals either on New Years Eve or January 1st. I have hard time believing TV would be okay with a New Years Eve bowl game due to the possibility of losing a lot of casual viewers and non-footprint fans.
LikeLike
Fiesta is Mtn time.
LikeLike
I was guessing the same with the rotation. One west coast and one southern bowl each year makes sense. The Rose Bowl and Sugar being the most tradition laden also make sense to put on opposite years.
LikeLike
The Orange Bowl is just as old as the Sugar Bowl. The tradition of the Sugar is dependent on the Champs Bowl being the Sugar Bowl. Otherwise, the Sugar isn’t special. I’d look at geography and take the Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange pairings instead.
LikeLike
texmex,
“So when are the two semi-finals gonna be played? Are they gonna aim for both to be played on New Years Day? Or on separate nights? If the Rose Bowl is definitely gonna be a semi-final, then I’m assuming it would remain in it’s New Years Day afternoon time slot.
We don’t know, obviously. Probably 1/1 and 1/2 at night, except when the Rose is a semi and then it may stay at late afternoon. Maybe when the Rose is one of them they’ll have a double header, but normally I’d expect 2 prime time games. That lets each game have a day to itself to dominate, which probably mean better total ratings.
“I’m assuming the pairings will be Rose/Orange and Sugar/Fiesta (keeping a pacific time zone bowl each year).”
That or Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange. That assumes they don’t add the Cotton and/or another game that is the Champs Bowl, of course. Everyone is assuming the Champs Bowl will be the Sugar bowl, but nobody official has said that. They said it would be a new game and bid out. If so, the Sugar loses it’s luster.
If the Champs Bowl is something new, I’d pair Rose/Sugar and Fiesta/Orange. That avoids territory overlap. The Fiesta and Sugar are closer together which would make it harder to find a neutral site for lower ranked teams from that general area.
“If they do different days, that would place one of the semi-finals either on New Years Eve or January 1st. I have hard time believing TV would be okay with a New Years Eve bowl game due to the possibility of losing a lot of casual viewers and non-footprint fans.”
1/1 at night is a guarantee. The other will either be 1/2 at night or maybe the Rose Bowl slot for the Rose.
LikeLike
Brian, I thought I read that New Year’s Eve was the other target date? A primetime NYE game wouldn’t fly but a late afternoon east coast game (early afternoon west coast game) (ala the Rose Bowl on NYE) might work as a regular fixture.
Something like this
4:30 Dec31 Semifinal One (either Fiesta or Orange)
4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
8:30 Jan1 Champs (whether it’s a semifinal or not)
The Champs and Rose are both locked in to those time slots on New Year’s Day. The only other real way to make a spot for the semifinal is to put the other on NYE. I could see CFB slotting two bowls on NYE day…noon and 1pm…leading up to the first semifinal. Then, they’ll probably glut about 5 games from 11am to 1pm on Jan 1….leading up the exclusive Rose and then Champs spots.
Put the rotating bowl game on January 2 primetime (Fiesta or Orange if not the semifinal) and call it a bowl season!
You put the emphasis back on New Year’s Day…and back on the bowl phenomenon…while still setting up the hype for your January 10-14 championship game.
LikeLike
I think New Years Eve day is a dumb idea. Most people work on New Years Eve Day unless the calendar works out that it becomes a holiday. I think ratings would be incredibly low relative to New Years Day.
LikeLike
I think we’ll end up with one semifinal played in prime time on New Years Day and another one played in prime time January 2nd (provided that there isn’t an NFL conflict on that day, in which case it will move to the next closest date). Ultimately, there is one dominant reason why this playoff came together: TV money. It is very clear that TV interests want/need the semifinals and championship game played in January for them to pay maximum value. Honestly, if I were in their shoes, I’d insist upon the same since the week between Christmas and New Years is one of the lowest (if not the very lowest) rated TV weeks of the entire year. That’s why I’ve said for quite awhile that the squawking from university presidents about the championship game being too far from January 1st would end up subsiding. They’ll take the money and run on the championship game date issue (because there wasn’t much of a reason to create this playoff in the first place if they weren’t going to take the money and run).
LikeLike
5pm EST would work for me. There is still time to go out and do something afterwards. Or, if it’s a house party, the party can center around the game.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“Brian, I thought I read that New Year’s Eve was the other target date?”
I’ve heard a commissioner talk about taking back NYE, but I think TV will tell them no. That’s a bad time for a game and will cost them a lot of money if they insist on playing then.
“A primetime NYE game wouldn’t fly but a late afternoon east coast game (early afternoon west coast game) (ala the Rose Bowl on NYE) might work as a regular fixture.”
It’s called the Chick-fil-A Bowl, and it draws less than a 5 right now (similar to Alamo Bowl). Yes, being a semi would help, but many people aren’t free to watch a game on NYE afternoon.
“Something like this
4:30 Dec31 Semifinal One (either Fiesta or Orange)
4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
8:30 Jan1 Champs (whether it’s a semifinal or not)”
I think they’d prefer:
4:30 Jan1 Rose (whether it’s semifinal one or not)
8:30 Jan1 Semi (if Rose isn’t, otherwise a BCS bowl)
8:30 Jan2 Other semi (if needed)
Prime time is ratings gold to TV, and they will dictate this.
“The Champs and Rose are both locked in to those time slots on New Year’s Day.”
The Champs isn’t locked into anything until they get a game set and sign a TV deal.
“Put the rotating bowl game on January 2 primetime (Fiesta or Orange if not the semifinal) and call it a bowl season!”
I’d bump that game to NYD at noon or NYE sometime.
“You put the emphasis back on New Year’s Day…and back on the bowl phenomenon…while still setting up the hype for your January 10-14 championship game.”
I don’t think the championship will be quite that late.
LikeLike
People don’t know that they need to stay home and watch TV until there is something to stay home and watch TV for. 🙂
How many New Year’s Eve events are completely TV free? How many restaurants/bars don’t have TV? If something important is on, people will find a way to tune in. Wives and girlfriends might be ticked, but a national semi would be sweet.
Maybe run the game at 7pm…and when the game is over, switch to cyber-DickClark in his block of ice to count down until the ball drops.
LikeLike
5pm eastern is 2pm pacific. 8pm eastern is too late. The game might run to midnight. NY Eve doesn’t work.
LikeLike
I tried to map out how this new system would look if it had been in place since the start of the BCS. I’m assuming that the committee has some flexibility in moving around fairly equal teams, that the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls host in even years and that the Rose and Orange Bowls host in odd years. I’m also assuming the committee would only consider teams in the top 6 of the final BCS standings (although I suspect that will be replaced).
Note: The numbers by the team in the semi-final games are their seed, not their rank. The actual ranking for the year are posted above.
1998:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Tennessee 12-0 (SEC Champs)
2 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
3 Kansas State 11-1
4 Ohio State 10-1 (Big Ten Champs)
5 UCLA 10-1 (PAC-10 champs)
6 Texas A&M 11-2 (Big 12 champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Tennessee vs. #4 Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Kansas State
Kansas State didn’t win the Big 12 this year, but the Big 12 championship game was their only loss and they only lost by 3 to Texas A&M in double overtime.
1999:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Florida State 11-0 (ACC Champs)
2 Virginia Tech 11-0 (Big East Champs)
3 Nebraska 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
4 Alabama 10-2 (SEC Champs)
5 Tennessee 9-2
6 Kansas State 10-1
Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Alabama
Rose Bowl: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska
2000:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
2 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
3 Miami (Fla.) 10-1 (Big East Champs)
4 Washington 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
5 Virginia Tech 10-1
6 Oregon State 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Miami (FL)
In this year, the committee would have to think hard about whether or not it wanted to switch Miami and Washington. The current set-up works well geographically and follows strict guidelines, but Miami and Florida State already played once and I think they’d seriously consider putting Miami in the Fiesta Bowl instead. Since it wasn’t a conference game though and was earlier in the year (and would be an attractive game still), I left them together where things would be geographically better.
2001:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Miami 12-0 (Big East Champs)
2 Nebraska 11-1
3 Colorado 10-2 (Big 12 Champs)
4 Oregon 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
5 Florida 9-2
6 Tennessee 10-2
Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Nebraska
Rose Bowl: #2 Colorado vs. #4 Oregon
In this year, the committee would award Colorado as a higher seed than Nebraska since they won the Big 12. The #3 and #4 teams are switched to allow Oregon in the Rose Bowl and set-up a nice west coast feel for the game.
2002:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Miami 12-0 (Big East champs)
2 Ohio State 13-0 (Big Ten champs)
3 Georgia 12-1 (SEC Champs)
4 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
5 Iowa 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
6 Washington State 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Georgia
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
In this year, USC and Georgia are switched. This gives both teams better geographic bowls, allows the SEC to stay in the Sugar Bowl and gives us a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 game (although not in the Rose Bowl).
2003:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Oklahoma 12-1
2 LSU 12-1 (SEC Champs)
3 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
4 Michigan 10-2 (Big Ten Champs)
5 Ohio State 10-2
6 Texas 10-2
Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #3 Oklahoma
Rose Bowl: #2 USC vs. #4 Michigan
In this year, Oklahoma was on top of the BCS (although not the AP or Coaches), but since they didn’t win the Big 12 (actually got killed in the Big 12 Championship Game), are punished in the seeding as the #3 seed. They flip places with Michigan though so that we can have a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 Rose Bowl.
2004:
Final BCS rankings:
1 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 champs)
2 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
3 Auburn 12-0 (SEC Champs)
4 Texas 10-1
5 California 10-1
6 Utah 11-0 (Mountain West Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Utah
Sugar Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn
Utah passes over runner-ups from the Big 12 and PAC-10.
2005:
Final BCS rankings:
1 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
2 Texas 12-0 (Big 12 Champ)
3 Penn State 10-1 (Big Ten Champ)
4 Ohio State 9-2 (Big Ten Champ)
5 Oregon 10-1
6 Notre Dame 9-2 (Independent)
Projected Semi-finals:
Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State
Orange Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State
This is kind of an odd year with 2 Big Ten champs there. Penn State won the head to head over Ohio State so it would kind of make sense to switch them and Ohio State for the Rose Bowl, but since they were both Big Ten champs I left them purely seeded.
2006:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Ohio State 12-0 (Big Ten champs)
2 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
3 Michigan 11-1
4 LSU 10-2
5 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
6 Louisville 11-1 (Big East Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
Orange Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan
2007:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
2 LSU 11-2 (SEC Champs)
3 Virginia Tech 11-2 (ACC Champs)
4 Oklahoma 11-2 (Big 12 Champs)
5 Georgia 10-2
6 Missouri 11-2
Projected Semi-finals:
Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
Orange Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #3 Virginia Tech
2008:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Oklahoma 12-1 (Big 12 Champs)
2 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
6 Utah 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 USC
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Texas
Utah was undefeated, but I think the strength of schedule would still give it to USC. You could leave out Texas, but half the country thought they were the ones who should have been in the Big 12 title game (with a 3 way tie, decided by BCS rankings). If Utah’s out of conference had been just a little tougher, I would have put them in over USC, but as it turns out, USC didn’t have a single game against a non-AQ team all year and probably actually had a tougher out of conference schedule than Utah (in addition to a tougher one in conference of course).
2009:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Alabama 13-0 (SEC Champs)
2 Texas 13-0 (Big 12 Champs)
3 Cincinnati 12-0 (Big East Champs)
4 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0 (WAC Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Alabama vs. #4 TCU
Rose Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Cincinnati
This is a year I don’t expect to duplicate soon given conference realignment, but it sadly would have left an undefeated Boise State out (that year they won every game but struggled in a lot in a weak WAC).
2010:
Final BCS rankings:
1 Auburn 13-0 (SEC champ)
2 Oregon 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
3 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champ)
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
6 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Auburn vs. #4 Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU
2011:
Final BCS rankings:
1 LSU 13-0 (SEC Champs)
2 Alabama 11-1
3 Oklahoma State 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Oregon 11-2 (PAC-12 Champs)
6 Arkansas 10-2
Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #4 Oregon
Rose Bowl: #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Alabama
In this year, Oklahoma State and Alabama are switched in seeds relative to their rankings since an emphasis is put on conference champions. It doesn’t matter though. Oregon would usually be in the Rose Bowl as PAC-12 champs in odds years, but that would either require a rematch in the Orange Bowl or the top 2 seeds playing and I think the committee would avoid that so this is a rare case of a Big Ten/PAC-12 team missing the Rose Bowl when it is a semi-final.
LikeLike
Eric,
Nice summary. I think it gives a good view of how things will look in the future. Two things i take from that
(1) I get the sense that “seeds” will almost be irrelevant. They will just take 4 teams and pair them up based on traditional tie-ins and geographic location. I read that in a few of the articles today
(2) Because of the above, I almost think the pairings/location will end up causing the biggest arguments as oppose to the selection of the final team.
LikeLike
I think it’s reasonable analysis, but you seem overly tied to the actual polls. For example, why any of the following:
in 1998 – a non champion K-State over a champion UCLA, yet…
in 1999 – a champion 2- loss Alabama over a one loss non-champion K-State
in 2002 a two loss USC over a one loss Iowa (both champions)
in 2004 – really anyone for the fourth slot over an undefeated Utah team
These are just a few examples. Not saying your choices are wrong, but you seem to tie yourself pretty close to the polls, when the actual difference between the 4th, 5th, and 6th teams are likely pretty minor (and in some cases you chose non-champs over champs). I suspect a true committee may differ from the polls.
LikeLike
I did probably stick a little too close to the polls. I think the committee will actually stick pretty close there too (although in retrospect I should have used the AP instead of the BCS), but they probably will a lot less than I did here. With that said, my thinking was the following:
1998: Kansas State was undefeated and clearly a top team. They lost the Big 12 Championship Game in double overtime and I figured it would be hard to drop them out entirely after that close a loss in their last game.
1999: In this year, Alabama is both a conference champ and higher in the polls and I have a hard time seeing the committee put Kansas State in over them, one fewer loss or not.
2002: I could definitely see a strong debate going on here. I gave it narrowly to USC since they are higher and since right or wrong, if a conference already has one team in, I think the committee is going to tougher on a 2nd team.
2004: I could definitely see either California or Texas getting in over Utah, but given the preference on conference champions and the fact Utah is undefeated (and looked good the whole year), I think the committee would have given them the bid.
LikeLike
1998 would have been controversial. Like K-State, UCLA was undefeated going into their last game of the season – an OOC game at Miami that had been postponed from earlier in the season. Miami scored in the last minute of the game to win. UCLA was a conference champ. K-State was not. UCLA’s OOC schedule was Texas, at Miami, and at Houston. K-State’s OOC schedule was Northern Illinois, Louisiana-Monroe, and Indiana State.
LikeLike
Thanks jokewood. I looked up the Big 12 Championship Game to see who won the conference, but didn’t look through the PAC-10 that season since I knew UCLA was the champ based on the top of the ranking automatically. I didn’t realize it was that late they lost too. Yeah it would have been tough there and that inclines me to put them in over Kansas State.
LikeLike
Good analysis
The only year I would disagree would be 2004. I don’t think Utah had the respect to get in over Texas or California. I wouldn’t have any problem with that result as Texas and California both lost to teams ahead of them in the rankings and Utah was unbeaten. I just don’t think it would happen.
I think KSU would have gotten it in 1998. They lost in double OT and UCLA got beat by a Miami team that wasn’t as good as most of the Miami teams of that era. And UCLA looked outclassed in that game even if it was close.
In 1999, KSU just didn’t get much respect so I think it would have been Bama.
2002 would have been close, but most people thought USC was better than Iowa even before they crushed them in the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I tried to map out how this new system would look if it had been in place since the start of the BCS. I’m assuming that the committee has some flexibility in moving around fairly equal teams, that the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls host in even years and that the Rose and Orange Bowls host in odd years. I’m also assuming the committee would only consider teams in the top 6 of the final BCS standings (although I suspect that will be replaced).”
I won’t challenge your assumptions except to say I think they’ll largely stick to the top 5. I appreciate the work you put in, and now I’m going to add some info and nitpick.
Just to be clear, I copied Eric’s BCS top 6 and am replacing the rankings with new info. Most of the work was his, but it’s not really a quote to save space. Thus, I’m giving him full credit up front.
I chose to add some SOS data since that’s supposed to be a factor. For lack of a better source, I’m using Sagarin’s final SOS ranking from after the bowls each year. It’s not ideal, but at least it’s consistent.
1998:
SOS:
24 Tennessee 12-0 (SEC Champs)
5 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
56 Kansas State 11-1
25 Ohio State 10-1 (Big Ten Champs)
6 UCLA 10-1 (PAC-10 champs)
3 Texas A&M 11-2 (Big 12 champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Tennessee vs. #4 Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Kansas State
Kansas State didn’t win the Big 12 this year, but the Big 12 championship game was their only loss and they only lost by 3 to Texas A&M in double overtime.”
I disagree. KSU had a weak schedule and didn’t win their conference. They’d get skipped by a #5 champ with a tough schedule.
More likely:
Sugar = 1 TN / 4 UCLA
Fiesta = 2 FSU / 3 OSU
Ideal:
Sugar = TN/FSU
Fiesta = OSU/UCLA
1999:
SOS:
11 Florida State 11-0 (ACC Champs)
43 Virginia Tech 11-0 (Big East Champs)
18 Nebraska 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
1 Alabama 10-2 (SEC Champs)
14 Tennessee 9-2
72 Kansas State 10-1
“Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #4 Alabama
Rose Bowl: #2 Virginia Tech vs. #3 Nebraska”
Seems right.
2000:
SOS:
14 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
12 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Champs)
11 Miami (Fla.) 10-1 (Big East Champs)
3 Washington 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
31 Virginia Tech 10-1
23 Oregon State 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Washington
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida State vs. #3 Miami (FL)
In this year, the committee would have to think hard about whether or not it wanted to switch Miami and Washington. The current set-up works well geographically and follows strict guidelines, but Miami and Florida State already played once and I think they’d seriously consider putting Miami in the Fiesta Bowl instead. Since it wasn’t a conference game though and was earlier in the year (and would be an attractive game still), I left them together where things would be geographically better.”
Under the old conference alignment, I think you’re right. It’s a close call, though.
2001:
SOS
27 Miami 12-0 (Big East Champs)
29 Nebraska 11-1
4 Colorado 10-2 (Big 12 Champs)
26 Oregon 10-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
23 Florida 9-2
1 Tennessee 10-2
“Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Nebraska
Rose Bowl: #2 Colorado vs. #4 Oregon
In this year, the committee would award Colorado as a higher seed than Nebraska since they won the Big 12. The #3 and #4 teams are switched to allow Oregon in the Rose Bowl and set-up a nice west coast feel for the game.”
I think the seeds would have been Miami, CO, OR then NE. The problem is that you don’t want a conference game, but you also don’t want to reward the lower seed with the home bowl. I’m guessing TV trumps fairness, so your pairs are what happens.
2002:
SOS:
37 Miami 12-0 (Big East champs)
30 Ohio State 13-0 (Big Ten champs)
24 Georgia 12-1 (SEC Champs)
1 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
46 Iowa 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
16 Washington State 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Miami (FL) vs. #3 Georgia
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
In this year, USC and Georgia are switched. This gives both teams better geographic bowls, allows the SEC to stay in the Sugar Bowl and gives us a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 game (although not in the Rose Bowl).”
I agree with your seeds, but I think they choose to make the lower seeds travel rather than let a lower seed have their anchor bowl. Maybe they don’t worry about that assuming fans should be about equal, but I’d consider it.
Likely:
Sugar: Miami vs USC
Fiesta: OSU vs UGA
Ideal:
Sugar: OSU vs USC
Fiesta: Miami vs UGA
That keeps the Rose pairing but doesn’t give UGA the home bowl advantage or USC the travel edge either.
2003:
SOS:
39 Oklahoma 12-1
28 LSU 12-1 (SEC Champs)
19 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
36 Michigan 10-2 (Big Ten Champs)
15 Ohio State 10-2
47 Texas 10-2
“Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #3 Oklahoma
Rose Bowl: #2 USC vs. #4 Michigan
In this year, Oklahoma was on top of the BCS (although not the AP or Coaches), but since they didn’t win the Big 12 (actually got killed in the Big 12 Championship Game), are punished in the seeding as the #3 seed. They flip places with Michigan though so that we can have a Big Ten vs. PAC-10 Rose Bowl.”
I’d make life simpler and just seed OU #4 for being a non-champ. Either way, we’d get the same games.
2004:
SOS:
7 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 champs)
13 Oklahoma 12-0 (Big 12 Champs)
60 Auburn 12-0 (SEC Champs)
28 Texas 10-1
12 California 10-1
67 Utah 11-0 (Mountain West Champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Utah
Sugar Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn
Utah passes over runner-ups from the Big 12 and PAC-10.”
I agree. I think a committee honors the undefeated season, especially since the SOS was about the same as Auburn’s. I’d switch bowls again, though:
Fiesta: OU/AU
Sugar: USC/Utah
I think giving AU the anchor bowl advantage is much worse than making teams and fans travel. for a semi. Besides, OU deserves their anchor bowl.
2005:
SOS:
8 USC 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
13 Texas 12-0 (Big 12 Champ)
17 Penn State 10-1 (Big Ten Champ)
2 Ohio State 9-2 (Big Ten Champ)
34 Oregon 10-1
14 Notre Dame 9-2 (Independent)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Rose Bowl: #1 USC vs. #4 Ohio State
Orange Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Penn State
This is kind of an odd year with 2 Big Ten champs there. Penn State won the head to head over Ohio State so it would kind of make sense to switch them and Ohio State for the Rose Bowl, but since they were both Big Ten champs I left them purely seeded.”
As historic as USC/OSU is, you’ve got to make it a true Rose Bowl instead. On the other hand, OSU and UT played OOC that year. What the heck. It was a close game and the Rose should be honored. Your bowls are probably more likely (to avoid the rematch since the Rose will still be B10/P12), but not preferred to me. Close call, though.
Ideal:
Rose: USC/PSU
Orange: UT/OSU
2006:
SOS:
38 Ohio State 12-0 (Big Ten champs)
8 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
12 Michigan 11-1
20 LSU 10-2
2 USC 10-2 (PAC-10 Champs)
27 Louisville 11-1 (Big East Champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 USC
Orange Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan”
I’d consider UL over USC for the 4th seed, but trust the eye test and keep USC. The problem is game locations and rematches again. I think I’d switch games again to avoid #4 getting an edge over #1.
Orange: OSU/USC
Fiesta: UF/MI
2007:
SOS:
53 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champs)
11 LSU 11-2 (SEC Champs)
36 Virginia Tech 11-2 (ACC Champs)
44 Oklahoma 11-2 (Big 12 Champs)
23 Georgia 10-2
25 Missouri 11-2
“Projected Semi-finals:
Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
Orange Bowl: #2 LSU vs. #3 Virginia Tech”
I’d actually seed LSU #1 and OSU #2 based on SOS and swap their opponents. That also gets VT out of their anchor bowl, which is better for the higher seed.
My games:
Rose: OSU/VT
Orange: LSU/OU
2008:
SOS:
7 Oklahoma 12-1 (Big 12 Champs)
4 Florida 12-1 (SEC Champs)
14 Texas 11-1
28 Alabama 12-1
16 USC 11-1 (PAC-10 Champs)
56 Utah 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma vs. #4 USC
Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida vs. #3 Texas
Utah was undefeated, but I think the strength of schedule would still give it to USC. You could leave out Texas, but half the country thought they were the ones who should have been in the Big 12 title game (with a 3 way tie, decided by BCS rankings). If Utah’s out of conference had been just a little tougher, I would have put them in over USC, but as it turns out, USC didn’t have a single game against a non-AQ team all year and probably actually had a tougher out of conference schedule than Utah (in addition to a tougher one in conference of course).”
I think that Utah barely makes the cut, but it’s very close. Utah is a champ and UT isn’t. Utah is undefeated and UT isn’t. The SOS difference gives UT an edge, but I think they favor the undefeated team.
My games:
Sugar: #1 FL vs. #4 Utah
Fiesta: #2 OU vs. #3 USC
2009:
SOS:
2 Alabama 13-0 (SEC Champs)
38 Texas 13-0 (Big 12 Champs)
44 Cincinnati 12-0 (Big East Champs)
60 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champs)
15 Florida 12-1
96 Boise State 13-0 (WAC Champs)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 Alabama vs. #4 TCU
Rose Bowl: #2 Texas vs. #3 Cincinnati
This is a year I don’t expect to duplicate soon given conference realignment, but it sadly would have left an undefeated Boise State out (that year they won every game but struggled in a lot in a weak WAC).”
SOS makes it obvious that Boise is the odd man out. I feel worse for a 12-1 UF that would make it any other year and had a high SOS. I agree with your games, although they could have swapped UC and TCU to get an all-Texas game as a better storyline plus reduce travel.
2010:
SOS:
13 Auburn 13-0 (SEC champ)
10 Oregon 12-0 (PAC-10 Champ)
76 TCU 12-0 (Mountain West Champ)
9 Stanford 11-1
66 Wisconsin 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
70 Ohio State 11-1 (Big Ten Champ)
“Projected Semi-finals:
Sugar Bowl: #1 Auburn vs. #4 Wisconsin
Fiesta Bowl: #2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU”
I agree with you seeds and games, but this would be an interesting case. A 12-0 champ with a low SOS, an 11-1 champ with a low SOS and an 11-1 non-champ with a high SOS – pick 2. I think the 2 champs make it, especially since the non-champ’s champ is already in.
2011:
SOS:
7 LSU 13-0 (SEC Champs)
15 Alabama 11-1
3 Oklahoma State 11-1 (Big 12 Champs)
36 Stanford 11-1
35 Oregon 11-2 (PAC-12 Champs)
20 Arkansas 10-2
“Projected Semi-finals:
Orange Bowl: #1 LSU vs. #4 Oregon
Rose Bowl: #2 Oklahoma State vs. #3 Alabama
In this year, Oklahoma State and Alabama are switched in seeds relative to their rankings since an emphasis is put on conference champions. It doesn’t matter though. Oregon would usually be in the Rose Bowl as PAC-12 champs in odds years, but that would either require a rematch in the Orange Bowl or the top 2 seeds playing and I think the committee would avoid that so this is a rare case of a Big Ten/PAC-12 team missing the Rose Bowl when it is a semi-final.”
Agreed.
My point in all of this is to show that a reasonable committee may differ substantially on seeding and game sites depending on how they weigh issues.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196882.html
And here’s Pete Fiutak’s look at the same thing without worrying about which bowl they’d play in. He disagrees with both of us on some teams (he puts in 2002 IA, for example).
LikeLike
Thanks Brian. Adding strength of schedule added a lot there and that’s something they’ll be looking hard at. I agree with most of your changes. The only part of the process I think I disagree with is that I think with 2 pre-deterimined bowls, an effort will be made to put the #3 and #4 teams in their traditional match-ups too even if that gives them an advantage. It won’t trump the #1 and #2 teams being put in a traditional bowl or avoiding conference rematches, but I think with 2 games they are going to be a bit more concerned with traveling and do things like this to minimize lower crowds.
LikeLike
It’s all speculation at this point. I’m just guessing they won’t want to give #3 or #4 any advantage. Maybe they’ll let a B10 team in the Rose because it’s not near home, but otherwise no. I don’t think they are worried about travel for the semis or the finals. I think the other major bowls will be much more geographical, though, because that’s where travel will be an issue.
LikeLike
@Brian
2008 (and 2002 with Iowa/Ohio St.) is another example of how people could look at even the conference champion criteria differently. Is it something black and white, or are there shades of grey? In both cases there was a tie for the title and head-to-head play didn’t determine the champ.
LikeLike
Yep. It’ll never be uniform from person to person. I expect them to view split conference titles as full titles with an edge for head to head but not to give as much weight to split division titles (call it a half, maybe). The division winner had to win the CCG after all and the other team didn’t.
LikeLike
Sandusky < 0
LikeLike
It sure doesn’t look good when your own adopted child comes out and says you molested him.
LikeLike
This article is an interesting look back on the years of the BCS and hypothetically subjecting them to the new four-team playoff model.
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/21/3105594/college-football-playoffs-selection-committee
LikeLike
Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman, the Big Ten’s representative on the Bowl Championship Series Presidential Oversight Committee, said Thursday afternoon he was “disappointed” with the consensus reached Wednesday by commissioners from every major BCS conference and Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.
When the Big Ten emerged from its conference meetings last month, the league’s presidents ranked their preferences for the future of the college football postseason, with a desire to keep the status quo of the BCS at the top of the list. Their second choice, Perlman said, was to adopt a plus-one format that would pit two teams in a national championship game following the conclusion of the bowl season.
If those two options weren’t viable, only then were the Big Ten presidents interested in looking into a seeded playoff system.
[snip]
Perlman believes a plus-one model would serve the sport better because there would be more games each postseason that could implicate the national championship. “I’d rather have five exciting games instead of two exciting games,” he said.
But Perlman, who served as the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee chair during the 2009-10 season, insisted he would come to Washington willing to be convinced as to why a playoff is a better option for college football than the plus-one model Big Ten presidents prefer. He will be particularly interested in learning more about a proposed selection committee and how the rotation of bowl games would work if they were to serve as the sites for semifinal games.
“Clearly, that all the commissioners reached a consensus of some sort is a big step,” he said. “I think the presidents would be reluctant to overrule the people that actually work in the area unless there was good reason to do so.”
http://huskerextra.com/sports/huskers/football/article_bfe5c8f8-4a95-5ee7-afa1-5ee0cf63ac41.html
LikeLike
I have to admit, I like Perlman.
LikeLike
I applaud him for his honesty. He said he’ll keep an open mind and that’s all anyone should ask of him. I believe he’ll fully represent all 12 opinions from the B10 COP/C and not just his own view. I also believe more presidents share his opinion than fans would like to admit.
His is a reasonable opinion and one that deserves a solid answer. Why is this better for the game and the players? Can they justify a money grab at the expense of the players? Is a plus one sufficient?
I think the presidents will have serious debate about this before caving in to the fans.
LikeLike
So you’re saying there is a chance…?
LikeLike
There’s always a chance. It’s somewhere between slim and none, but it’s there.
LikeLike
The MAC commissioner said most of his presidents favored a +1. Scott probably favors an 8 or 16 team model, but his presidents don’t. I don’t think Pearlman is a small minority.
I just have a hard time reconciling the arguments about the impact on the student-athlete with other decisions they have made such as the 12th game and the arguments they repeatedly make in every other sport (including non-revs) about how expanding championship competition is to the benefit of the student athletes. And Pearlman is not above misleading people in order to get what he wants.
LikeLike
The 12th game was getting played some of the time anyway, and the schools needed the money to support all the Title IX sports, so it was for the student-athletes in a sense (just not the ones playing).
Other sports aren’t as risky to the longterm health of the players as football, and they also don’t offer the media attention or non-championship postseason that football does. It’s apples and oranges.
LikeLike
For those interested, Michigan’s Athletic Department released its FY 2012 budget. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf
The FY 2012 (ends 30 June 2012) Conference Distributions projection total is $23.9M from the following sources:
Television (Football & Basketball) – $17.6M
NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.2M
Football Bowl Games – $2.3M
Other Miscellaneous – $0.8M
It doesn’t break down the television revenue sources, but another article reported the BTN providing $7.2M of that total, so the remainder comes from ABC/ESPN and CBS (for basketball).
The FY 2013 Conference Distributions numbers in the budget total $25.2M from the following sources:
Television (Football & Basketball) – $18.7M
NCAA Basketball Tournament – $3.3M
Football Bowl Games – $2.3M
Other Miscellaneous – $0.8M
For FY 2012, Michigan has a projected operating surplus of $15.3M For FY 2013, the operating revenue is budgeted at $130.3M, operating expenses are at $124.5M and total operating surplus is $5.8M.
The FY 2013 budget was presented to the Board of Regents yesterday. During his presentation, UM Athletic Director David Brandon outlined eleven new or renovation projects for non-revenue sports. He’s planning on spending around $250M on these projects over the next seven years with the most expensive items being started in FY 2015 thru FY 2017. No surprise there given the current debt levels for the athletic department (around $240M) plus the timing of the new post-season (FY 2014) and the television rights negotiations for the new contract kicking in at about the same time. See http://annarbor.com/sports/paint-the-big-house-u-m-athletic-director-david-brandon-announces-200m-construction-agenda/?cmpid=mlive-@mlive-wolverines
LikeLike
He’s been adding sports too; probably going to be booking $3M+ in extra costs after men’s and women’s lacrosse get going at full gear on scholarships.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he has the most building projects going on of any AD in the country. Of course, I’m sure they all can’t wait for the next contracts to kick in…
LikeLike
The Michigan conference distribution number is about $700,000 less than the $24.6 million Illinois reported to the St. Louis today. Seems odd.
LikeLike
Revenue sharing from football probably.
2009 number from http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/20/big-ten-ticket-revenue/ :
Contributions:
Penn State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Michigan $4,000,000.00
Ohio State Univ. $4,000,000.00
Univ. of Iowa $3,700,000.00
Univ. of Wisconsin $3,600,000.00
Michigan State Univ. $3,600,000.00
Univ. of Illinois $2,400,000.00
Purdue Univ. $2,200,000.00
Univ. of Minnesota $2,100,000.00
Indiana Univ. $1,600,000.00
Northwestern Univ. $1,200,000.00
Distribution:
$2,950,000.00
Net:
OSU, PSU, MI = -$1.05M
IL = +$.45M
Difference = $1.5M
IL may make part of that up in hoops, and obviously the numbers vary every year except the $4M.
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks. I had a momentarily brain lapse there and forgot about the gate sharing for football and basketball games. It still is a bit weird though. The gate sharing is the most likely reason for the discrepancy. That said, looking at conference 1099’s, for 2009-2010 the Big Ten reported giving all 11 teams within $100,000 of each other. Obviously this isn’t the case with the gate sharing program. I guess it is possible that transaction takes place among the schools outside of the conference distribution, and Michigan reports the net while St. Louis Tribune numbers via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch report the gross distribution to the old 11.
LikeLike
That was the first thing to come to mind, but I suppose it could be something else. Maybe it was a bonus for dropping Zook?
LikeLike
The gate sharing is the most obvious answer. It still just seems odd for the conference to report on their IRS 1099 forms that everyone is withing $100,000 of each other when we know this probably shouldn’t be the case. The other slight variance that you’d see between schools is bowl travel allotments. Those are the only sources of variances in the Big Ten model that I can think of.
LikeLike
Add. GEAUX (likely pre-season) #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
Frank – thanks for the Jordan Jefferson pic. While I wish him well, I have never been so glad to see a Tiger complete his eligibility. Over the last four years with Andrew Hatch, JJ and Jarrett Lee at the helm, its a minor miracle that the Tigers won 41 games. Look for a few forward passes from the new Tiger QB this season.
Like you, I do have reservations about the selection committee. While I always had some concerns about the BCS formula, at least it was transparent. Otherwise the announcement was a win for college football and a win for the airlines flying football fans around the country.
LikeLike
This is only funny because it’s not my fanbase
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/lsu-latest-anti-alabama-t-shirt-features-unfortunate-164257783–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
Funny because its not my conference.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19403344/you-can-buy-an-sec-shirt-on-the-big-12s-official-website
LikeLike
I’m all for hating AL, but that isn’t cool. The grammar error is funny, though.
LikeLike
Alan,
I feel your QB pain. OSU followed Troy Smith with Todd Boeckman (statue that crumbled under pressure), Terrelle Pryor (JJ with better running and more NCAA violations) and Joe Bauserman (I don’t even know what to say).
A selection committee will have problems, but they are known issues at least. Having the human element rather than a set of rules is generally a better choice. There are too many possible circumstances to completely describe through rules who should make it.
You may be the first person I’ve ever heard call the BCS transparent, though. Secret computer formulas and secret ballots in human polls aren’t really transparent to me. I get the idea, though, that at least the formula is set in stone before the year starts so you know what you need to do.
LikeLike
Here is an article that I’m guessing a lot of the folks on this blog will disagree with in regards to the outcome of the commissioner’ playoff meeting. 🙂
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19393452/playoff-is-here-bcs-is-dead-and-sec-still-runs-the-show
LikeLike
I’ll disagree. What Slive wanted wasn’t nearly as relevant as what ESPN wanted.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd and Pat Forde have declared this a complete victory for the SEC (Forde here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–four-team-playoff-proposal-now-heading-into-the-homestretch.html )
I don’t think we’ll know really who this is a complete victory for until we see the results. It’s a victory for pretty much everyone right now as long as the terms of the selection committee look nebulous.
We need to see how the selection committee actually weighs the value of conference champions, strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc., we really won’t know who’s side won the debate on “conference champions favored versus top 4”.
We just don’t know what the “best 4” is going to look like until we see a couple of years of teams compared to the AP and Coaches polls.
For what it’s worth, the Big Ten and Big 12 both favored that kind of nebulous approach.
LikeLike
Dodd and Forde both went to Missouri, so their SEC sycophancy is not surprising. They’ve both proven themselves to be blowhards in the past, so this is par for the course.
LikeLike
And Stewart Mandel?
“After a series of compromises, the SEC — owner of six straight national championships — can be declared the victor. Again.
Three months ago, Delany and his Big Ten athletic directors were the leading proponents of playing semifinal games on campus sites. Slive and the SEC didn’t like that idea. That idea isn’t happening.
The Big Ten and Pac-12 have continually prioritized preserving their unique partnership with the Rose Bowl. While it’s unknown at this point how exactly the semifinal rotation will work (and even which or how many bowls will be involved), the Rose Bowl is going to have to accept the occasional LSU-Oklahoma game if it wants in. The SEC of course will be fine with that, seeing as two of the four current BCS bowls are played in the South.
But the issue that caused by far the most hand-wringing was deciding which four teams should make the playoff.
The SEC was adamant about preserving something as close to the status quo as possible — the top four teams, period. The Big 12 joined in that cause shortly after announcing the joint “Champions Bowl” between the two leagues.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, on the other hand, had been vocal about emphasizing conference champions, with the ACC, Big East and others joining in. Delany also aligned with that stance, though, “I was never a champions-only advocate,” he said Wednesday. “It’s been reported that I was. I was never that.” Indeed, he’d long been pushing for some sort of hybrid model, so long as it included a more transparent selection process than the current BCS rankings.
On that issue, he got what he wanted.
In the end, the commissioners realized what many of us have been writing for some time: that they were never that far apart, and that a selection committee — endorsed recently by the Big Ten and Big 12 — best bridges their interests”
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/06/20/bcs-four-team-playoff-system/index.html#ixzz1yYWQE5ad
LikeLike
I admit that the B10 is the media’s punching bag. The SEC is #1 in football, baseball, obesity, tobacco usage, illiteracy, and low life span. The B10 is #1 financially and #1 academically (BCS).
Let me start compiling every list I can to pump the B10 like the SEC homers do for all things SEC.
Iowa hosted a Common Solutions Group meeting last week, a consortium of the nation’s leading R1 universities. BCS conferences represented: B10 (8), P12 (5), ACC (3), BE(1), SEC(0), B12(0).
http://www.stonesoup.org/members.html
LikeLike
In some weird way, I think this played into what the Big Ten wanted.
The Big Ten put up a strawman argument for the status quo. Delany’s smart enough to know which way the wind blows (and it was a one direction tornado), and Perlman basically presented the strawman argument for the old system.
The actual result if you look at the result is what the Big Ten and Big 12 both espoused. Neither wanted a BCS polling result or “Top 4” polling system built in here. Neither wanted to just take the top 4 from the current BCS.
Going with the selection committee is basically the idea that the Big Ten and Big 12 wanted. How it will actually weigh considerations like conference champions, etc. will determine whether it’s similar to the “top 4” or the “3 conference champions + 1” over time…
LikeLike
zeek…..you’re wrong. Big 10 got hammered yet agaion. Delaney sure seems to lose a lot of these fights, for being a genius and all………………
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“zeek…..you’re wrong. Big 10 got hammered yet agaion. Delaney sure seems to lose a lot of these fights, for being a genius and all.”
I think it’s unfair to blame Delany. He doesn’t get to decide the B10’s position on these issues, and I don’t know that he got clear guidance from the presidents.
LikeLike
In the end, I doubt that conference champs will be that much of a factor when it comes to how the committee selects the playoff births. It might factor into the discussion if they are choosing between two teams from the same conference, like Stanford and Oregon from this past year. But it won’t keep a team like Bama from this past year out of the playoff which is all that Slive/SEC cares about (Delany has even backtracked recently and said that Bama would deserve to be in the playoff).
If you have a committee doing the selection, it will still be somewhat subjective to the individuals in that group, and there really isn’t a way to keep that from happening. I mean, does anyone think that they are going to give the committee a set equation for them to just plug number into? I don’t see that happening, especially considering the heat that the computer formulas have taken over the years. In the end I’m betting that the committee will be told to keep certain factors in mind (conference champs being one), but those factors aren’t a prerequisite in their determinations. So in the end, it’ll still be a somewhat subjective selection process.
LikeLike
I mean like the year before last though. Stanford at #4 in the BCS due to strong computer rankings (but #5 in the human polls), but Wisconsin #4 in both human polls but #5 in the BCS. Auburn, Oregon, and TCU would all be locks as undefeateds, but who’s the 4th team?
My guess is a selection committee would take Wisconsin but I have no earthly clue.
And the same scenario could happen for the SEC. You’re right that there’s situations where obvious 2nd teams from a conference would get in as the case for Alabama is, but I’m talking about a case where there’s an argument for a non-champ at #4/#5 versus a champ from another conference.
LikeLike
@bamatab – In effect, I think we’ll see conference championships being a tie-breaker between a non-champ #4 and conference champ #5 if #4 if they have similar profiles (same record, comparable SOS, etc.) or, in the case this past year, those two teams are actually from the same conference. I would think that fear of literally putting their lives in danger with a crazy result would provide an incentive to committee members to not go off the reservation unless there is something very concrete to justify having one team hop over the another compared to the final AP poll, but we’ve certainly seen college presidents and commissioners withstand a ton of heat up until now with unpopular positions, so who knows?
LikeLike
@Frank & Zeek – I agree with what you guys are saying when choosing bewteen the #4 & #5 teams. If you have a #4 & #5 that most everyone believes are close, then being a conference champ would likely be a deciding factor. But all I’m saying is that even in that scenario, there won’t be a written rule or formula, it’ll just be the people in the committee subjectively saying to each other “Well these two teams are so close it is hard to choose, but since this team actually won it’s conference let’s put them in over the other”. Even one of the points that Staples says will be approved in the article that Frank linked below was that “• The tournament will include the top four teams regardless of conference champion status”. But I agree that when deciding between two schools that have close to the same resume for that last spot, being a conference champ will probably factor into it.
LikeLike
@bama, @zeek and @frank,
I would think a conference champion with the same record and a similarly difficult schedule as a non-conference champ is always going to get priority. (Assume ND is treated as a conference champ).
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – The problem will be in determining whether or not the two teams’ schedules are similarly difficult. Let’s say that you have a one loss Bama team whose only lose came to a top ranked UF in the SEC Championship game, and you have one loss VT who won their conference. I would bet that if Bama was ranked 3rd or 4th and VT was ranked 5th at the end of the regular season, they could still get in over VT since most perceive the SEC to be a tougher conference than the ACC. Again, it’ll come down a subjective decision as to how the teams compare to each other.
LikeLike
Alabama would make any 4 team playoff. Besides, how would Delaney feel if Michigan didn’t make the field in 2006?
Its not like the SEC will be the only league ever in position to get 2 bids.
I think its a pipedream to ever expect three teams from one conference to make the field.
LikeLike
Even in 1971, when the Big 8 ended with the top 3 (the only time that has ever happened), Colorado was #7 prior to the bowls. In 2008, with the 3 way tie in the Big 12 South, Texas Tech was #7 prior to the bowls. Even if its possible, it is extremely unlikely.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Dennis Dodd and Pat Forde have declared this a complete victory for the SEC (Forde here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–four-team-playoff-proposal-now-heading-into-the-homestretch.html )”
All the SEC shills have (Schlabach at ESPN, etc).
“I don’t think we’ll know really who this is a complete victory for until we see the results.”
The details about the committee and their instructions are really key here.
“It’s a victory for pretty much everyone right now as long as the terms of the selection committee look nebulous.”
No it isn’t. The traditionalists lost. Period. The B10 and P12 lost. Period. They wanted something other than a 4-team playoff and lost. There is no victory for them.
“We need to see how the selection committee actually weighs the value of conference champions, strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc., we really won’t know who’s side won the debate on “conference champions favored versus top 4″.”
Agreed, but that was just 1 battle in the bigger war.
LikeLike
The real losers in alll this wasn’t the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC or any other conference other than the SEC or the Big XII.
The real losers are college football fans.
No eight team playoff.
No games on campus sites.
No autobids for conference champions.
No at large bids for the top non-conference champions.
Nobody in the process particularly has shined. Interests were entirely parochial based on what’s best for my conference, but not for the sport. The decision arrow always pointed towards money, corporate sponsors and television. These guys had an opportunity to bring about another unique, golden age in college football and they blew it.
So if Slive, Neinas and Bowlsby want to be considered “winners”, then congratulations to them. If you live in an area bounded from Texas to South Carolina (along with West Virginia), I hope you enjoy the college football playoffs brought to you by a cadre of former football coaches trying to pick the best four teams in college football based on some idea of strength of schedule with “consideration” towards a conference championship.
Happily, though, Slive and Bowlsby (and Dodds) are old and Bowlsby is a former Pac 12 guy. Perhaps when we have the next iteration of this exercise, guys like Larry Scott will be one of the leaders at the lecturn and we’ll see a really interesting, really fan friendly format. Until then, we still have the same system, except now only three post season games matter instead of just one. I suppose that could be considered progress, but it’s hardly something to celebrate.
LikeLike
Larry Scott did what he was told. Which was fight even a 4 team model.
LikeLike
cutter,
“The real losers are college football fans.”
Amen.
“No eight team playoff.”
Or no status quo. Or no return to the old bowl system. All three of those options had millions of supporters.
“No games on campus sites.”
True.
“No autobids for conference champions.”
I’m not sure most fans care about that.
“No at large bids for the top non-conference champions.”
They have the same thing – champs status isn’t required.
LikeLike
Do you know the biggest opportunity that was lost in all this? The failure to make this a truly national event.
If there had been autobids for the top five conferences, then that would have ensured representation from teams in conferences around the country. If you included the at large teams, then that representation would have been proportional based on the conference’s strength or programs that operate outside the major conferences but also have exceptional seasons (ex. TCU, Utah and Boise State from past seasons).
What we have instead is a system that has only four teams in which two or more can come from the same conference. That’s not singling out the SEC because they’re the big dog now because we could have seen Michigan and Ohio State in 2006, for example, participating in a four-team playoff. But a larger playoff with conference champions getting autobids would have meant all have capitalized on the regional identity of college football by putting it on a national stage and having those teams play it out on the field.
So, Brian, I do disagree with you about fans not caring about that. OTOH, I could see fans caring very much about this, with special emphasis on the conference championship games. Those particular games would carry incredible weight in determining how participated in the playoff–not only the teams getting autobids, but the ones jockeying for an at large berth.
On a related matter, I was listening to a Bruce Feldman interview talking about the selection committee. He couldn’t think of a single person that he’d put on such a committee because of all the things we’ve identified earlier–perceptions of bias, personal relationships between former coaches, loyalties to teams and conferences, etc. He’s not the only one making that point because it’s a pretty obvious.
How do you evaluate strength of schedule? Teams make up their schedules years in advance. In 2008, Utah went undefeated and won their opening game at Michigan. UM ended the season at 3-9, so how do you evaluate SOS in that circumstance? Utah had made an honest effort to upgrade their conference schedule and they certainly got a game against a high profile opponent. OTOH, the Wolverines that year were awful, so do you penalize Utah’s SOS rating because UM had a bad season.
I swear this is going to be another shipwreck like the BCS. They’re going from a completely unsatisfactory selection process for two teams to another unsatisfactory selection process for four teams. The overhead expenses from the bowl system is going to need to be markedly reduced, otherwise we’re going to see the same problems and abuses with the current bowl system in terms of who pockets the money.
LikeLike
You evaluate strength of schedule based on reality. That’s kind of obvious. You don’t base it on preconceived notions or preseason polls. That sort of thinking is one of the problems with the current system.
One of the surest thing was that AQs would be done away with. That was very detrimental to the other half of FBS. A team shouldn’t get in simply because of what conference they were in. Even at 8 teams, there should not be any AQs. Maybe you invite the top X champions, but you don’t invite the top X conferences’ champions.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Do you know the biggest opportunity that was lost in all this? The failure to make this a truly national event.”
I don’t think you have a solid basis for that complaint. Maybe if 3 teams from 1 conference get in, or 2 from 2 conferences, but most fans will accept any reasonable top 4.
“If there had been autobids for the top five conferences, then that would have ensured representation from teams in conferences around the country.”
Most years not all 5 deserve a shot at the title.
“If you included the at large teams, then that representation would have been proportional based on the conference’s strength or programs that operate outside the major conferences but also have exceptional seasons (ex. TCU, Utah and Boise State from past seasons).”
They have 4 at larges now.
“What we have instead is a system that has only four teams”
“Only” is in the eye if the beholder. I think that’s at least 2 too many.
“in which two or more can come from the same conference. That’s not singling out the SEC because they’re the big dog now because we could have seen Michigan and Ohio State in 2006, for example, participating in a four-team playoff. But a larger playoff with conference champions getting autobids would have meant all have capitalized on the regional identity of college football by putting it on a national stage and having those teams play it out on the field.”
What happened to the playoff ideal of earning it on the field. Why should all the champs be given a shot rather than having to earn a shot?
“So, Brian, I do disagree with you about fans not caring about that.”
I said most fans, and I stick to that. The majority have seemed to want a top 4.
“On a related matter, I was listening to a Bruce Feldman interview talking about the selection committee. He couldn’t think of a single person that he’d put on such a committee because of all the things we’ve identified earlier–perceptions of bias, personal relationships between former coaches, loyalties to teams and conferences, etc. He’s not the only one making that point because it’s a pretty obvious.”
Does he have a better alternative? Just computers has big issues. The human polls have worse issues than a committee. Champs only still requires a ranking or committee to pick which 4. I’ve been clear that my preferences would have been:
1. The old bowl system
2. The BCS with improved rankings
3. The BCS
4. A true +1 re-ranked after the bowls (must win to advance)
5. A true +1 using the end of season rankings (must win to advance)
6. Dropping CFB as a sport
7. 4 team playoff
Within a playoff, I’d prefer all champs with a committee to pick the 4. All that said, I know that’s not what the majority want or what will happen. My best hope was a 3+1, but even that seems to have failed.
As a compromise that everybody would accept, I think top 4 from a committee was the best possible outcome.
“How do you evaluate strength of schedule?”
Look at who each team played, and how good those teams were. You can also examine OOC-only SOS as a tiebreaker between schools that are otherwise similar since it is the optional part of the schedule.
“Teams make up their schedules years in advance.”
So? That would only impact “attempted OOC SOS” which could also be provided to the committee (each school merely has to indicate when each game contract was signed and the committee can look at the previous 3-5 years for that school in AP rankings or something). SOS is who you play, not when you chose to play them.
“In 2008, Utah went undefeated and won their opening game at Michigan. UM ended the season at 3-9, so how do you evaluate SOS in that circumstance?”
They get a low SOS but a high attempted SOS. Luck’s a bitch sometimes. It also works the other way, though.
“Utah had made an honest effort to upgrade their conference schedule and they certainly got a game against a high profile opponent. OTOH, the Wolverines that year were awful, so do you penalize Utah’s SOS rating because UM had a bad season.”
Yes, because they played a bad team. Would they deserve less credit if the uniforms said SJSU instead?
“I swear this is going to be another shipwreck like the BCS.”
I hope it is. The playoff proponents deserve it.
“They’re going from a completely unsatisfactory selection process for two teams to another unsatisfactory selection process for four teams. The overhead expenses from the bowl system is going to need to be markedly reduced, otherwise we’re going to see the same problems and abuses with the current bowl system in terms of who pockets the money.”
Earlier they indicated they would be looking to drop the big ticket requirements for major bowls in exchange for lower payouts. They really haven’t said much about the other bowls for a while, though.
LikeLike
I’ll agree that the SEC got more of what it wanted than anybody else, pending details on the selection committee and the instructions it will receive. Those details could change my mind.
LikeLike
Some new additional details that we haven’t heard yet from Andy Staples about the playoff plan to be presented to the presidents:
* 12-year agreement for the playoff
* 2 more BCS (or whatever we will call it in the future) bowls will be added to have a 6 bowl rotation. Depending on how the Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl is treated (which is a point of confusion right now), the Cotton Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl are mentioned as possible additions beyond the current BCS bowls.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/06/22/presidential-meeting-preview-playoff-plan/index.html
LikeLike
I’m OK with most of that (to the extent I’m OK with any playoff), but I absolutely do not like the fact it specifically says it will be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. If you could switch 3 and 4 on occasion, that would lead to no conference rematches, better geographic games, and make preserving traditional games easier.
Hopefully if it’s not done formally switching the 3 and 4 will be done informally a little in the committee.
LikeLike
@Eric – I think that your last point will likely happen when this is put into practice. Who is 1, 2, 3 and 4 ends up being up to the committee, and just as the NCAA Tournament selection committee doesn’t seed simply by using a 1 through 68 ranking, there will probably be some years where they’ll adjust the seeding to get the matchups that fit the criteria that you’ve noted (provided that they’re not pitting the consensus #1 and #2 teams against each other in the semifinal round).
LikeLike
I agree completely.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the #1, #2, #3, and #4 teams have to actually be selected.
What happens in a year where the committee is unsure of who to make #3 or #4 because the teams are so equal? Why not just make it so that the geography matches or you get a Big Ten/Pac-12 Rose Bowl or whatever…
LikeLike
I mean what happens if the human polls look like:
USC (13-0)
LSU (13-0)
Michigan (12-1)
Oklahoma (11-1)
If the two bowls in the rotation are say Rose (#1/4) and Cotton (#2/3), why wouldn’t they seed Michigan at #4 if they thought the differences between Michigan and Oklahoma were negligible?
That would make all the sense in the world to me. I don’t see why they can’t seed like that…
LikeLike
And they do that sort of thing in basketball. Kentucky got paired against WKU and IU in the NCAA this year. I can’t believe that was chance.
LikeLike
Duke was also Kentucky’s 2 seed, setting up the EE rematch. There was clearly a good deal of intentional team placement in UK’s bracket.
LikeLike
I disagree. If two from the same conference are in then they should have to meet in the semi, guaranteeing we don’t have a repeat of last year. I only watched a few minutes of it, and didn’t feel I missed anything. Why potentially have the biggest stage appeal to the smallest audience?
Frankly I’d prefer, in order, plus one ranked/selected post bowls, skip it all together and return to bowls only, conf champs only in selection pool, and last this new revision of the BCS invitational.
LikeLike
I’m with you ccrider55. I figured most would prefer two teams from the same conference to play in the semi-finals, rather than having them playing each other in the final game.
LikeLike
I’m the opposite. Don’t make a conference champion have to be a team it already beat until they have to. If you put them in opposite games, odds are pretty good one will lose anyway and if it doesn’t it won’t feel as bad as last year as they didn’t take someone else’s place for the “national” title.
LikeLike
I’m with Eric. I don’t want rematches if not necessary.
LikeLike
Other thing is, what happens when it’s “obvious” that two teams from the same conference are in the top 3?
Like this past year, with LSU at #1 and Alabama at #2.
At worst, you could have made the case in a playoff that Alabama was the #3 seed to Oklahoma State, but that doesn’t matter.
No matter how you dice it, you end up with LSU vs. Oregon/Stanford and Alabama vs. Oklahoma State. Those matchups just make more sense because it seemed more obvious that Oregon or Stanford was at best the 4th best team in…
LikeLike
I guess what I’m saying is since this whole thing is about maximizing dollars (and crowning a pseudo champ), worrying about who ends up “first runner-up” should not in any way be allowed to diminish the marketability of the marquis event.
LikeLike
I wonder how this idea of the Big 12/SEC keeping the revenue of the Champions Bowl will play out. Will the B1G/P12 keep all the Rose Bowl money? Do they get to recoup the lost revenue from the Rose that was shared in the BCS era? Does the Rose need to be in the BCS to be part of the semifinal rotation? Devil is definitely in the details.
LikeLike
It is going to depend on whether the new bowl is in the hosting rotation. If isn’t then it won’t have any effect on the Rose Bowl assuming the RB is. If the Champs Bowl is part of the rotation then they will have to either agree to share with the other semifinal bowls or allow the RB to keep all its revenue. No matter what, i don’t see anyway they get back the money they shared as part of the BCS.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Some new additional details that we haven’t heard yet from Andy Staples about the playoff plan to be presented to the presidents:
* 12-year agreement for the playoff”
They said all along it would be a long deal. I wish it was longer to prevent the move to 8 teams for as long as possible.
“* 2 more BCS (or whatever we will call it in the future) bowls will be added to have a 6 bowl rotation. Depending on how the Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl is treated (which is a point of confusion right now), the Cotton Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl are mentioned as possible additions beyond the current BCS bowls.”
They really need to decide some details on things like this. Nobody knows what’s going on with that bowl, and thus with the entire postseason. They also haven’t said what happens to schools when their anchor bowl is a semi instead. Maybe they are waiting for a presidential OK before deciding these things.
On the bright side, 6 bowls means B10/P12 in the Rose 2/3 of the time plus any playoff match-ups.
Another detail you didn’t mention:
“Expect the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl to agree to host the same number of semifinals during the 12-year period. Big 12 and SEC leaders expect to have the Jan. 1 primetime television slot — immediately after the Rose Bowl — for the Champions Bowl. The bowls would host semifinals in the same years so as not to disturb their choice time slots.”
That’s fairly important to most B10 fans. It leaves an obvious question though. When would the semis be played if the Rose and Champs aren’t hosting them? Would they go head to head with those games? Would they play one at noon on 1/1 and the other on 1/2 at night? Would they try 12/31?
LikeLike
Neinas said a few days ago that they want to capture NYEve and NYDay for CFB. To me, that means that one semifinal will be on NYEve and one on NYDay night. Connecting the dots a bit further…I could see the Rose and Champs alternating as semifinal sites (6 bids each in the 12-year cycle)…while the other four bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Cotton? Outback?) would get 3 bids each total. The other four bowls can be the 5pm EST game on NYEve on the year’s they get to host.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“Neinas said a few days ago that they want to capture NYEve and NYDay for CFB.”
I know. But he has no say in anything, so who cares? TV will dictate to the schools that the game must be in primetime and not on NYE. CFB never owned NYE anyway. NYD was where CFB was king.
“To me, that means that one semifinal will be on NYEve and one on NYDay night.”
I highly doubt it.
“Connecting the dots a bit further…I could see the Rose and Champs alternating as semifinal sites (6 bids each in the 12-year cycle)…while the other four bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Cotton? Outback?) would get 3 bids each total.”
Not going to happen. The sites will get the semis equally. Otherwise the other conferences are making themselves second tier to the big 4.
“The other four bowls can be the 5pm EST game on NYEve on the year’s they get to host.”
It’s good to have a dream, but they’ll play 1/1 and 1/2 at 8:23 or so except maybe letting the Rose stay at 5ish.
LikeLike
Reading over that Andy Staples article, the thing that still confuses me is when the semi-finals will be played. He indicates that the Rose Bowl and Champions would probably be part of the 6 bowl rotation and host the semi-finals together in the same years…when they host the semi-finals it would of course be on January 1st.
But in the years they are not hosting, it still sounds like both bowl games will still have their January 1st timeslots. So in the years the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl are not the semi-final hosts, when do they plan to play these games?
LikeLike
An offshoot of the conversation above :
Is it right for a big school to profit from a little school? The more I think about it this is a disturbing long term situation between Texas State and the University of Texas. Texas is part of the B12 so their content should be limited to teams they play in and out of conference. Texas State plays in another conference and their games should profit them. If suddenly the BTN started showing MAC or CUSA games instead of B1G content I would probably think that above and beyond the scope of what is reasonable and fair. Ohio State has plenty of money and it would be sad if suddenly they bought Ohio games just to squeeze out a minor fraction of their wealth. It would be a sad day indeed to see the Buckeyes entertain such a thought.
Looking at this Texas making money off of Texas State seems equally lame. Maybe the NCAA or somebody should limit this the way they did the Texas high school issue last year. Let he other schools in other conferences get all they can and keep 100% than to be forced to surrender dollars to the elite schools and conferences as a toll. Lord, if they really wanted to be the good guys the LHN folks would have done the job “pro bono” and written it off as goodwill. That would probably be worth more long term that whatever pittance they are adding to their big horde of cash.
if Texas State football is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Texas football program this can not be a good sign of things to come! Capitalism in a competitive marketplace is one thing, but greed is totally different.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it’s probably a good thing. Texas State isn’t signing this deal to make Texas money. They are signing it because they stand to gain more from it than other available deals.
The MAC would never sign a deal like that with the Big Ten Network (they value exposure over money, it’s a big reason so many are still I-A). If Youngstown State or someone though thought they’d benefit from being on the Big Ten Network and the Big Ten Network thought it would gain too, why not?
LikeLike
Not sure what you are thinking happened here. Texas State gets paid for this.
Texas State and UTSA would have almost no coverage. They have a deal with ESPN that gets their games on the air and they make some money off it. ESPN is the one who will benefit, not UT (except in a potential profit cut many years down the road). Its not dramatically different than if the Sunshine network showed some FAU games in addition to Florida gator games. Kansas agreed to a game on the LHN last year because Kansas benefitted from it.
LikeLike
I don’t see anything wrong with it. It would be one thing if Texas was benefitting at Texas St.’s expense or TexasSt. was being forced to do something against their will . But that’s not what is happening. Plut ESPN is the one profiting not UT.
LikeLike
The question is moot.
LikeLike
Texas St owns the rights to its home games and the rights for that game were selected for broadcast under the WAC TV contract. The WAC, last year, recognized the LHN as an ESPN platform (making it in the WAC’s eyes no different than ESPNU). ESPN is still fighting for carriage for the LHN and knows the simplest way to get it in football mad Texas is to get more games on it. If ESPN can get a Tech game on the LHN then they are thinking maybe they could get Tech fans to also push for carriage for the LHN [notice how that worked out?]. In essence, ESPN is using Texas St. to make the LHN profitable, not Texas. Eventually the benefits will reach Texas, but I don’t think it’s fair to say Texas is owning any of its little brothers.
That being said, I have no idea why Texas allows ESPN to use its network to show events that don’t involve Texas.
LikeLike
“That being said, I have no idea why Texas allows ESPN to use its network to show events that don’t involve Texas.”
Ultimately it is in Texas’ best long-term interest to see this network get carriage and succeed. They’re financially set this go around with the contract, but if they ever want to see the LHN renewed going forward things need to change. Thus far, showing a Texas football game or two alone some basketball games and a mixture of other things hasn’t been enough.
LikeLike
It’s not UT’s network. It is ESPNUT. ESPN is finding out a single school network doesn’t have enough valuable inventory to make it work (even one as enticing as UT). Fortunately for them that is secondary to the already accomplished goal of keeping UT from joining another conference, for now. They are just trying to reduce the bleeding.
LikeLike
@ccrider – I realize its ESPNUT, however, they do have a say in the content the network airs.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8087028/penn-state-nittany-lions-jerry-sandusky-convicted-45-counts-sex-abuse-trial
Sandusky is found guilty on 45 of 48 charges, including 17 1st degree felonies that can each carry up to 20 years. Safe to say he’s getting life in prison, where he can re-live his fondest shower memories from the other person’s POV for a change.
LikeLike
thank god. i never trust a jury.
LikeLike
Juries are generally pretty rational. I’ve been on a number.
LikeLike
i have and i respectfully disagree. the one i was on was absurd.
i’m also an attorney and generally shocked at what people will believe.
LikeLike
You had a very different experience than I did. I’ve been on 6, and while things sometimes got heated, everyone was pretty rational by the end and took things seriously. In some cases, they were more rational than the attorneys who may have been too close to the case to see what the evidence says (and you have more information than we are allowed to see so that can impact what seems reasonable). In one case we discovered something in the transcripts while on the penalty phase the prosecutor missed that would have made the convinction quicker. In another case an attorney kept pounding on this one point over and over and over. In the 3rd week of the case I was thinking, I gave you that point the 1st day, and its still IRRELEVANT!!!!
LikeLike
Thank God is right. As a PSU fan, here’s my elated reaction.
http://nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/june/guilty-at-last-justice-in-the-sandusky-trial.html
LikeLike
http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2012/06/20/low-income-kids-get-free-spots-in-osu-football-camp.html
A little reminder that CFB isn’t always a money grab (and I know plenty of schools do similar things):
49 poor kids with good grades and active in their communities got a free week of OSU football camp (about $500 normally). You can only do it for kids in 8th grade or below, but it’s the experience of a lifetime for them.
LikeLike
I’m sure they’re all uncoordinated and run a 7.1 40-yard dash too. Right Brian? 🙂
LikeLike
They did have to have a 3.0 or better, so that probably increases the average lack of coordination. Being about 13, I’d guess most run around 5 seconds for a 40. They had 50 possible slots and only 49 qualified, so I don’t think ability was a factor. Many would still have a major growth spurt coming so it would be hard to judge their future ability.
LikeLike
Totally joking. Fun jab from a PSU fan to an O$U fan… 🙂
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put it past schools to try to turn it into a recruiting event, and neither would the NCAA. That’s why they can’t give scholarships to high schoolers.
I just wanted to point out that the kids weren’t picked based on talent but grades and community service and such.
LikeLike
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/ohio-state-set-to-park-483-million-from-lease-deal-muni-credit.html
An interesting look at the financial pressures at OSU. State funding has dropped from 15% to 7% since 2002. In response, OSU is looking to lease their parking operations for 50 years in exchange for almost $500M up front. They also have issued $500M in 100-year bonds. OSU has averaged 9% return on their endowment over the past 30 years. Analysis says OSU needs to average 7.75% over the next 50 years for this deal to turn a profit.
LikeLike
PSU has been in that boat for a while. I honestly think most states take for granted that a school can’t leave so they figure they can keep cutting funding without suffering repercussions since most ire falls on the university when tuition rises.
I honestly think if it weren’t for federal research dollars being permitted for “related uses” many schools would have majorly scaled back in the previous decades.
LikeLike
And in a nutshell, you have identified why the financial model for most Big10 schools is unsustainable. On Nov 7, if there is a new administration, there will be even more significant funding cuts for fed research. There will be even fewer dollars transferred to the states while the states will be asked to assume more responsibilities. If a State U faces shrinking revenues today from the fed and state, the trend could rapidly accelerate very soon.
Chasing bigger tv rights is not the answer for this potential budget hole. As many have noted it is a drop in the bucket. The solution cannot be to grow more and more dependent on shakier and shakier sources of funding.
LikeLike
Also, I know that this post will be unpopular and will really rankle some but the outcome of the Sandusky trial and the disclosures about PSU made public during the trial underscores how badly the Big 10 has misplayed this situation. First, let’s be clear, I am truly sorry for those who love PSU and how they must feel completely betrayed by their leaders for the past 15 years. Everyone on this board can empathize. Personally, in a similar situation, I would be heartbroken. However, Delany acted neither as a leader nor legend on this one. His smarmy and feckless responses to whether PSU should have gone to bowl game were a start. The continued silence, even today, compounds it. PSU has demonstrated a lack of institutional control. At this center of this LOIC are the leaders of the football program and the president. What is the Big !0 waiting to happen? For the day that Spannier is found guilty in a civil suit (I am not a lawyer — maybe a criminal suit)? That members of the BOT at PSU are similarly found guilty. I am fairly confident that the leaders of PSU will find themselves sued and in court someday. However, that could take years. If a similar situation occurred at Auburn, you would be all over Slive and the SEC, for example. How does the Big 10 govern itself? Or after reading for years how the Big 10 is the truest example of an integration of sports and academics, should this really be re-framed: the Big10 is an effective distribution system for tv money to its members, nothing more or less?
LikeLike
Its only peripherally a sports issue. If Sandusky were still a coach it would be a sports issue. IMO the Big 10 did not need to do anything more and is not anymore tainted by this than college sports as a whole. Of course, there is a taint on college sports as a whole and a bigger one on Penn St. But after the fact, there’s not anything that could be done by anyone but Penn St. to change that. Penn St.’s board IMO looked pretty bad in this.
LikeLike
The Big Ten issued a statement when the scandal broke. I don’t recall what it was and I don’t feel like looking for it. However, back in November I did see comments on various message boards questioning the Big Ten, and now you are. I don’t think people on this board would be blaming Slive if a similiar scandal occurred at Auburn, but you are right that they would on ESPN and other sports boards. People are idiots. The Big Ten did announce that they were investigating as did the NCAA. They are waiting for the legal process to complete. Spanier has been fired, what is the Big Ten supposed to do to him? What is the NCAA waiting for?
LikeLike
Here is a pertinent section of the NCAA Bylaws. I can’t help but believe that the Big 10 has a similar bylaw. I don’t understand why the Big 10 has to wait for the NCAA, the U.S. Department of Education (who will hammer PSU) and the US Department of Justice to file their lawsuits or produce a report before the Big 10 acts. Maybe you wait for the perjury trials for Curley and the other guy. What independent action will the Big10 take?
Anyway the pertinent section:
Rule 2.4 :
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program.
LikeLike
When is Notre Dame going to fire Brian Kelly for killing a student?
Pretty rich when someone from a catholic institution acts high and mighty about pedophilia.
LikeLike
So the B1G should have been hasty & leaped to take punitive action before the legal system had even begun to run it’s course?
That’s a brilliant plan….If you want to get hammered in the inevitable lawsuit.
Yes Happy Valley is a vile place tainted by it’s veil of secrecy but the B1G overreacting early in the process would not serve anyone in the end.
LikeLike
Rich2,
What exactly would you have done or said if you were Delany? I see criticism, but no suggestions of what course of action the Big Ten should have taken. Although it does look like you wouldn’t have allowed PSU to go to a bowl game.
LikeLike
Rich, you’re full of it. The Big 10 shouldn’t do a damn thing to PSU. It’s not an issue of competition, and everyone involved is going to be out of the picture when this is said and done. There will be plenty of piling on without Delaney sticking his fat ass into the picture.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
I don’t think most people realize that at least 50% of every research contract goes to “overhead” and other nebulous terms that cover paying for running the school.
LikeLike
Brian:
You’re no suggesting that is inappropriate are you? Equipment, facilities, and support staff seem essential in addition to the primary researchers.
LikeLike
Throwing my $0.02 in…I don’t think it unreasonable and in fact is necessary (I mean it does cost money to conduct research so research funds should be permitted to pay for that), but I have seen at PSU buildings built that have a research focus but with undergraduate uses…most notably the Millennium Science Complex that is mostly graduate level and research oriented, but also have undergraduate additions (student commons rooms and I have to believe undergraduate lab facilities).
If there is a federal backlash against utilizing federal research funds in this manner (in effect using federal funds to pay for/subsidize undergraduate facilities by incorporating them into federal research endeavors) it could hurt greatly.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You’re no suggesting that is inappropriate are you?”
No, not at all. I just mean that most people have never worked in that environment and I think they assume all that money goes straight to the research, which is part of why they complain about how much research costs. They also think tuition alone pays to keep universities up and running.
LikeLike
Texas similarly has had a drop in state funding. The President describes them as “state assisted” now rather than state funded. Don’t recall the exact %, but its under 30% and may be as low as 10%. I believe it was over 50% in the 70s, back when in-state tuition & fees was $200/semester. Schools are more and more having to rely on donations and tuition increases.
LikeLike
I can understand funding tightens up, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for any the colleges (especially my Alma Matter). I drove by last week and construction is still non-stop at OSU. The new Ohio Union alone cost $118 million. Nothing its provides could possibly be worth a tenth of a billion dollars.
LikeLike
I think universities do need to take a hard look at their use of facilities. The vast majority of the time, most classrooms are empty. Each college and department is trying to have their own exclusive space. It doesn’t make financial sense.
LikeLike
Maybe…maybe not.
Any university with enrollment levels like that of most Big Ten universities are actually small cities. If you have an English Department like PSU’s …with 63 faculty at main campus plus admin plus support…it gets very easy to justify a new building. Especially when most facilities are already utilized due to the explosion of college attendance in the past two decades.
As for classrooms, I’m going to have to agree with you in general. but disagree in specific. At PSU there were a lot of general purpose classrooms and they were ~80% occupied from 0800 to 1600. There was definitely surplus though. The problem I always saw though was the school was loath to build new “classroom only” buildings (Willard and Sackett are perfect examples of that type of building) and they tended to be ancient (I used to place a ball in the middle of the hall of second floor Sackett and watch it roll on its own) and in need of repair, but were used too much for extensive construction to take place. They got around this by building new buildings , like the Information Systems & Technology building, which not only housed a brand new department, but also included additional classrooms (most likely a selling point to faculty so they wouldn’t have to walk so far for teaching classes), as well as the much needed bridge across Atherton St (I almost got hit by cars on that trek too many times to count…surprised someone hadn’t died and had the university sued).
What’s more, I can’t help but think this is the perfect time to do construction. Interest rates are nothing, land is cheap(er), and there is plenty of surplus material/labor looking to do work. In the end, that’s the thing I’ve hated the most about this whole situation…everyone wants to talk austerity and cutting back because “time’s are tough”, but the time to pay off debts is when times are good and you have plenty of money to do that and save up a bank roll for times just like these. Then you’re the guy with a wad of cash and the plans to get what needs done, done.
LikeLike
I disagree about it being a good time to build, but that’s only because I think things are on the cusp of getting a heck of a lot worse economically rather than better.
I won’t speak for all colleges, but in general there is a lot done that is simply overboard with building/maintenance costs. I’ll concede that for the colleges it’s probably easier to raise money for a new building than for scholarships (you can name it after someone after all), but I look at the major projects at OSU when I was there or just after I left and I know they were well overboard. $118 for the new Ohio (student) Union and a $105,000 million renovation of the main library were done at the same time! The Ohio Union was old, but not in bad shape and could have been used for a long time. The library looked older, but had no space problem that I could ever see (plenty of empty shelves).
LikeLike
I’ve actually been to that student Union building (went to the PSU v tOSU game in 2010). I can only say I agree totally with you. To me, that place was obviously set up as an “attraction center” with the idea of it being a “hub” for events and alumni. I honestly remember thinking where do the students do things (in comparison, Penn State’s Student Union building has huge open areas with tables / desks / couches for studying / eating / socializing)?
If it is meant as some sort of “show piece” maybe the cost is justified in the increased donations / whatever the heck else they do there. Then again, more likely a wealthy donor(s) dumped a lot of money and wanted a “kick ass” place to show off what they bought.
LikeLike
http://ohiounion.osu.edu/about_the_union/union_fee
“Student Union Facility Fee Description
The Student Union Facility Fee is a quarterly fee assessed to all students on the Columbus campus of The Ohio State University. The fee will directly fund construction and building renewal costs of the new Ohio Union. Construction costs for the $118 million project have also been funded through University central funds, Office of Student Life reserves, Ohio Union Reserves, contract agreements, and private donations.
…
Why did we build a new Ohio Union?
When the ‘old’ Ohio Union opened in 1951, it was considered one of the largest and best student unions in the country. For more than 50 years, the Ohio Union hosted significant campus events, long-standing Buckeye traditions, and the making of more memories than can be counted.. As the years rolled, however, the building became outdated and was unable to respond to the changing needs of students. For example, meeting space to accommodate student organizations did not exist and the building operated with 1951 mechanical units that did not provide for adequate heating, cooling, and ventilation.
A feasibility study was conducted to evaluate three possibilities, including renovation of the existing structure, an addition to the existing structure, or the construction of a new building. After consultation with students, faculty, and staff, it was determined that a new Ohio Union was in the best interests of the University and its students. Throughout the planning, construction, and opening of the building, students have been actively involved in the decision-making process.”
From http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/03/post_244.html
“Of the $118 million price tag, student fees account for $90 million.
Private donations and sponsorships make up $10 million. University general funds covered $11.5 million, and the Ohio Union used its own operating money to cover $6.5 million.”
You make it sound like OSU paid for it out of tuition and built it for no reason.
LikeLike
And now knowing that, if I went to OSU I’d still kinda be pissed. Its a gorgeous building I just don’t see how I, as a student, would use that building as anything other than a meeting place.
If they wanted to make a $120 million “Alumni Hall” then just go ahead and say so (PSU did exactly that…though ours only cost $10 million and came from private donors).
LikeLike
All the student organizations and student government have to have their offices somewhere. There also is a lot of meeting space and general use space for special events. There are a bunch of restaurants and shops, too. As a student I’d bitch because I never went to the old union, but who better to pay for it than the students that get the benefits of its presence? Taxpayers that never go there?
LikeLike
What do you guys think about the larger new BCS outside the semi-finals? There will be 12 bowls.
1. Do the Big 12/SEC end up in the Sugar or Cotton Bowl or something else?
2. Are most the places left open or do they sign conferences ahead of time?
3. Any rules for selecting teams for open positions or can the bowls choose whomever.
4. Will the new BCS bowls definitely be bigger than all outside bowls? Will the Peach Bowl for instance be able to get higher teams from the Big Ten and SEC if it becomes a BCS bowl than the Citrus Bowl (reverse from now)?
LikeLike
I think a lot of the new tie-ins will be re-worked, however, I posted above I’m still confused about the Champions Bowl arrangement. The original informal agreement was that it was to be played outside of the semi-final structure but the Andy Staples article is indicating otherwise. Then the Austin American Statesman article quoted Chuck Neinas that the Champions Bowl could very well become an existing bowl like the Cotton Bowl. So that leads me to believe they may work it in the rotation. For the sake of argument, let’s say it becomes the Cotton Bowl
For non-playoff BCS bowls, i think it has to be exclusive to the top 12 teams in the country. Part of the reason the Fiesta and Orange bowls lost their luster is cause too many fringe top 20-25 teams were playing. If a tie-in does meet a top 12 criteria, then it becomes an at-large spot. I think conferences will have a backup tie-in if their host bowl is in the semi-final rotation that year.
Year 1
Orange Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
Fiesta Bowl (Semi-Final#2)
Cotton Bowl (Non Playoff SEC vs Big 12)
Rose Bowl (Non Playoff Big 10 vs PAC 12)
Sugar Bowl (Non Playoff At-Large vs At-Large)
Chick-Fil-A Bowl (Non Playoff ACC vs at-large)
Year 2
Sugar Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
Chick-Fil-A bowl (Semi-Final#2)
Orange Bowl (Non-Playoff ACC vs At-Large)
Fiesta Bowl (Non-Playoff At-Large vs At-Large)
Cotton Bowl (Non-Playoff SEC vs Big 12)
Rose Bowl (Non-Playoff Big 10 vs PAC 12)
Year 3
Cotton Bowl (Semi-Final#1)
Rose Bowl (Semi-Final#2)
Sugar Bowl (Non Playoff SEC vs Big 10)
Chick-Fil-A (Non-Playoff At vs At-Large)
Orange Bowl (Non-Playoff ACC vs At-Large)
Fiesta Bowl (Non-Playoff Big 12 vs PAC 12)
Tie-Ins
SEC: Cotton (1st Tie-in), Sugar (backup tie-in)
Big 12: Cotton (1st Tie-In), Fiesta (backup tie-in)
Big 10: Rose (1st Tie-In), Sugar (backup tie-in)
PAC 12: Rose (1st Tie-In), Fiesta (backup tie-in)
ACC: Orange (1st Tie-In), Chick-Fil-A(backup tie-in)
LikeLike
I think the rules become pretty loose and if there are any rules of open spots, it’s just that they are top 20 or top 25. Bowls want as many options out there as they can get (they want the ability to both choose a top otherwise less attractive team and to choose a lower team who is better followed).
I think we get one extreme or the other with these. Either a) no conference can have more than 1 tie-in and most the spots remain open or b) conferences can have as many tie-ins as they want and only a few truly open spots remain.
LikeLike
@texmex – Good post. I was thinking along the exact same lines where each conference has a “backup” bowl for its when its top bowl is a semifinal.
The one thing I’ll say is that it’s presumptuous of the SEC and Big 12 to say that the Champions Bowl will be played in prime time on New Years Day no matter what. If the commissioners are serious about “taking back New Years Day” (as Chuck Neinas himself said), then one would think that at least 1 semifinal game is going to need to be played on New Years Day and the TV interests likely want it to be played in prime time. If there isn’t any semifinal on New Years Day, then it’s really just more of the same as today (or even worse since the Rose Bowl is at risk of being even more watered down in the new system).
A compromise would be to do the opposite of what was proposed, which is to make sure that the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl NEVER host the semifinals in the same year. We’ll assume that the Rose Bowl will be on New Years Day every year no matter what as a priority. Let’s also assume that they end up playing only 2 BCS bowls on New Years Day just as now (one of which will always be the Rose Bowl). The Champions Bowl could still be on New Years Day 2 out of every 3 years: in the years when it’s holding a semifinal and the years when the Rose Bowl is hosting a semifinal (where the Champions can be the 2nd BCS bowl game on that day).
LikeLike
I like your tie-ins a lot…except for the Big Ten in the Sugar. I think the Big Ten has enough SEC affiliated bowls already (all on their home turf, no less). To sign up for the Sugar on TOP of it all…nahhh. Switch the Big 12 with the Big Ten…or maybe even the Fiesta’s Pac-12 tie-in over to the Cotton.
I also have heard the Outback is more likely to get the 6th BCS bowl bid than the Chik-Fil-A. FWIW. Everybody thinks the Cotton is pretty much locked up–whether it becomes the Champs Bowl or not.
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind – From a pure Big Ten perspective, I’d certainly prefer the Outback being in the rotation as opposed to Chick-Fil-A. To the extent that these bowls are all going to be in warm weather locales, a Florida bowl at least provides some semblance of a balanced crowd with all of the Midwestern transplants, snowbirds and vacationers. In contrast, Atlanta provides even more of a home field advantage to an SEC team than New Orleans does.
LikeLike
Eric,
“What do you guys think about the larger new BCS outside the semi-finals? There will be 12 bowls.”
Do you have a link to any new official details, or is this based on old info? Last I knew, nothing was set in stone and can’t be until the playoff is decided. If the committee approves the 4 team playoff using a rotation of bowls to host semis, then TPTB can plan what the other top bowls will be.
“1. Do the Big 12/SEC end up in the Sugar or Cotton Bowl or something else?”
They said it would be a new bowl and bid out. Take them at their word until proven otherwise.
“2. Are most the places left open or do they sign conferences ahead of time?
3. Any rules for selecting teams for open positions or can the bowls choose whomever.”
Supposedly they were to be left open and assigned based on geography and rankings. This was a concession to get the non-AQs on board with the playoff system. Remember that geography apparently doesn’t apply to the B10 and MAC, but will for everyone else. There will be some freedom, but they were supposed to force the bowls to take pretty much the top teams left and not skip non-AQs for AQs. We’ll see when they officially announce it.
“4. Will the new BCS bowls definitely be bigger than all outside bowls?”
Yes. Pretty much definition. The bowls will clearly be split into tiers:
1. Bowls in the playoff
2. Bowls outside the playoff but part of the organized system
3. Other bowls
The payouts will probably be tiered, too, based on better TV deals. The top bowls outside the system will be on par with some of the “BCS” bowls, though, because they’ll get 2 AQs and some of the BCS bowls might not.
“Will the Peach Bowl for instance be able to get higher teams from the Big Ten and SEC if it becomes a BCS bowl than the Citrus Bowl (reverse from now)?”
If the peach was part of the group and the Citrus was outside, then yes.
If all the rumors are true, expect this:
1. Playoff bowls = Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Cotton, Champs (separate until proven otherwise, if so then Peach)
2. “BCS” bowls = Citrus, Hall of Fame, Peach, Alamo, Copper, Holiday
That’s 12 total, which I think is the plan.
3. Other bowls = Gator, Pinstripe, Sun, etc
LikeLike
Brian,
I was going mostly off the report that there will be 6 games in the rotation and I’m assuming those are the BCS (or whatever they are called bowls). That’s not a hard fact yet, but it sounds pretty likely based on that report and earlier talks about turning the BCS into a 12 team event.
1. Did the SEC/Big 12 actually ever say it would be a new bowl? I heard a lot about it being bid out, but was there ever anything officially saying that the bowl would be a new one? I know Dodds sounded like that’s what he thought, but I thought the Big 12 commissioners initial speech sounded a lot less like that was going to be the case (although it’s been awhile since I listened to either). My guess is that it’s an existing bowl in the end even if it results in a change of structure for that bowl.
2/3. I think them being assigned based on ranking and geography was them talking about a larger event (something 16 bowls, can’t remember the exact number). I would be very surprised if the BCS bowls operate the same way.
4. You are probably right about the BCS bowls being higher, but if that ends up being the case, I expect the Citrus to try hard to buy its way in over the Peach.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I was going mostly off the report that there will be 6 games in the rotation and I’m assuming those are the BCS (or whatever they are called bowls). That’s not a hard fact yet, but it sounds pretty likely based on that report and earlier talks about turning the BCS into a 12 team event.”
OK. I just didn’t know if I had missed a major story or something.
“1. Did the SEC/Big 12 actually ever say it would be a new bowl? I heard a lot about it being bid out, but was there ever anything officially saying that the bowl would be a new one? I know Dodds sounded like that’s what he thought, but I thought the Big 12 commissioners initial speech sounded a lot less like that was going to be the case (although it’s been awhile since I listened to either). My guess is that it’s an existing bowl in the end even if it results in a change of structure for that bowl.”
Initially, Slive said it would be a new bowl. Neinas has said other things. None of it is really official in my opinion. They don’t have any details and haven’t signed any contracts. All we can do is guess.
“2/3. I think them being assigned based on ranking and geography was them talking about a larger event (something 16 bowls, can’t remember the exact number). I would be very surprised if the BCS bowls operate the same way.”
A few will be above needing to do that, but even the BCS bowls have needed some help lately. The Sugar didn’t like last year’s turn out, and the Orange is sick of empty seats.
“4. You are probably right about the BCS bowls being higher, but if that ends up being the case, I expect the Citrus to try hard to buy its way in over the Peach.”
Of course they’ll try. The new renovations they just announced show that. It seems like those two will fight for the 6th spot unless someone comes out of nowhere.
LikeLike
Ok, so there’s this crazy rumor out there that the ACC met today and is extending an offer to ND to join as a partial member. But wait, it gets better, they will also invite WV. I guess they’d go to 3 pods of 5 for football? Who knows. Not buying the rumor, but decided to play what if for the heck of it.
So what if ND did decide the ACC is their future, ESPN reopens the contract, and that convinces all the ACC schools to stay put? My expectation is that Texas would be happy in the B12 and stay at 10, or maybe a couple of schools from the Big East or BYU added to get to 12, and the era of major conference expansion ends. If the ACC and B12 schools aren’t willing to move, we have detente.
But what if DeLoss Dodds and David Boren decide that without ND or adding ACC schools they can max revenues by moving elsewhere and reducing to 4 power conferences and effectively pulling up the drawbridge? If they can place the rest of the B12 schools in good homes, they can all agree to kill the grant of rights and dissolve the B12. If the ACC took WV, it wouldn’t be far fetched to see the other 9 schools land in the P12, B1G, and SEC to get them to 16. One possibility:
OU, KS, ISU, Rutgers to the B1G
UTx, TTech, Baylor, TCU to the P16
OkSU and KSU to the SEC
B1G gets 3 AAU and a marque equivalent to Nebraska (both on the field and academically now that NU has been stripped of AAU status.) ISU duplicates the footprint but hey, everybody compromises a little while gaining a substantial $ windfall from the enhanced bargaining power, narrower split, and exclusivity of 4×16 power conferences. Perhaps a deal with the P16 to jointly market their cable channels in all their states or maybe even a near merger. OU Prez Boren salivating over B1G membership and prestige probably overcomes the coach’s resistance to playing both UTx and OkSU OOC each year.
P16 holds their nose with Baylor but gets the big dog. Larry Scott has already said the LHN issues could be overcome. The P12 channel concept is to put a double combo of the main channel and a shared team channel in every market, why not make that a 3 channel block in Texas with the main channel, LHN, and a TTech-Baylor-TCU channel? Doable.
SEC gets 2 new states with 8+ million population and a tidy pod of aTm, OkSU, KSU, and Mizzou. Or maybe they demand TCU instead of OKSt or KSU if they want more games in Texas.
Other possibilities ways to horse trade it:
UTx Bay KS Rutgers – B1G
OU OkSU TTech ISU – P16
TCU KSU – SEC
——-
UTx OU Bay Rutgers – B1G
TTech OkSU KS ISU – P16
TCU KSU – SEC
——-
Again, I think the rumors today are probably complete bunk. But there are few things we can 100% rule out at this point right now, either. So some food for thought.
LikeLike
I think WVU to the ACC is one we can 100% rule out. I think the Dude was BUI.
LikeLike
If you’re going to invent scenarios they should have some believability. Was alcohol involved?
LikeLike
First off UT isn’t going anywhere since they are currently tied to their LHN. None of the other conferences would let them keep it (the Pac 12 was never on board with UT having their LHN in it’s current form). No other conference (SEC included) will take TCU, KSU, Baylor, ISU, or Ok St (unless they were a package deal with OU). And neither the B1G (who won’t take them regardless) or the Pac 12 (who apparently doesn’t want them without a LHN free UT) want OU because of academic reasons. It would take a super majority (I’m not sure of the exact number) of the schools to agree to dissolve the Big 12 in order to kill the GOR. So WVU and the rest of the Big 12 are stuck for at least another 5 to 6 years, and maybe longer if they ever sign the GOR extention.
LikeLike
The Big 12 was saved, for all intents and purposes, when the Pac presidents twice refused to allow Okie State into their conference. As a result, the ACC is now firmly in the #5 position and is clearly the most vulnerable if the landscape changes to an immutable four-conference scenario. If any conference is going to be divvied up down the road, it will be the ACC.
LikeLike
vp19:
Are you counting UT’s scuttling the P16 in 2010 as the PAC denying OkSU? As to last year, that is one scenario…but not the only one.
Big 12 is saved for length of GOR (I can’t see enough suitable landing places to get the votes to dissolve, negating GOR). ACC has huge east coast markets (whether fully realized or not, they are east). Big 12 has Texas, and OU’s brand. The ACC improves a bit on the field and which conference is fifth? In spite of your protestations the ACC is still more stable, and will be until they lose as many strong members (4) and reload with a couple move ups.
LikeLike
By definition the Big XII is more stable for the length of the GOR (6 years now and 13 once the TV deal is finalized).
The fact that the ACC hasn’t even mentioned the possibility of signing a GOR means at least some members believe they have an opportunity to move to a better home in the near future.
LikeLike
vp19:
Are you counting UT’s scuttling the P16 in 2010 as the PAC denying OkSU? As to last year, that is one scenario…but not the only one.
Yes. The 2010 situation would have killed the Big 12; the 2011 “Pac-14” would have wounded it. And I agree with Frug; if the ACC is as stable as its stalwarts proclaim, why no GOR? Because no one wants to be locked into a second-tier conference, and in a worst-case scenario, many of its members will have options, unlike some of the Big 12 weaklings who have no real alternative. Maryland is no Iowa State.
The Big 12 at least has Texas, which carries a lot of weight, and Oklahoma carries nearly as much. The ACC? Florida State, not quite as strong a brand as OU; Miami, which is becoming as relevant as post-Tarkanian UNLV basketball (which is to say, not much); and North Carolina, which thinks it’s Texas until it steps onto the football field.
LikeLike
Frug:
As I said, the B12 is saved (captive?) for length of GOR. That isn’t what I consider the best sign of stability, though it helps. Unstable by action (that doesn’t qualify as by definition?) is losing strong, long time members. As of right now the ACC is the opposite, adding 2 new members soon.
LikeLike
cc, everyone has a breaking point. For the ACC, that will come when its revenue falls far behind what it considers its peer conferences (the other four), and it discovers to its dismay that — as the Big East is now learning — its precious basketball won’t come to the rescue. The Big 12 from top to bottom is certainly a more motley crew than the ACC, but its top tier keeps everyone afloat. The ACC’s top tier has nothing similar in football value.
LikeLike
Many FSU fans seem to think adding two new members who aren’t very good in football right now was a sign of weakness, not strength. The addition is viewed as a defensive move in the event of more defections and is apparently part of Clemson’s and FSU’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the conference.
LikeLike
Many FSU fans seem to think adding two new members who aren’t very good in football right now was a sign of weakness, not strength. The addition is viewed as a defensive move in the event of more defections and is apparently part of Clemson’s and FSU’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the conference.
Agreed. Taking SU and Pitt instead of WVU and L’ville did little for the Clemson and FSU fan bases, although academically WVU and UL were never ACC matches in the first place. And if Rutgers and/or Connecticut ever join the ACC to make it 16 (though I sense the ACC wants nothing to do with UConn as a member), that would be the last straw.
There is a pecking order of conferences. The Big Ten, SEC and possibly the Pac are on the first tier, the Big 12 is next, followed by the ACC, followed in turn by the Big East and so on. Where else could the ACC have gone for members that would have fit its needs, athletically, academically and geographically? Boise State? Brigham Young? Even without the GOR, no Big 12 member would defect to the ACC unless it was part of a bloc (e.g. ISU/KSU/KU). The ACC had few realistic choices, and Syracuse and Pittsburgh were the most sensible.
LikeLike
vp19:
I agree to an extent with how it appears. I’m just saying that action speak louder. Words spin, and sometimes accurately forecast actions. Actions have real world effects. If Pitt and Syracuse had joined the B12 and TCU/WVU were headed to the ACC I’d call that a stronger move for the B12 than what happened. But what has happened, happened. It’s not a matter of attributing value/position based upon what might come. If more change comes then there is basis to make an adjustment by evaluating the new makeup of the conferences. And I don’t mean to say the ACC is all peaches and cream. Just that because some would like things a bit different doesn’t mean that using leverage to try to get it is a sign the sky has fallen.
LikeLike
No, the sky hasn’t fallen. But if it does, it more likely will fall on the ACC than the Big 12 because it’s a) weaker as a football brand, and b) has more properties that could prosper somewhere else than the Big 12 has. Let’s look at the public, non-football kings each has. I think we can safely say that on the open market, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson and Georgia Tech have substantially more collective value than West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Interesting argument. More valuable equates to more vulnerable. I get what you are saying, but that assumes that any endgame starts with the premis that nobody gets left behind. I’m not advocating for that, but it has happened. Ask Loki.
LikeLike
vp19, The opinion that the ACC is ‘firmly #5’ is a temporary judgement based on criteria that most universities don’t consider as the overwhelming driver for conference alignment: media money. IMHO, the large majority of the ACC is in its ideal conference (schools would only move if there was no ACC). In other words, TPTB/students/faculty/fans at most schools would prefer to be in the ACC over any other conference. In a tough economy, TV revenue becomes more important and can lead to good rumors. The ACC is much more stable than the Big East. Having 5 viable major conferences is the likely long-term state for cfb…unless one conference implodes due to self-inflicted harm (hence why the Big XII had no choice other than a GOR).
Bullet, I don’t believe that the ACC expansion is viewed by FSU and Clemson fans as a defensive move. These fans are angry about losing to their SEC rivals and the expansion can’t address this issue. It’s possible that admitting WVU could have calmed these fans by deflecting attention for another year. ACC fb teams, especially FSU and Clemson, need to win.
LikeLike
If the Champions Bowl is everything I think it will be, the already slender chances of an ACC team qualifying for a 4-team playoff over the rest of the decade just grew even slimmer. That is bound to place the ACC in a near-permanent #5 spot, leading to lessened revenue, recruiting and reputation. The anger you see from the Florida State and Clemson fan bases will begin to permeate some other ACC schools; already you are seeing substantial support for a Big Ten move at Maryland message boards. If Virginia, UNC and Duke want to stay in their insular little world while their revenue continues to diminish, that’s their prerogative. Meanwhile, several other ACC members will high-tail it out of there.
LikeLike
vp19,
“If the Champions Bowl is everything I think it will be, the already slender chances of an ACC team qualifying for a 4-team playoff over the rest of the decade just grew even slimmer.”
The two are unrelated. Phil Steele is picking FSU to go 13-0 and play in the NCG. If he’s right, I expect the view of the ACC will suddenly change. The champs bowl won’t mean much if the true champs keep making the playoff anyway.
“That is bound to place the ACC in a near-permanent #5 spot, leading to lessened revenue, recruiting and reputation.”
I hate to break it to you, but revenues will only increase. All the AQs are looking at something like $4+ M per school from the playoff, plus what they make from all the bowls, plus the growing TV deals. The gap may grow, too, but so will the gap to everyone below the ACC. Recruiting has been fine and will stay that way based on location. Their reputation will be fine as long as they win some major bowl games. Sooner or later they have to break that BCS trend.
“The anger you see from the Florida State and Clemson fan bases will begin to permeate some other ACC schools; already you are seeing substantial support for a Big Ten move at Maryland message boards.”
It’s not a shock to see a school in financial trouble and neighbor to a B10 school contemplate the move.
“If Virginia, UNC and Duke want to stay in their insular little world while their revenue continues to diminish, that’s their prerogative.”
What else would they do?
LikeLike
vp19,
The Champions Bowl is an Orwellian fiction…from most fans’ perspective it will soon be seen as the consolation game between not-good-enough SEC and Big XII teams. The champions from those conferences will never want to play in that game because it means that they were not worthy of a MNC. TX, AL, OK, LSU have higher aspirations…Arkansas v K State will be the common match. The real value of the Champions Bowl:
1. It forced the Rose Bowl/B1G/PAC to negotiate equitably in this 4 team playoff. Although the RB still has pageantry and history, it no longer had undisputed rights to being the sole meaningful bowl (i.e., matching the winners of 2 power conferences). The SEC needed leverage in its drive for a playoff.
2. It’s a good way to make money. Most bowls have a beauty pageant aspect…this game will have it in spades. The SEC and Big XII have great reputations in cfb and that sells on TV.
3. It greatly enhanced the perception of the Big XII. After a couple of chaotic years, the Big XII is solidly recognized for its cfb prowess.
With regards to lessened recruitment, you greatly misunderstand the geographic advantage inherent in the ACC. VA, NC, GA and FL have a lot of good recruits; SC and MD have their fair share of recruits. ACC schools more than hold their own in recruiting; ACC players also get drafted fairly well by NFL teams. FSU is generally a top 10 recruiting school; Clemson, Miami, GT, VT, UVA and UNC are all accustomed to top 30 recruiting classes. From a talent perspective, the ACC is a bunch of underachievers (another reason why ND would be a better fit with the ACC). Unless there is a mass exodus of at least 5 or 6 southern teams from the ACC, the geography will always point towards universities staying aligned with the ACC. Dabo Swinney listed the recruitment advantage as a key rationale for preferring the ACC.
LikeLike
@bamatab,
The Big XII super-majority was always 75% or 8 schools in a 12 team league. Presumably at 10 it is 8 out of the 10. The glaring issue here is that 4 of the teams that had a chance of leaving for a “better” conference already have. That seriously hurts the prospects going forward of getting enough votes.
LikeLike
For stuff like expansion it’s 8 of 10, though the GOR required unanimous approval with no abstentions so who knows what it would take to dissolve the conference.
(Of course if the “right” 6 schools left it might be impossible for the leftovers to get enough new members to meet the NCAA minimum of 8 teams in which the conference would collapse even without a vote to dissolve)
LikeLike
Playoffs Now,
“Ok, so there’s this crazy rumor out there that the ACC met today and is extending an offer to ND to join as a partial member. But wait, it gets better, they will also invite WV.”
No link for those that haven’t seen this rumor and don’t trawl the depths of message boards or Twitter? A quick search only found a GT fan saying that’s what they ACC should do, and he also threw out PSU as an option.
“So what if ND did decide the ACC is their future, ESPN reopens the contract, and that convinces all the ACC schools to stay put?”
Adding ND as a non-FB member doesn’t add squat to their contract, and neither does WV. They’d get the same per team.
“My expectation is that Texas would be happy in the B12 and stay at 10, or maybe a couple of schools from the Big East or BYU added to get to 12, and the era of major conference expansion ends. If the ACC and B12 schools aren’t willing to move, we have detente.”
For now. In 20 years, there will be a reason for it to happen again.
“But what if DeLoss Dodds and David Boren decide that without ND or adding ACC schools they can max revenues by moving elsewhere and reducing to 4 power conferences and effectively pulling up the drawbridge?”
Not going to happen any time soon. Maybe with a new NCAA division split and/or the next generation of the playoff.
“If they can place the rest of the B12 schools in good homes, they can all agree to kill the grant of rights and dissolve the B12. If the ACC took WV, it wouldn’t be far fetched to see the other 9 schools land in the P12, B1G, and SEC to get them to 16.”
Actually, I think that would be very far fetched. Who else wants ISU, KSU, TT, TCU, WV, Baylor, KU and OkSU right now? Some of them might get a free ticket to go with OU and UT, but most are unwanted.
“One possibility:
OU, KS, ISU, Rutgers to the B1G”
The B10 already said no to OU, KU adds very little, ISU has zero value and RU apparently doesn’t add much. Why would they take this group of 4? What is the incentive? I could see UT gaining, but how does the B10 gain from this?
“UTx, TTech, Baylor, TCU to the P16”
Three schools they don’t want to get UT? Doubtful. Two are religious schools and TT is not a bastion of top academics.
“OkSU and KSU to the SEC”
There is no way the SEC takes a little brother and a nobody. It’s not like they are gaining territory this way.
“Other possibilities ways to horse trade it:
UTx Bay KS Rutgers – B1G”
I could buy taking Baylor to get UT as plausible, but I don’t see enough value in KU and RU.
“OU OkSU TTech ISU – P16”
They already turned down OU/OkSU. How do TT and ISU make it better?
“TCU KSU – SEC”
I could maybe see TCU for more TX access, but not KSU.
——-
“UTx OU Bay Rutgers – B1G”
How many times must the B10 say no to OU?
“TTech OkSU KS ISU – P16”
They don’t want any of those schools.
“TCU KSU – SEC”
See above.
——-
“Again, I think the rumors today are probably complete bunk.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
The ND to the ACC rumor is similar to the one about them joining the Big XII. Olympic sports only and an agreement to play 3 – 5 FB games/year against ACC teams. The rumor makes sense if you believe that ND is seriously looking at leaving the BE for the Big XII. It would be in the best interest of the ACC to make an offer as well.
I don’t buy into the WVU portion of the rumor.
LikeLike
“The rumor makes sense if you believe that ND is seriously looking at leaving the BE for the Big XII. It would be in the best interest of the ACC to make an offer as well.”
My problem with these rumors is for the most part they fail to address the conference on the the end. The SEC is admittedly a football heavy conference, but they are making upwards of 70% of their conference distribution from football related revenue sources. Having Notre Dame join your conference for Olympic sports really doesn’t do anything for your conference unless you get a scheduling agreement for football. And to move the needle there you’d probably need 5 to 6 games a year from them to ensure you get 2 to 3 Notre Dame games covered by your conference deal. If Notre Dame is playing 6 football games versus 1 conference, even if they keep their NBC deal, they’ve given up a fair amount of their independence.
LikeLike
My problem with these rumors is for the most part they fail to address the conference on the the end…
Having Notre Dame join your conference for Olympic sports really doesn’t do anything for your conference unless you get a scheduling agreement for football.
You are absolutely right. ND’s non-football sports are not only worthless, they are literally worth less than nothing. Their MBB program alone has lost $5 million over the past two seasons despite being a revenue sport at 90% of AQ schools.
That said.
Giving ND a home for its non-football schools might still be in the ACC’s best interest as a defensive move. If ND feels it needs to leave the BEast and no other conference is willing to take it as a non-football member (and none will, Deloss Dodds delusions not withstanding) then giving the Irish a place to park its Olympic sports would be the best way to stave off an arms race that could tear the conference apart.
LikeLike
I think Notre Dame to the ACC would make sense for both parties, but probably won’t happen.
1. It is a big step for the ACC to take over as the northeastern basketball league. With Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and Notre Dame, there’s an argument to be made that the ACC will have more attention in the northeast than the Big East.
2. The bowl set-up is likely helped by the Irish. They’ll take bowls up to so this could work either way, but if you have a provision where they can’t take any bowl more than once Notre Dame probably improves the ACC’s bowl presence (or at least their payout on those).
3. Even if you only are guaranteed 1-2 home games against Notre Dame a year, they’ll likely be national games which helps TV.
4. Long term, this would make the ACC the most likely conference for Notre Dame football if it ever joins a conference.
LikeLike
The Big 12 makes more financial sense for an Notre Dame partial, particularly with the Tier 3. If ND wants to play basketball games on the East Coast, it can always schedule a non-conference game or two each year at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, MSG in Manhattan, Wells Fargo in Philadelphia or the Verizon Center in D.C.
LikeLike
With Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and Notre Dame, there’s an argument to be made that the ACC will have more attention in the northeast than the Big East.
Nobody in the northeast cares about BC or ND’s BB programs. (And based on their financial and attendance data most of the schools fans don’t either).
LikeLike
Eric,
The ACC is a perfect fit for Notre Dame, but it won’t happen.
In the 70s – early 90s, the great whale for the ACC was UGa. It was the ‘perfect fit’: a southern aristocratic school with the right mix of academics and athletics. In that time, it would have been a perfect match with schools like UVA, UNC, MD & Clemson. Unfortunately for the ACC, the SEC had more to offer. Specifically, the SEC expanded its geography to South Carolina (so UGa was no longer in the periphery); the SEC put its championship game in Atlanta; the SEC has cleaned up most of its outlaw reputation while enhancing its football passion.
For at least the last decade, the great whale for the ACC seems to be Notre Dame. The ACC now has a lot of private universities, as well as schools in big cities. Spanning the entire east coast, excelling at similar sports and having many institutions with reputations for selective undergraduate education should appeal to Notre Dame. Unfortunately for the ACC, football independence seems to be in the DNA of Notre Dame. Somehow Notre Dame fans equate football independence with their unique identity…joining a conference would tarnish their mystic rather than allow the university to grow.
LikeLike
In the 70s – early 90s, the great whale for the ACC was UGa. It was the ‘perfect fit’: a southern aristocratic school with the right mix of academics and athletics. In that time, it would have been a perfect match with schools like UVA, UNC, MD & Clemson
What? I’ve followed the ACC since the early ’70s, and never at any time have I heard Georgia — an SEC member since its inception in 1933 — mentioned as a potential ACC entrant. And with the generally lackluster quality of ACC football, I seriously doubt UGa ever would have been interested.
Georgia Tech — which was virtually as popular as Georgia while it was in the SEC — certainly fit the academic/athletic pattern the ACC sought, which is why it filled the void left by South Carolina when GT became the eighth ACC member in 1979-80 (though it didn’t become eligible for football until 1983).
LikeLike
Pablo,
I know football in the ACC isn’t going to happen (at least anytime soon). I think it’s a good fit for both sides even from a non-football perspective though (although the ACC will go for that).
LikeLike
I meant to say I don’t think the ACC will go for that.
LikeLike
Eric, if I were Swarbrick and both the ACC and Big 12 asked me to move ND’s non-football programs to their conference, I go with the Big 12 every time because of more Tier 3 potential — if the Big 12 agrees that ND plays no more than four football games each year against conference schools (five if Florida State joins), with Texas and Oklahoma automatically in the mix and one home and one road game against a rotation of the other conference schools..
LikeLike
I’m still not sure that ND’s non-football tier 3 rights would be worth enough to off-set playing in a league where we would have to find new homes for the lax and swimming teams and men’s soccer. The ACC is also the much better mens basketball brand.
The tier 3 rights ND would mostly be concerned about is in Hockey with the NBC deal. Neither side is close to a hockey deal so this is a non-issue.
That said, as a Domer, I would find games football games against NC State (least interesting ACC opponent) more interesting than ISU or KU. Since the ACC is bigger, we have more time in between scheduling less interesting opponents.
LikeLike
@FLP
The Big XII sponsors swimming and diving, but you are right about lax and mens’ soccer.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t understand the Tier 3 argument. Since this is non-football, you’re talking about sports that already bring nothing to the table. It’s already been established how Notre Dame basketball actually loses money.What great value is there to these TV rights? If you could get even 1 million, I’d be shocked (and I would think hockey would not be included too). It’s more than offset by the likely differences between the two conferences.
LikeLike
Big XII Men’s swimming will be Texas, WVU, and TCU. That’s not a league, that’s a meet. Big East and ACC have a full league slate.
LikeLike
ISU and KU sponsor women’s swimming and diving, but you are right that the men’s side is a little lacking.
LikeLike
The rumor makes sense if they are looking to leave the BE. And if you believe the ACC would accept the non FB member deal. Not sure how the B12 figures in to that.
LikeLike
ND is not joining the ACC in football. Having secured access to the playoff what possible benefit is derived from that? I do believe the ACC, out of desperation, will take ND on their terms. Terms that include FSU or CLEMSON signing whatever loyalty oath is necessary to stay put.
If that’s the case, (and yes, I realize this is far fetched) I would love nothing more than to have Dalany bring Oklahoma into the fold, creating “THE GAME II” for the B1G while weakening the Big 12 and foiling Slive’s ‘Champions game’ masterstroke.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“If that’s the case, (and yes, I realize this is far fetched) I would love nothing more than to have Dalany bring Oklahoma into the fold, creating “THE GAME II” for the B1G while weakening the Big 12 and foiling Slive’s ‘Champions game’ masterstroke.”
1. Yes, the premise is far fetched.
2. The B10 doesn’t want OU even if fans do. It’s not happening.
3. Let’s look at the impact of adding OU:
a. If OU becomes NE’s top rival, how does PSU respond?
They don’t like that OSU treats them as a lesser rival than MI and now NE would do the same. On the bright side, they may finally get another eastern team.
b. Who is #14 and how do division get split?
OU gives the West another top team and the NE/OU rivalry to balance The Game. Possible split assuming divisions and an eastern #14 (RU, MD, Pitt):
West = OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, NW
East = OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, IN, PU, #14
Locked rivals: None, preferring to rotate through 2 of 7 equally instead. There is very little history between the B10 and Big 8 kings, and division games would provide 4 king/king games, 7 king/prince games and 1 prince/prince game which is pretty good (not to mention the crossover games that will add several more). If TV demanded locked games, it might be these:
OSU/OU, MI/NE, PSU/IA, MSU/WI, PU/IL, IN/MN, NW/#14
Fans will like the geographic split, WI and IA will be ecstatic to get their rivalry back, PSU will be thrilled to get an eastern foe, the kings are happy to lose the locked rivalry with a king (esp. OU who still plays UT), most fans will like losing the chance at a repeat of The Game in the CCG (the B10 might not be so happy).
c. What does it do to the money? I can’t see much gain per team, but adding a king wouldn’t lead to a loss, either. OK doesn’t add a ton of cable TV homes, but the eastern team might.
d. Academic impact
OU is a cellar dweller, but the eastern team should be above average.
e. Camaraderie
Getting bigger makes it feel less like a conference and more like two separate ones that play a lot. The eastern team will be a cultural outlier based on their region, and so will OU to an extent.
f. From a FB perspective, there’s a lot to like about this.
4. Weakening the B12 is only helpful if the B10 gets UT out of it eventually. Otherwise UT will head west or go independent.
5. The Champs Bowl is a good idea and fans should support it.. If OU and UT both leave, the SEC may play against the ACC instead. It won’t match the Rose Bowl, but it’s still a good idea.
LikeLike
#14 would have to be a PSU appeaser as well as an academic gem.
Red hot, historical rivalries will be the life’s blood of the BTN if it has aspirations to be a truly national network in the future. ND aside, name me an Eastern school that would add more value to the Big Ten than Oklahoma, when coupled with Nebraska. The notion that teams located in east coast population centers will automatically attract eyeballs to the BTN is a false premise.
UNC would be a catch for sure, but as I’ve stated, I believe ND will go to the ACC in some capacity and that FSU will remain as well. None of these scenarios is likely to happen -ever, but to not consider a football King like Oklahoma which is actually making some strides academically – HEY, I hear you laughing! – is retrograde thinking in the land-grab era of conference expansion as relates to national sports networks.
LikeLike
Great Lake State,
“#14 would have to be a PSU appeaser as well as an academic gem.”
So, probably RU, MD or Pitt like I said.
“Red hot, historical rivalries will be the life’s blood of the BTN if it has aspirations to be a truly national network in the future.”
I don’t think it has those aspirations. The B10 knows it will need a true national network (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) as a partner for the foreseeable future.
“ND aside, name me an Eastern school that would add more value to the Big Ten than Oklahoma, when coupled with Nebraska.”
Any school that is good enough to be accepted by the COP/C because OU isn’t (for now, at least). Pitt, RU, MD, etc.
“The notion that teams located in east coast population centers will automatically attract eyeballs to the BTN is a false premise.”
No, but they will lead to more homes paying for the BTN. OK is slightly bigger than IA.
“UNC would be a catch for sure, but as I’ve stated, I believe ND will go to the ACC in some capacity and that FSU will remain as well.”
I don’t see ND moving for a while. I agree FSU will stay, for a while. Long term they may both be in the P24 for all we know.
“None of these scenarios is likely to happen -ever,”
Agreed.
“but to not consider a football King like Oklahoma which is actually making some strides academically – HEY, I hear you laughing!”
OU needs to make a lot more than a few strides before the B10 would be interested. The COP/C made that pretty clear. And the closer you get to the top, the harder it is to keep moving up as the other schools are all trying to improve as well.
” – is retrograde thinking in the land-grab era of conference expansion as relates to national sports networks.”
That’s a wonderful speech, but it has no bearing on what the COP/C has said or will do. Until the view the athletic conference as separate from the academic conference, they won’t accept a school like OU. Accept it and move on.
LikeLike
Get over Oklahoma. It’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m over the East Coast. ESPN contracts don’t lie.
LikeLike
In fairness those contracts are based on having to pay for 1) extremely small schools (and thus alumni) with limited to no football fanbase (think Villanova) and/or 2) extremely large schools with little to no football fanbase (think UConn or Rutgers). When you start counting certain states as “Big Ten” states (due to state universities AND the level of migrant alumni from other Big Ten universities being in the conference) I think those contracts go way up.
LikeLike
The Big 10 has no good expansion scenerio right now, with ND giving us the one finger salute. That’s why people are reaching with ideas like OK or NC/VA/MD.
As for OK, the presidents aren’t going to add another questionable academic school, at least without the “cover” of another outstanding academic school (like UNC, which won’t happen for different reasons). Even if they would consider it, which they wouldn’t, OK fans want nothing to do with the Big 10. You can’t move to a conference where 90% of the fans don’t want to be.
LikeLike
Where do you get the idea that 90% of OU fans would be against a move to the Big 10? OU has more in common with the Big 10 schools than the PAC and the fanbase didn’t have a problem with that.
LikeLike
To clarify, When I say schools I am including the fanbases.
LikeLike
actually OK behavior is not tolerated in B10 country:
http://www.kwwl.com/story/18870958/four-men-accused-of-noodling-catfish
LikeLike
@jj
Because that would go over much better in LA and Berkeley ;P
(And noodling is actually legal in Illinois)
LikeLike
:p
LikeLike
Frug:
The asian carp in IL jump right in the boat.
LikeLike
What do you all suppose are the chances Boise State elects to stay in the Mountain West after all? Is everything really contingent on BSU receiving an invitation to the Big West for non-football sports and/or the WAC somehow surviving as a non-football conference, or would BSU still join the Big East and simply cross its fingers that it would find a home for non-football sports?
If BSU does not join the Big East, what ramifications are there for that league? Would San Diego State decide to stay in the MWC as well? Would the BE try to “replace” BSU with another western FBS school as a way of keeping SDSU in the fold?
I find this whole story rather interesting and overlooked due to the announcement that we are getting a playoff.
LikeLike
My belief is that Boise is just trying to hold its cards as long as possible, all the way to the July 1 deadline. I think that it is trying to juggle negotiations 4 different ways: (1) with the Big East, to try to get financial help in an attempt to join the Big West, which is reluctant to admit a second non-California member; (2) with the Big West, which would likely demand Boise cover the travel expenses for the California teams visiting them; (3) with the WAC and remaining members to try and put together a viable non-FB league in case the Big West indeed does not offer membership under any circumstances; and (4) with the MWC, the one viable conference that Boise can be in long-term without worry of disbanding or cumbersome travel stipends.
It’s really a tough call on Boise’s part. If they can get in the Big West without having to pay excessively for other members’ expenses, then it’s all gravy. And that’s a BIG if. Meanwhile, the WAC’s continued existence is highly doubtful. New Mexico State, Idaho, Denver, and Seattle are the only other members, with NMSU and Idaho likely headed to the Big Sky and a reluctant downgrade to FCS. Even if other brand-new D1 schools like Utah Valley State joined, the WAC would barely meet the minimum number of members to be a D1 conference. So, the real question is, “Is it worth joining the Big East for football only and putting the rest of the athletic department’s programs at risk of having no conference home?”
My sense is that the answer is, “No.” Boise State did the understandable thing by joining the Big East for football at the time. It could not have predicted that the MWC, Sun Belt, and C-USA would have stripped the WAC of everyone else at the time because all indications were that C-USA and the MWC were just going to merge, leaving little reason for them to raid the WAC. In the end, I think Boise will lose $5 million to the Big East, and even more in lost future Big East television revenue, but it will at least have a secure conference for all its sports with the Mountain West. As for how that would effect San Diego State, it’s hard to say. It would really hurt the Big East, but that just goes with the theme, right? If something can go wrong in conference realignment for the Big East, it WILL go wrong.
LikeLike
The WAC is in severe trouble. They could get to 8 members easily-Utah Valley, CSU-Bakersfield and UT Pan Am are all western schools with no homes. The problem is meeting the NCAA sports sponsorship requirements. The sports the schools sponsor don’t match well and its hard to see how they get to the required number of sponsored sports.
LikeLike
The story that Boise State might renege on its Big East commitment is interesting. Aside from the collapse of the WAC, there’s every reason to think that it is directly tied to the fact that Big East BCS status no longer means as much now that we’ve got a four team national playoff. Boise State clearly has legitimate national championship hopes based on recent performance that could have been enhanced by membership in a BCS conference under the old system. Am not convinced any of this applies for San Diego State. Boise State is dragging their feet so much on this decision that I would expect San Diego State to decide independently based on their own criteria (it’s not like the two schools are particularly close to each other as historic or geographic rivals).
There is no predicting what the Big East does if Boise State reneges. Don’t know that there are many western schools that necessarily accept a Big East bid at this point.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, Ron, regarding BCS status being removed as a big reason Boise could renege, but I disagree. Even though it wasn’t clear in November/December that a playoff was going to emerge, it was fairly certain that AQ status was going away. Boise knew that when it joined the Big East. At the time, it still seemed worthwhile to move to a weakened Big East because of increased national exposure, improved bowl second-tier bowl tie-ins, and dramatically better television revenue. Even as the “Big Five” power conferences distanced themselves from #6 Big East, the Big East likewise further distanced itself from C-USA and the MWC by taking all their best members (except for ECU and, arguably, Southern Miss).
It will always be easier for a 13-0 or 12-1 Boise State team that wins even a weakened Big East to make the playoffs than it will be for a BSU team with the same record as a MWC champ to make the top four. In fact, I would be shocked if a 13-0 Big East champion fails to make the top four; after all, TCU finished in the top four two years in a row after going 12-0 in an even weaker Mountain West Conference. But the same did not happen for Boise when it was in the late-00’s WAC, which is essentially the same league that the Mountain West is today. Therefore, staying in the MWC would be all-around bad for Boise’s chances of winning a national title.
LikeLike
Boise gained a lot of respect after the 2nd BCS win though and I suspect for at least the next few years would get in the semi-finals if undefeated from the Mountain West.
That said, the Big East deal with Boise State will be a lot bigger than the Mountain West deal with them. Even though the Mountain West will be more open to giving Boise State a higher portion of the revenue, it’s still probably in both Boise State and the Big East’s interest to work something out. If that means overpaying to get into the Big West, I suspect they’ll do it.
If Boise State doesn’t end up in the Big East for some reason though (pretty unlikely in my opinion), it’s possible the Big East and Mountain West end up equal perception wise. All it would take would San Diego State changing its mind too (although I doubt that too) and you have the Mountain West as the western equal of the eastern Big East.
LikeLike
Michael, I agree with you and Eric that it’s probably in Boise State’s best interest to stick with the Big East deal if they can make it work. They’ve worked pretty hard to establish themselves as a national football power. Where you and I have a point of discussion (and don’t think it’s truly major in the context of expansion) is that the new playoff system really doesn’t give any particular credit for a team winning a BCS conference championship. That wasn’t known back when Boise State first made their deal with the Big East.
LikeLike
I think Boise stays in the MWC. With the end of the BCS, there’s no benefit to going to the Big East. The Big East at this point is such low quality football product that it won’t have any inherent weight to it.
Also keep in mind that Boise isn’t Texas or a B1G school. They don’t have money to burn, which makes a convenient, geographically sensible location for their other sports much more inviting.
LikeLike
@Michael – IMHO – San Diego St. is gone no matter what. They’ve already withdrawn and they’ve found a home for its Olympic sports.
The Mountain West really wants Boise. I think with Boise, the MW will probably get its exemption and become an AQ conference. What I’m surprised hasn’t happened yet, is the MW hasn’t leaked or implied that if Boise stays they’ll take Idaho. I know they probably don’t want Idaho, but the MW with Boise and Idaho is greater than without. I can’t imagine Boise still moving without an Olympic home and the political pressure mounting to “save” Idaho.
LikeLike
From what I’ve been reading, Boise and Idaho are at war in the state and Boise wants nothing more than to see Idaho drop off the map. I don’t think there is any political pressure.
LikeLike
I know very little about politics in Idaho and Boise (I just looked up the governor’s bio to see that he is a Boise grad*). However, I would have to imagine that it would be better for the state as a whole (and be popular with Idaho U alums who vote) to pressure Boise into casting Idaho U a life line. Are Boise and Idaho U at such a war they can’t/won’t do what’s best for the state?
*He is also an “Idaho College” graduate and I am assuming Idaho College isn’t Idaho U since it’s not in Moscow (via http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/index.html).
LikeLike
I don’t have an Idaho native’s knowledge. I’ve just picked up on the forums and related newspaper articles over the years that there is a continuing battle to keep Idaho as the flagship by people in lightly populated northern Idaho and a battle by Boise, the largest metro, to make Boise much more than the jc it used to be. There’s kind of a zero sum mentality. I don’t remember specific articles or comments, but the Boise president has made some comments that indicate that he feels that way.
LikeLike
My understanding is that most of the politicians in the legislature are U of Idaho grads. The ascendency of Boise coupled with the decline of U of Idaho has caused considerably animosity.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19403492/the-nifty-50-how-the-playoffs-selection-committee-should-look
Dennis Dodds proposes a 50 member committee and names names.
If the author wasn’t enough to let you know what crap it was, he prefaces the list with some explanation that includes:
“My thought in this has always been to get as close to the AP poll as possible. That’s why my 50-member committee is media heavy. We/they are the most objective like it or not.”
If they wanted a media poll, they’d use one. Nobody would listen to a bunch of “objective” media members.
LikeLike
The AP asked NOT to be part of the BCS formula. I think the BCS recognizes that collectively, they are best suited to choose. Far better than coaches. Far better than computer formulas.
They aren’t perfectly objective…but taken altogether, I’d rather have the AP in there.
LikeLike
Even if media members aren’t actually used, I believe in practicality, the semifinal choices are going to end up closely (if not exactly) tracking the AP poll top 4, with the only deviations probably being a #5 power conference champ getting swapped in for a #4 non-champ (unless it’s Notre Dame). So, if we want to look at “what-ifs” for what would have happened if the playoff system had existed in the past, it would probably be better to use the last AP poll before the bowls for each of those years as opposed to the final BCS rankings.
LikeLike
Frank, you’re right. This selection commitee idea is a joke. The SEC cleaned Delaney’s clock on everything of any substance. This is window dressing with no meaning.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – I wouldn’t say that the SEC cleaned Delany’s clock. The selection committee largely benefits the Big Ten more than not (which is why the Big Ten pushed it prior to the commissioners’ meetings). As much as we talk about media bias in favor of the SEC, the computer rankings have actually favored the SEC (and to a lesser extent, the Big 12) even more than human polls. The human pollsters have tended to give the Big Ten champ much more of the benefit of the doubt than any of the SOS and computer formulas (e.g. Wisconsin was #4 in the all of the polls in 2010, but was knocked down to #5 because of the computers) and Delany could see that trend for the past several years.
Now, if you want to say that the other details of the playoff went much more in the SEC’s favor, then I’d agree with you, but I think that’s more of function of the decision to create a 4-team playoff in the first place. It was simply going to be difficult to have any type of playoff other than a “best 4″ (whatever that means”) setup. Strict quotas for conference champs (whether it was all 4 or even just 3) were never going to fly.
Honestly, I don’t think the Big Ten will ultimately care as much because they’re going to end up being the beneficiary of the extra bowl and the very likely removal on any caps on the number of teams from a conference that can receive BCS bowl bids. Even if the Big Ten might not get into the 4-team semifinal every year, there’s a good chance that they’ll end up with 3 teams almost every year in the “12-team event” just like they’ve ended up with 2 teams every year in the current BCS 10-team event, and that’s where the conference retains its postseason power.
LikeLike
This is actually a B10 idea, right? How is the SEC cleaning Delaney’s clock?
IMO this selection committee basically means the top 3 teams in the AP/Coach/Harris polls are essentially going to be in the playoff (there would be major outrage if a #3 team was left out of a playoff); then they’ll likely choose a 4th team from a pool of the 4th, 5th and 6th ‘ranked’ teams…
Who does it hurt? IMO it hurts who is most likely to past over as a 4th ranked team, teams not in a power conference and conferences like the Pac 12 or ACC who rarely have more than 1 top 5 team.
LikeLike
Frank, I fear that you are correct but I really hope you are wrong. The AP voters should not dictate these selections, if they do then shame on the commissioners.
This group will need to control the narrative. To do that, they should put out information about the selection process and they should publish Record and SOS for Overall, Non-Conf, Home, Away/Neutral, Wins and Losses.
By emphasizing SOS they can de-emphasize the polls, and that should be their goal. If they are successful, the conversation will be about analyzing the strength of schedule for all of the candidate schools and any controversial selections will be, in part, blamed at the feet of the coaches and ADs who didn’t play a difficult enough schedule.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – It’s not so much that the AP voters will dictate the selections, but I think we’re expecting a lot if we think a selection committee is going to have radically different thinking than those AP voters. At the end of the day, they’re all humans and they’re probably going to agree with what they’ve seen with their own eyes (which is the whole reason to have a human element or else we’d use strictly computer rankings) more often than not as a whole.
To me, “strength of schedule” is more likely to be used as a code phrase for “anyone outside of the 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame is going to get punished” as opposed to knocking power schools for scheduling non-conference cupcakes. I think it’s going to take a very concrete reason for a school that’s outside of the top 4 of the AP poll to get in and, in practicality, I actually don’t have much of a problem with that. As a concept, I don’t like the process of relying on polls, but I generally agree with the outcome (whereas I like the concept of using strictly objective data points to determine a ranking, yet rarely agree with the practical outcome). That’s why I’ve said for quite awhile that when push came to shove, the powers that be were going to choose the process to give them a desired outcome (as opposed to the flip side of a desired process that would provide a largely unpredictable outcome).
LikeLike
@Frank
I don’t think there is going to be a huge departure from the AP poll either, but I do think this committee needs to be empowered to deliver playoffs that differ from the AP poll.
The AP Poll is fine but it is an absolute FACT that losses early in the season cost teams (in terms of poll points) less than losses late in the season. It is also true that results from past seasons impact how various teams are ranked in the current season. The weakness of the AP Poll is illustrated by the wisdom of the Big12 conference whose representatives have been quoted as essentially saying that a conference championship game probably means we get less teams in the playoffs.
I think the majority of the commentary I’ve seen about this 4 team playoff is suffering from recency bias. The recent past is not my concern, my concern is what happens in seasons where the top teams aren’t as concentrated in a couple of conferences. What happens when ND is good, what happens when the ACC powers come back, what happens when USC and Michigan get back to fielding excellent teams?
I don’t want the deciding factor between two conference champions to come down to which school has the better football brand, nor do I want the date of a loss to be a determining factor in separating two teams. As a result, I don’t want this selection committee to be in a position where disagreeing with the AP poll becomes a big problem in trying to find the 4 best teams.
LikeLike
Frank,
I largely agree, although they may go as low as #6 if there is a cluster of teams. I think their seeding may differ from the AP poll a lot, though.
LikeLike
It also depends on how close things are. If 4-5 or more than that are all in a really tight grouping (3-5 were very close in 2009 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_120609.pdf and 2007 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_120207.pdf, 4-6 was very close in 2004 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2004.pdf, 4-5 was very close in 2002 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2002.pdf), then I think it’ll be heavily dependent on committee voting. But when the differences between 4-5 are much clearer (such as 2001 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2001.pdf or 2003 http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/pdf/bcs_2003.pdf), I think it’s almost a given that we’ll see #’s 1, 2, 3, and 4.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“The AP asked NOT to be part of the BCS formula.”
You can make another media poll if you want one. There are plenty of “journalists” out there.
“I think the BCS recognizes that collectively, they are best suited to choose.”
No they aren’t. Most attend games, which means they miss all the other games going on at the same time. They also have strong regional bias and favor coaches and players based on media friendliness.
“Far better than coaches.”
Set the bar a little lower, why don’t you?
“Far better than computer formulas.”
Considering they intentionally handcuffed the computers and didn’t even search for the most mathematically valid ways to rank teams, that’s also a low bar.
“They aren’t perfectly objective…but taken altogether, I’d rather have the AP in there.”
I’d rather have people that know football and whose sole job is to watch games and compare teams, not people with negligible football knowledge, friends in the business and a financial incentive to create stories and cover them.
LikeLike
Its actually a nice list of who he considers respected journalists.
ESPN would be banned from any committee. They have a conflict of interest.
LikeLike
Every media outlet has a conflict of interest. ESPN’s is just larger than most.
LikeLike
ADD
LikeLike
If you are keeping tabs on the LHN…
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-for-this-2403672.html
Texas is no closer to reaching an agreement with Time Warner Cable to carry the Longhorn Network, Time Warner’s Central Texas communications manager, Ryan Kelly, tells me, as the ESPN-operated venture nears its one-year anniversary in August.
But an industry source told me Time Warner is interested in trying to buy the Longhorn Network or at least partner with ESPN on the property, for which ESPN is shelling out $300 million over 20 years. Time Warner representatives at the corporate office have not returned phone calls for several weeks, and the cable provider won’t even disclose the last time it negotiated with ESPN. ESPN has failed to reach any distribution agreements with major cable providers or satellite companies.
In a statement Sunday, Time Warner said, “We had discussions with ESPN (about distribution), and we did not come to an agreement on terms for a contract that would allow Time Warner Cable to distribute the Longhorn Network. At this time, there aren’t plans to carry the Longhorn Network.”
An ESPN spokesperson said its network is not privy to Time Warner’s internal discussions.
Time Warner is becoming aggressive in its quest for more sports programming. It will start two regional sports networks in Los Angeles in October after spending $3 billion in 20-year agreements to carry the Lakers, Galaxy and Sparks. Could the Dodgers be next?
LikeLike
Not sure where people are getting ideas about an expanded 12 team BCS beyond the four team playoff. A quick Google search shows absolutely no information on this whatsoever. Plus the bowls would never want to be part of it – the playoff diminishes all the other bowls so they are going to wan to make the matchups that work best for them. this means there is no BCs, no rankings anymore. In years its not a semi-final, the Rose will choose the best Big ten and pac 12 teams available. The Champions Bowl will choose the best Big 12 and SEC teams available, etc. Don’t be surprised if the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar then sign a rotating deal with Notre Dame to play their in given years when they meet a minimum number of wins.
There will be no system that assigns the top teams to certain bowls – the bowls will bb free to make their own deals with whomever they want. The BCS is dead.
LikeLike
Here ya go.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/06/22/presidential-meeting-preview-playoff-plan/index.html
Note that the semifinals will rotate among 6 bowls. So instead of 4 BCS level Bowls there are 6 Playoff level bowls. There is no automatic qualifier which is the big change. Instead, assume the selection committee chooses and seeds the 4 semifinal teams and also fills in the rest of the playoff level bowl matchups not already accounted for from Rose/Champions contracts. This is a total of 12 teams.
LikeLike
Big assumption you are making Chicagomac – and you know what they say about assumptions …. It only says that their will be six bowls in the rotation for hosting the semifinals. It says nothing about what those bowls will do when they are not hosting semifinals – as I said people are making BIG ASSUMPTIONS about a 12 team BCS based on their being six rotating sites for semifinals. There is absolutely nothing in print or quoted anywhere from anybody actually in the decision making position about matchups of other bowls not part of the four-team playoff in any year – people are just drawing wild conclusions based on what the BCS did in the past with no facts to support their theories.
LikeLike
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/331003-status-4-3-12.html
Read point #1 under “Enhancing the Bowl Experience with Additional Adjustments to the Postseason”.
I don’t think it is that big of an assumption.
LikeLike
this was April – which is years ago in terms of where the conversation has moved and it says “considering the option” – as i will say again – way to much assuming going on by people without any facts or announcements or even leaks to back it up. In the case of a “12-team option” the mere addition of the Champions Bowl since this was proposed has radically altered the landscape since then. With that Bowl and the Rose taking the 4 most attractive teams left – there really is not much left for a committee to slot into other bowls to create “attractive matchups” -and the bows that are left will get better ratings and ticket sales by taking a 7-5 Notre Dame than by being forced to take a Top 12 rated Southern Miss (for example).
LikeLike
I think maybe you had too much sweet iced tea for lunch JMann.
The Champions Bowl isn’t particularly radical, its the Rose Bowl East.
LikeLike
The idea of it being 6 BCS bowls (under a different name) is from the idea of the semi-finals.
They plan on keeping the BCS games as far as we know (I believe they discarded the idea of only handling the playoff months ago, but I’d have to check back). They are going to have 6 semi-final games, 4 of which are current BCS games. Talks of increasing the BCS to 12 games have been around since April and we’ve never heard contrary reports.
Taking that all together, odds are very much in favor of getting 6 BCS (with a new name) bowls.
LikeLike
Also, i think it is pretty safe to assume that the ACC will tie up with the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
why what has the orange gotten out of a partnership with ACC except a slide into irrelevance – they would be better off making a deal to get a #2 out of the SEC or Big 12 – there TV ratings and ticket sales have been horrible with an ACC tie-in
LikeLike
Larry Scott on the committee
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19419987/larry-scott-explains-why-he-changed-his-mind-on-the-selection-committee
“I’m not really a committee guy honestly. I didn’t spell it out thinking that would be a good result. I just don’t tend to think the sports world needs another committee but as we got into it, we realized the current system was flawed in so many ways. With coaches voting and they are voting without necessarily looking at the games, computers that are not transparent and one of the fundamental challenges we realized is unlike the NFL, there’s not enough games where teams from different conferences are playing against each other. You don’t have a body of work to look at that gives you a sense of how teams stack up so there’s going to be some subjective element to it regardless of what you do. Listening to some of my colleagues that have served on the men’s basketball committee and realized we have a better chance as a Pac 12 conference to get a fair shake for the fact that we play a nine game conference schedule, the fact that USC and Stanford play Notre Dame, the fact that we play tough out of conference competition, tougher than the SEC or what the Big 12 is doing, and there’s a chance that humans can give us credit for the strength of schedule and credit for what it takes to be the champion of the Pac 12 conference the way that polls and computers cannot.
“I actually came around on this one. Didn’t start there but came around thinking this could be a great benefit for our conference.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8094636/new-deal-struck-citrus-bowl-renovation-project
They are finally going to renovate the Citrus Bowl. Plans are to compete for a semi or NCG. The work will be done in 2014, just in time for the new system.
“Among the upgrades expected for the 65,000-seat stadium are: new suites and about 8,000 club seats; more restrooms and concession stands; and new banquet and ballroom spaces.”
LikeLike
@Brian – This is a good thing for both the Big Ten and SEC since I believe the Capital One Bowl matchup is very valuable (as much as Delany and Slive might have squabbled, it behooves both conferences to continue playing each other frequently) and it’s enhanced by the Orlando location (even if the stadium continues to leave a lot to be desired). I’ve seen many accounts describing as the festivities leading up to the Capital One Bowl as the best out there outside of going to Pasadena. It’s just stepping into the Citrus Bowl for the game itself that is underwhelming. Hopefully, these renovations will mitigate that feeling (although there’s nothing they can really do to make it as nice as Raymond James Stadium in Tampa or the other NFL facilities out there).
LikeLike
As the FCS guy said, the renovations should make it a B+/A- stadium. It won’t be elite, but it probably gets a gentleman’s C right now. The Mouse will make sure it does OK in bidding.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8094689/bcs-leaders-confident-ahead-playoff-presentation-university-presidents
The presidents have opened a longer time for their meeting this week to discuss the playoff. Originally scheduled to only last 3 hours, they’ve been asked to block out 7 hours on their schedules and say the idea is to meet until a decision is made.
Some details:
“Current BCS bowls — Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta — would get the first chance to host the semifinals but there will be a bidding process.”
I’d be surprised to see any of those four not make the rotation.
‘ “We are ready to stop the hedging,” the president said. “I believe we will have a presidential consensus on approach. I think even the Big Ten is pretty sold on this plan. I do not expect much controversy tomorrow.” ‘
Good news, and fully expected.
“momentum is for a playoff selection committee utilizing current NCAA officials such as commissioners and athletics directors. The committee would have at least one representative from each conference. ”
I know that’s how hoops does it, but I don’t know that it’s the best choice for CFB. Are they going to watch enough games?
LikeLike
There are a lot of calls for PSU to get the death penalty from southern sites today.
The Tennessean, the Orlando Sentinel and al.com all had a brief column saying that (links can be found here: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52097/big-ten-lunchtime-links-157).
LikeLike
I haven’t been following this angle. Will the NCAA be doing anything?
LikeLike
It’s unlikely in my opinion. People are asking for them to use the Lack of Institutional Control rules to punish them, but I’m not sure the NCAA wants to step in to that here. This seems bigger than the athletic department. I think the B10 and NCAA both are waiting for Freeh’s investigation to be complete, and then will make scathing statements but not actually doing any punishing.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with you on this.
If the NCAA steps in here, do they have to start stepping in to punish other situations like players getting jail time or whatever?
It just seems like this could be a big can of worms because this has nothing to do with gaining a competitive edge or cheating or anything like that…
LikeLike
I agree with you two. This is far far worse than what the NCAA usually punishes, but it’s really not something the NCAA wants to get involved with. The NCAA is more about its own rules outside the legal system. If it starts punishing for things at most marginally related to sports, it has just expanded its role considerably and I don’t think it really wants that.
LikeLike
I don’t think the other institutions want that either.
Its just really not their role. There are plenty of other ways Penn St. and those individuals will be punished.
LikeLike
Counterpoint from a national columnist. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19421664/ncaa-shouldnt-punish-penn-state-lets-let-civil-court-system-do-that
Summary: if PSU breaks NCAA laws, NCAA acts. if PSU breaks government laws, government acts.
LikeLike
The question is, does this sort of lack of institutional control meet the NCAA standard? It involved AD officials and possibly the president of the school, so institutional control would be a concern. The LOIC rule is pretty vague and sounds like a morals clause in some ways.
I expect the NCAA will steer clear, but if they felt the urge they could lawyer their way into it.
LikeLike
@Brian – Adam Rittenberg with an answer
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52157/take-two-punishment-for-penn-state
The LOIC charge surfaces when an institution makes blatant major mistakes in relation to NCAA rules compliance. Although it sounds like a blanket term, it really relates only to NCAA rules. And unless the Louis Freeh investigation or other probes show Penn State knowingly violated NCAA rules, I can’t see how the NCAA penalizes the football program. I spoke to a source this week who used to be an NCAA investigator, and he explained that it’s a jurisdiction issue. The NCAA governs NCAA issues with an NCAA program, not criminal ones. It only imposes the LOIC charge during major rules infractions cases. If a coach gets a DUI or beats his wife, as bad as those things are, they aren’t issues where the NCAA imposes penalties. So while LOIC sounds broad and vague, it really is specific in how the NCAA uses it. Could the NCAA and Big Ten take action against Penn State?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52166/bcs-presidents-meeting-primer
Some good info to prepare us for tomorrow’s meeting of the president’s committee.
Some nuggets:
“Two elements that still must be discussed further and likely won’t be resolved Tuesday: understanding playoff access and revenue distribution. Although there’s an agreement in principle among the commissioners for how the revenue should be divided, the presidents want to have a thorough discussion on this topic.”
“The commissioners emerged from their April meetings in Hollywood, Fla., with two models: a four-team playoff inside the bowls and a four-team playoff at neutral sites outside the bowls. ESPN.com has learned three leagues — the SEC, Big 12 and Conference USA — advocated neutral sites for semifinal games, which likely would bring in more revenue but devalue the top bowl games. The Big Ten and Pac-12 didn’t want to see the Rose Bowl drop down several notches (think NIT) and endanger the other bowls. This was a deal breaker, and it eventually pushed the group toward an inside-the-bowls model.”
Just for Mushroomgod, that’s 1 for Delany over Slive.
About the other top bowls:
“The selection committee could end up selecting participants for more than just the four-team playoff, especially because the additional bowls will provide access for champions from smaller conferences. The same guidelines applied to selecting the playoff participants – strength of schedule, valuing conference championships — also will be used to determine who appears in some of the additional bowls. For example, if the Mountain West champion and the Big Ten’s No. 2 team have comparable profiles, including strength of schedules, and are ranked 12th and 13th, the Mountain West champion likely would get the nod to a big bowl because of its championship.”
“How would the selection committee operate?
The group will have certain guidelines for selection, such as valuing strength of schedule conference championships. There are no hard-and-fast rules, but these guidelines will help break ties. Expect the committee to be around 15 members, and it will meet throughout the season. It’s unclear who will serve on it, although former coaches as well as school and league administrators are the likeliest candidates.
According to a source, the committee could reveal a poll midway through the season to let the public know where things stand with certain teams. Such a poll likely would debut around the time the initial BCS standings do (Week 8 or so).”
About the Rose:
“While there will be access for smaller-conference champions, the bowls who have contracts with certain leagues will continue to feature teams from those leagues. If the Rose Bowl isn’t a national semifinal and loses the Pac-12 and/or Big Ten champion to a semifinal game, it will replace them with Pac-12 and Big Ten teams. The only way the Rose Bowl features teams not from the Big Ten or Pac-12 is if it’s a semifinal.”
…
“The Rose Bowl will keep its traditional New Year’s Day afternoon time slot, whether or not it’s a national semifinal. A new contract for the Rose Bowl is expected this week and will last through the 2026 game. The Rose Bowl contract always has been completed before the BCS contract. “
LikeLike
Interesting on it possibly selecting teams for other BCS games (right after I respond to a different one of your posts saying that was unlikely 🙂 ). That would help out the smaller conferences a lot. One possible side effect of that though is that you see more tie-ins for the #2 teams (if they are allowed).
Very happy to see the Rose Bowl will always be Big Ten vs. PAC-12 when not a semi-final and that it will always keep its traditional spot.
LikeLike
I’m guessing there will only be tie-ins for champs in the BCS bowls, and all the other tie-ins will have to come outside of those top bowls. That said, the committee might well respect preferred match-ups (like a tie-in, but not guaranteed) as much as possible. That’s sort of what following geography does (SEC/B10 in FL, B12/B10 in TX, P12/B10 in CA, etc).
We’ll have to see.
LikeLike
I’m still not sure how the Big 12 and SEC think they should be able to keep all the money from their one bowl but still take money from the BCS bowls’ pool. The B1G/Pac-12 need to pull the Rose Bowl if that happens, for sure.
LikeLike
Ross,
I think what they want is to get all the Champs money but not get a split of the other BCS bowls. Basically, they’re saying we know this will make more than any other bowl except maybe the Rose and we don’t want to share. I doubt the playoff agreement will allow that, though.
LikeLike
Is that what they are after? How does that work, considering they would still be sending teams to the BCS? I have to think part of the advantage of getting two or three teams into the BCS is the money that comes from each slot (as well as the exposure, of course). Do they think their bowl is going to make so much that not getting money from additional BCS bowl slots is worth keeping all of it?
LikeLike
As owners the SEC/XII has cut out the middleman (the bowl committee). That does not preclude them from working within the new playoff TV deal. They may only want to share the TV revenue, but the B1G/PAC should also favor no sharing of other Rose Bowl revenue (tickets, concessions, etc.).
LikeLike
Oh, I’m sure they want a share from each bowl they are in. They just would rather have each bowl pay what it can rather than them all paying the same. Since the own the Champs and get 1/2 the money, they would net a lot more cash.
LikeLike
Another interesting thing from the article is that it says we could end up seeing 3 games on December 31st and 3 on January 1st.
I like squeezing things together more, but I’d personally prefer them going two a day from December 31st to January 2nd.
LikeLike
I think that was pure speculation from him. There is no way they put 3 major bowls on 12/31. TV would scream bloody murder and dock them millions per year. I just can’t believe they would do this money grab and then leave another 10% on the table to play on 12/31 instead of 1/2.
LikeLike
I would be stunned if they tried to schedule a playoff semi-final on New Years Eve. I can’t believe the conference comissioners would be that dumb and. I can’t imagine television partners would be okay with that. The potential loss of advertising dollars to the networks would greatly reduce any negotiated payout the conferences could get. You would lose too many casual college football fans as well as non-footprint fans who follow the sport regularly.
I could see maybe a non-playoff BCS bowl on New Years Eve but that’s about it. They either try to cram both semi-finals in on January 1st, or they do one on January 1st and the other January 2nd.
LikeLike
@texmex – Yes, it would be very surprising to me if there was a semifinal on New Years Eve, although the powers that be have shown to be willing to make unexpected turns lately. On this issue, I’ve got to believe that the potential TV partners would flip out about it, but we’ll see.
LikeLike
The bowls would flip out about it. Chick Fil A doesn’t do to badly, but noone else has been successful in that time slot.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen any information reconciling the Rose Bowl’s and SEC/B12 Bowl’s respective postures with respect to who own the bowls? With completion of the new Rose Bowl contract imminent, I would have thought the SEC/Big XII’s move to own their bowl would have be a pretty big point of contention. If it was an issue, I wouldn’t have expected the B1G and Pac-12 to agree to get locked up until 2026. Thanks.
LikeLike
No, but that is one of many issues that we have no info about. All of these are outstanding postseason issues with few, if any, details available:
1. What bowls will host semis, and how will they be paired?
2. What happens to tie-ins when that bowl is hosting a semi?
3. How are teams placed in the other bowls not hosting a semi?
4. How are teams placed in the top bowls that aren’t part of the playoff?
5. How will playoff revenue be earned and split?
6. How will revenue from the non-semis be split?
7. How will revenue from the other top bowls be split?
8. Will there be a 7 win minimum for bowls?
9. Who will be on the committee?
10. Exactly what instructions will the committee be given?
11. What/where will the Champs Bowl be?
12. How will the Champs Bowl work in terms of revenue splitting?
I/m guessing that once the BOC gives their approval to the 4 team plan with semis in bowls, then we can start to get some answers. The TV negotiations should start this fall, and I think they need to nail down all these issues by then.
We still don’t know about the B10/P12 scheduling agreement either. Who plays whom, and how much advance notice do the schools get? I have no idea when the B10 will bother to give some details on that. Maybe 2016.
LikeLike
In case anyone was invested in the tales spun by The Dude from West Virginia regarding the supposed destruction of the ACC, he completely backtracked tonight on Twitter stating that the Big 12 won’t expand this year:
https://twitter.com/#!/theDudeofWV
LikeLike
Well if this guy is right (eyeroll) about FSU and Clemson being ready to move for a month, it means two things:
1. I was right that the north schools were worried about access to Texas (he said divisional issues were the heart of the decision to pass)
2. The Big XII just made the dumbest move since the Big East turned down Penn St. in the ’80s. The Big XII has far away the smallest population and geographic bases of all the major conferences and passing on the chance to expand into Florida and South Carolina because they didn’t want to lose access to Texas (the North schools) or play a CCG (UT) would be an unimaginably short sighted decision. Seriously, it would be turning down PSU because they were a football school not located in a major city idiotic.
LikeLike
Looking a little more at what he wrote, he is saying the Big XII is holding because they believe they can get ND as an all sports member in which case you can add delusional to the list of flaws with the Big XII’s thinking.
LikeLike
The destruction of the ACC is only a matter of time.
It simply comes down to money and the ACC doesnt have any.
LikeLike
Money = value, and value is fluid. Any value/money the Big 12 currently has over the ACC is due entirely to one school. Excluding Texas, the ACC is significantly more valuable than the other members of the Big 12.
LikeLike
But because of its poor football brand, the ACC will never get back what it’s worth — especially in an environment where the four conferences ahead of it make better money and have more valuable bowl tie-ins. ACC members know it, which is why the conference has no GOR. It is vulnerable.
LikeLike
Never is a long time.
Just like the Big 12, the ACC needs its top tier brands to step up and provide value for the rest of the league. There is no reason that FSU and Miami cannot be regular national title contenders like OU and UT in the Big 12, providing the cache the league needs to improve its brand and value.
LikeLike
vp19,
You have a very short memory. In the 90s, FSU and Miami were top 10 in W%. Other now-ACC leaders were #15 Syracuse, #18 UNC, #19 VT and #20 UVA. Meanwhile, UT was #24 and OU #50. The B12 leaders were NE (gone), TAMU (gone), CO (gone) and #12 KSU well above UT.
LikeLike
Except that the tier system rewards conferences for having strength at the top more than depth.
Because of the high value of the tier 1 contract (the single game can be worth between 35-40%) of the Big XII will always make more in TV money since worst case scenario ESPN can simply air UT or OU every week. The ACC simply doesn’t have that sort of strength at the top.
LikeLike
The latest is pretty ridiculous. If nothing is happening, its not because the Big 12 is waiting on ND for full membership.
LikeLike
The Big 12 was never gonna make a move on expansion until the details are finalized for the new 4 team playoff, as well as the Champions Bowl format. That still won’t be settled after today and probably won’t be for several months.
The revenue distribution format for both are huge issues in determining if it’s worth it to expand for both parties. We still have to see if the Champiosn Bowl will be included in the playoff as well as get final numbers on payouts. There have been a few articles regarding how revenue could be divided with it based on past and future performance which would put the Big 12 in much better position than the ACC. This is part of the ammo the conference would use to convince FSU and Clemson to come over.
Several insiders on the Texas side of things have been stating this over and over and basically said the WVU sources were full of crap. It turns out they were exactly right.
LikeLike
New post from “The Dude”:
http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/2012/06/big-12-is-about-to-make-big-mistake.html
The glorious highlights:
– FSU, Clemson, GTech, and Maryland all want in the Big 12
– Big 12 holding off on expansion until Notre Dame makes its decision
– Big 12 is dead set on not expanding beyond 12, thus the delay to wait on ND
– ND is secretly negotiating with the ACC to try to get a better deal than the Big 12’s offer
– ND prefers the ACC over the Big 12
LikeLike
As long as there’s a chance the Big Ten could expand to 16 and that they could be part of it, neither Maryland nor Georgia Tech will have anything to do with the Big 12.
LikeLike
The Dude is now the holder. He doesn’t understand the irony. There’s no more evidence than his lack of understanding of the Big 12 TV contracts in his last bit.
LikeLike
I’m still not sure why ND has to negotiate with anyone for anything.
ND is about to get the perfect playoff scenario for it without having to go anywhere.
4 team playoff with a selection committee (full of people who are going to be predisposed towards ND and the Big 5 conferences teams) with possibly 6 BCS Bowls.
That means they could possibly get a guaranteed BCS slot every year that they’re eligible to go bowling (I’m sure the Orange Bowl wouldn’t mind guaranteeing a slot to ND when it’s bowl eligible and not a part of a playoff).
What incentive does ND have to go anywhere? They don’t need access to the Champions Bowl. The Big East is stable for its non-football sports with or without Boise because it’s a cut above C-USA and MWC since it took the best teams from those…
LikeLike
Its an interesting question Zeek but if the Big12 and/or the ACC, but particularly the ACC, is willing to look at ND as a partial member then maybe it just makes sense for ND to move regardless of what the Big East does or does not do?
LikeLike
@zeek
Playoff scenario may be perfect but they would have to qualify first. Notre Dame’s ability to have a quality schedule seems to diminish each year.
Scheduling would be the only reason for ND to affiliate football with the ACC or Big 12 instead of Big East.
Basketball/Olympic sports are another story.
LikeLike
The future schedules for Notre Dame are actually stronger than they have been in recent years. To the extent that there’s any scheduling challenge, it’s more about spacing the marquee games out so that they have better opponents in November. Ultimately, there’s a long list of schools that are more than willing to schedule ND. Now, a school like BYU might be a different story.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just don’t see them being in a scheduling dam as of yet.
Maybe at some point in the future things will change, but as of now the other conferences (Big 12, ACC, Pac-12) have been more than willing to accommodate their scheduling concerns.
Northwestern finally managed to get another set of games against them; Illinois’ AD mentioned wanting to set up something in Chicago possibly with them.
They have marquee games against Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, etc. on the schedules.
They’re always going to have USC and Stanford when they want; those games are worth just as much for those two schools and the Pac-12 as they are for ND. The same goes for the ACC for whom the games are worth more than for ND. Ditto for Purdue and Michigan State.
The only game that may end up dropped is Michigan-ND because Michigan’s schedules are horribly lopsided (all the marquee home games same years).
LikeLike
@Zeek
The issue isn’t that they won’t be able to find games, its that they won’t be able to find games later in the season. The Big 10 doesn’t play OOC games after conference play begins and the PAC is adopting the same rule this year (though USC and Stanford’s against ND have been grandfathered in). Add in the SEC who doesn’t play tough OOC competition (except of the in-state rivalries) after conference play begins in earnest, and 9 game schedules in the ACC and Big XII and you can see ND having a lot of trouble getting a decent schedule in November.
LikeLike
If all Big Ten schools are guaranteed to play 2 conference kings a year, I don’t understand why the schedule makers last year didn’t set it up so everyone had one home and one road game every year against the kings. That would’ve helped with the lopsided schedules, so in the years when Michigan played Ohio State and ND on the road, they would still have Nebraska at home. It seems like a missed opportunity.
LikeLike
Zeek-
Actually, I’d say that the only conference that’s given Notre Dame major help in the schedule is the ACC.
The Pac 12 does allow USC and Stanford to play Notre Dame in the midst of conference play, but that’s it unless the team that wants to do so gets an exemption approved by all the other schools in the P12. If the B10 and P12 do get their scheduling agreement in place by 2017 (or sometime thereafter), that’ll put a permanent squeeze on the those ten other schools. USC will keep the ND game because of the tradition, but if Stanford is scheduled against a program like Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State or Ohio State, how much of an appetite do they have to play ND plus nine other conference games and then maybe a conference championship game as a prerequisite to getting into the national championship game. Also note that the 2016 Stanford game is scheduled for 17 September, so that doesn’t help the late season schedule (although having Miami on 8 October does).
Texas has a four-game series with Notre Dame, but three of those games are season openers and the fourth one is on the second week of the season. That doesn’t help ND with late season scheduling and it’ll be interesting to see if the 2015/6 Notre Dame schedule holds up because the first two teams on the slate each year are Texas and Michigan. Oklahoma does have the home-and-home, with one game in October (in Norman) and the other in September.
The ACC and the Big East have been the major conferences (and the status of the BE in that regard is highly questionable) to give some flexibility to its teams in scheduling ND late in the season. While we haven’t seen FSU or VaTech on the schedule, there is that three-game series with Miami. But in the recent past, we’ve seen ND play Duke, Wake Forest, UConn, UNC, Maryland, Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh. None of those are really major football programs, per se, although they have had their moments. It will be interesting to see going forward as the ACC goes to the nine-game conference schedule exactly how flexible teams in that conference are going to be.
The Big Ten is pretty solid in terms of only playing Notre Dame in September. ND does have the home-and-home with Northwestern and NW will play ND late in the year, but it’s because they were willing to give up their bye week during the conference season to do it. I don’t know how B10 programs would be willing to do that?
Having BYU as an independent (which is also having problems scheduling games and is looking at losing its long-standing rivalry game with Utah) will help Notre Dame because they can be put anywhere in the schedule much like ND does with Navy every year.
That’s not to say Notre Dame won’t continue to have good schedules going forward, but a lot of things have to come in line for it to keep happening.
LikeLike
The Dude must be smoking something. There will be no further movement this year because FSU, Clemson, et.al. want to see how the football playoffs shake out and want the ink dry on the XII new TV contract and GoR so they will know the benefits and stability before they jump.
LikeLike
If this new format won’t start until 2014, there’s no urgency in moving for 2013.
LikeLike
There would be 2 reasons to move quicker:
1) get more money quicker-but its only 1 year; and more importantly;
2) get in before the Big 12 signs its ESPN tier I renewal. The Big 12 loses some negotiating power if the deal is already signed, no matter how much discussion has gone on before.
LikeLike
Actually, if it was about TV money they would be better off joining now (or at least announcing their intentions to do so) so the Big XII has more leverage in contract negotiations, and they could make an extension of the GoR a condition of joining.
LikeLike
I like the playoff situation more with the addition of an extra 2 bowls in the rotation for the playoffs (say Cap One and Cotton or something else).
That way the Rose is a semifinal only 1 in 3 years instead of every other year. You get the Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup 2 of every 3 years. That’s not a bad tradeoff from now where it’s 3 out of 4 years (gave up 1 slot out of this past 4 year contract to non-AQ).
Plus, given the selection committee, they may end up seeding in such a way that helps a Big Ten or Pac-12 team get to the Rose Bowl…
LikeLike
IF the Big 12 were to pull off a grand expansion with Florida State and Notre Dame, the luckiest guys in the world are the administrators of all the Big 12 Schools not named Texas or Oklahoma.
It’s a little confusing as to why those 4 would carry the water for the other 8. The other 8 are mostly committed and competitive but they are nowhere close in brand to what would be the Big 4.
LikeLike
And another thing – if there is no requirement to be a conference champ to be in the national semi-finals, won’t the unintended consequence be for majors to go independent?
If Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Notre Dame and BYU all go independent, they can all play each other and pick who else they want to play instead of going to Manhattan, Kansas every other year AND most importantly, get their own television deals.
You can start thinking of other ripple effects, like West Virginia going back independent if the big boys leave the Big 12, Boise State going independent, etc.
C-USA would be happy to have Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State for the other sports.
LikeLike
@Read The D – That’s just taking into account the upside for an independent in the playoff system. Being independent would be great if you’re qualifying for the semifinals and/or a top tier bowl every year. However, I’m a large believer that university presidents care more about protecting against the downside risk in bad years as opposed to shooting the moon in good years. When you’re part of a conference, Texas still makes money if Oklahoma goes to the semifinal or Champions Bowl in a way that wouldn’t happen if Texas was independent. University presidents have consistently chosen to take steady annual income over large peaks and valleys in income (and income is really what it’s all about as opposed to actually playing the game on-the-field).
LikeLike
@FTT as someone with libertarian leanings you should know that more regulations mean more unintended consequences. The BCS era created the era of conference haves and have-nots.
To me the reason to stay in a conference is to have a chance to win a conference championship even if you lose a game. It gives the kids a reason to play.
I think if you are a king or a BYU or ND and are indpendent, you can have your own TV deals, your own bowl deals and a schedule more favorable to your alumni, which means even better ticket sales.
Texas could play 6 home games, 2 neutrals in Texas and 4 road games every year. So could Oklahoma. So could Florida State in Florida.
BYU got out of a conference in part because their own TV deal would be better than the MWC TV deal.
The $1-2 mil extra Texas would make from a conference mate making the playoffs could easily be made up by having their own TV deal where they make ALL of the TV money on ALL of their home games that are on the LHN.
Granted it wouldn’t work for every program but if you are a king or an outlier like Boise, who could go to the Humanitarian Bowl every year it didn’t make the 12 team event, it’s more of a realistic option if the semis are a strict 1-4.
LikeLike
It’s not just about that though.
Only ND has the sweetheart deal with NBC for exposure right now. And the Big East willing to take its non-football sports.
Sure Texas could get its own T1-2 TV deal, but Texas doesn’t have as many schools lined up around the corner to play it.
ND has all those legacy rivalries and then another two or three dozen schools that want to play it. I’m not saying Texas would have trouble scheduling, but they’re not going to find the road of independence as easy as ND has it.
Just as an example, the Big Ten schools won’t play Texas because of disagreements over highlights on the LHN. What happens if the Pac-12 schools have problems like that?
Being in a conference gets you stable TV payouts without having to worry about the years when you’re down. Being in the Big 12 gives Texas plenty of benefits in terms of having a ready made schedule of geographically proximate schools with plenty of ranked opponents; it’s not just about Texas-Oklahoma.
And of course, what happens to all the non-football sports? Texas has repeatedly said that they’re not that interested in independence for football because of the scheduling nightmare it could end up creating for its other sports.
BYU had that Western conference; ND has the Big East; Boise is struggling to find a landing spot for its non-football sports.
Is Texas interested in sending its non-football sports to C-USA? I don’t think Dodds spends millions on building out facilities for non-football sports to take that kind of downgrade to the competition they’d be playing…
LikeLike
Football scheduling isn’t an issue, that would be easy. Oklahoma would stay and A&M would be back. The Irish would be added as an annual game and BYU could be. They would probably add try and get Army to set up an annual game and fill out the rest of the schedule with games against Texas schools (who they can schedule anytime they want) and a couple games against other big name opponents.
The issue is entirely about the non-football sports. Texas will not play at the mid-major level and for Texas that includes the Big East (who they could join as a non-football member with one phone call)
LikeLike
Read The D,
“The BCS era created the era of conference haves and have-nots.”
Bull crap. CFB has always had that split. The actual financial divide has grown, but I’m not sure it’s any larger proportionately than it used to be.
LikeLike
There’s no clearer example the BCS creating a larger split than Boise St. and San Diego St. joining the Big East. They wanted a spot at the table, and took the risk of finding a suitable home for their non-football sports.
When 6 conferences had automatic access to the biggest games and 5 others did not, yes that creates a two tier system.
It’s a fair argument whether the 5 smaller conferences deserved automatic access or not, but the MWC with Boise, BYU, TCU, and Utah was better at the top than the Big East, and still didn’t have access. That’s why none of the 4 remain in the MWC.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“There’s no clearer example the BCS creating a larger split than Boise St. and San Diego St. joining the Big East. They wanted a spot at the table, and took the risk of finding a suitable home for their non-football sports.”
They’ve always wanted a spot at the table. What changed is that the BE got weak enough to need to offer them that spot, and as it turns out it really isn’t a seat at the table any more.
“When 6 conferences had automatic access to the biggest games and 5 others did not, yes that creates a two tier system.”
Those tiers already existed. Fans always treated power conference teams differently from the lesser teams. The BCS just put a name to the tiers.
“It’s a fair argument whether the 5 smaller conferences deserved automatic access or not,”
No it isn’t. They clearly didn’t deserve automatic access. Neither did the BE after losing Miami, VT and BC, but they kept it for political reasons.
“but the MWC with Boise, BYU, TCU, and Utah was better at the top than the Big East, and still didn’t have access.”
But it wasn’t better at the bottom by a long shot. Having 2-3 good teams doesn’t make for a deserving conference. The top teams are basically handed 5-6 conference wins every year, and they usually scheduled another 2-3 easy OOC wins. That’s 7-9 free wins and only 3-5 actual games to worry about. That’s very different from a power conference schedule and impacts the outcome.
“That’s why none of the 4 remain in the MWC.”
They don’t remain because they had option to move up. They wouldn’t have been there before if they had the choice.
LikeLike
The BCS didn’t create tiers, it formalized them. The MWC commissioner described the AQ designation as a caste system.
LikeLike
The independence option in the BCS era was no different than the new 4-team era, so I don’t see why teams would suddenly seek independence. Now, maybe the explosion in team-specific contracts makes it more attractive, but the format of the playoffs doesn’t make any difference.
LikeLike
Does ESPN paying to block the P16, and BYU leveraging it’s fan base (LDS’s everywhere) trying to be ND light, constitute an explosion in team-specific contracts?
LikeLike
“Does ESPN paying to block the P16, and BYU leveraging it’s fan base (LDS’s everywhere) trying to be ND light, constitute an explosion in team-specific contracts?”
Yes. 200% increase.
LikeLike
I see independence as a future possibility that reemerges, but not because of this. It’s doubtful schools would lose out all that much more than they’d gain from conference champs/independents only (especially if independents were only guaranteed if in the top 4). It’s all moot now though I guess.
LikeLike
You can start thinking of other ripple effects, like West Virginia going back independent if the big boys leave the Big 12, Boise State going independent, etc.
C-USA would be happy to have Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State for the other sports.
Nobody outside of the current independents and Texas would be able to get TV deals comparable to what they are getting now.
More significantly, those schools will never let their non-football sports go slumming with a mid-major (which at this point probably includes the Big East). Institutional pride matters.
LikeLike
@frug I don’t think Texas would unilaterally go independent and put their non-football sports in C-USA. But if Texas, OU, FSU, etc all make a move to go independent and all park their sports in C-USA or some other conference, that conference is slumming it quite as much as they were before.
If Boise does end up going BE in football, they are 1 step away from being independent anyway. And if the BE gets poached anymore they’d probably be better off independent than hanging out with Navy, Temple and Memphis.
LikeLike
Sullivan reinstated at UVa. That caps off the weirdest standoff at a major university in recent memory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/u-of-virginia-board-of-visitors-considers-reinstating-ousted-president-after-outcry/2012/06/26/gJQAPONp3V_story.html
LikeLike
I think the headline said it all: “U of Virginia Board reinstates ousted president after outcry from faculty, donors, students” (emphasis mine).
Between donors rebelling and the governor threatening to fire half the board, magically they came to a new conclusion based on the same data.
LikeLike
Almost forgot to congratulate the AZ Wildcats on winning the CWS.
As an aside, I hope a FB committee seeds better than baseball did…
LikeLike
I expect that there will be a number of resignations & replacements of UVa Board members in the next few months. You can’t go from firing the President to unamimously reinstating her 3 weeks later without taking accountability. When prominent faculty started resigning and very wealthy donors/alums voiced public skepticism, the UVa Board was in over-its-head.
LikeLike
From what I hear, the Board never deliberated over the termination. It was a series of one-on-one discussions and a quorum was never established. You are absolutely correct, though. This has gotten highly political, and there will be scalps.
LikeLike
It looks like some of the Pac 12 schools are starting to second guess their future scheduling agreement with the B1G: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52221/pac-12-teams-balking-at-b1g-alliance
LikeLike
Interesting. I wonder if we could see the thing modified down to a 6-8 team event (to give everyone years off).
If it dies completely, at this point, I bet the Big Ten doesn’t decide to go back to 9. 😦
LikeLike
Eric,
The first step is to exempt schools with an annual OOC rivalry with a quality team (USC, Stanford, Utah, Iowa, Purdue, MSU, MI?). That would get it to 9 teams and remove the most obvious objections. It would be more fair for the P12 teams as they all get 10 quality games, not 11 for some. The B10 similarly would all play 9. It hurts to lose kings, but it’s really hard to fit everyone into this.
The second step would be to make it a 6-game deal each year so everyone plays 4 out of 6 years. That leaves room for some variety in the other 2 years.
A third option would be for the P12 to drop back to 8 games, but then the CA schools would have to agree not to play each other every year (play 1 of the 2 in the other division each year). Potentially they could play the other one OOC to keep the rivalries instead, but that leads back to keeping them out of the B10/P12 deal.
I don’t see the B10 going to 9 either, because they don’t want to. Unless OOC SOS becomes a major factor in not only the playoff but also the top bowls, there is no incentive to play tough OOC games. I think Delany is better off making a rule that every B10 team must play at least 9 AQ teams each season, preferably 10 (maybe make them average 9.5 per year).
LikeLike
SOS better be one of the top considerations in the selection process or I’m gonna puke. And can we have automatic DQ if you play a D-2? Please. No one wants to see this crap anymore.
LikeLike
jj,
“SOS better be one of the top considerations in the selection process or I’m gonna puke.”
It will be a major factor along with champ status, but that doesn’t mean much. How they factor in SOS means more, in my opinion. If they just look at total SOS, all it means is big 5 schools get an edge over the little guys. If they only focus on OOC SOS, it favors the little guys and ignores most of the season. I’d like to see them weigh the OOC SOS equally with the conference SOS as a compromise. That rewards a tough conference slate but also encourages tough OOC schedules.
“And can we have automatic DQ if you play a D-2? Please. No one wants to see this crap anymore.”
Unfortunately, plenty of fans are happy to see their team pound an overmatched squad for a paycheck. I wish they’d go away too, but you can’t force it.
LikeLike
That’s not a surprising development, especially on the Pac 12 side which has a nine-game conference schedule while the Big Ten opted to keep it at eight games given this agreement (the B10 was seriously thinking of going to nine conference games until Delany and Scott made this pact).
Some Big Ten and Pac 12 schools have already gone forward with games. Wisconsin and Washington are playing one another in 2017 along with Minnesota and Oregon State. Stanford and Northwestern have a home-and-home and it’s rumored that Michigan will be playing Utah starting in 2015 (although that isn’t confirmed yet).
I don’t agree with Rittenberg’s assessment that teams are going to strengthen their non-conference schedules in response to the new post-season setup. Since conference champions don’t get autobids, there’s no motivation to improve the non-conference strength of schedule. The ACC, Big XII and Pac 12 all have nine-game conference schedules in place and two of those conferences also have conference championship games, so the major teams in those conferences probably don’t need to reach outside to the non-conference games in order to strengthen their SOS. Finally, because there are four teams in the playoff, it’d be only in the most unusual of circumstances to see an undefeated team from a major conference that is 13-0 or 12-0 not get one of the four berths in the playoff.
Then there’s the economics of the thing. Michigan makes $5.3M in tickets sales alone per game. Why would UM (or any other major BCS program) want to reduced the number of home games it’s playing and take the hit on the revenue side by playing a second home-and-home non-conference series? While conferences have different bowl revenue sharing plans, individual teams still don’t make that much money from the bowls themselves. In its FY 2013 budget, UM looks to receive around $2.4M from net bowl revenues thru the Big Ten Conference. When a school has a $130M budget, that’s not a lot of revenue.
One more thing on the money side. The Sporting News is reporting that the new television revenue deal for the new four-team championship will be $5B over 10 years. http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-06-25/bcs-meetings-four-team-playoff-tv-contract-5-billion
Say the Big Ten gets around 15% of that money–it’d be approximately $75M per year or $6.3M per school annually. That doesn’t include any additional revenue programs will get from the money bid by cities to host the championship game. At that point, we may be talking a post-season payoff from bowl games, the playoff and the money provided by the winning city’s bid to mean individual B10 programs might be looking at an $8M to $10M payoff annually instead of that $2.4M mentioned above.
I just don’t see the motivation for teams to schedule more difficult non-conference games. They will still get paid whether they make the four-team playoff (or a bowl itself) and it probably reduces the chance for a team (especially ones with nine-conference games and a conference championship game) to get into the four-team playoff. Expand it to eight teams and give autobids to the top four or five conference champions and maybe you’ll see the motivation to actually do it. But until then, I just don’t see a lot of teams adding a second home-and-home non-conference opponent or upgrading their existing non-conference opponent into a better opponent.
LikeLike
After Wilner’s assertion “yes, yes, a thousand times yes” to the question about the PAC inviting OU and little bro last year, I’m not sure he’s as plugged in as some think. The “complainers” want to be assured strong scheduling and winning conference will be rewarded, not punished.
LikeLike
In Wilner’s defense he wasn’t the only one caught off guard. Larry Scott was telling OU for a month that he had the votes to get them and the Cowboys into the PAC without Texas, only to come up short when it mattered.
LikeLike
Let me be the first (and probably only one) to say that I am going to miss the BCS. It’s the system that was in place when I really started watching college football. It made the regular season really interesting to watch, especially if you had a top 10 team and were hoping like crazy for a lot of upsets. It was kept a solid place for the Rose Bowl (even if diminished a little) and left it as the goal most the time. It never allowed anyone truly questionable to be called national champs.
I hope the next system works well, but I’ll miss the BCS.
LikeLike
I’ll miss it compared to a playoff, but to me the old bowl system was better than either. The BCS was designed to fix a problem that didn’t exist and made things worse.
LikeLike
Athlonsports.com is doing a cool gimmick by creating 4 16-team conferences via a draft process. Given how their ‘draft’ is going, its not hard to see why the SEC and B1G have so much clout in any cfb discussions. In the top 32 picks, there is not a single school ‘drafted’ from the smaller conferences.
LikeLike
I tried to formalize that one day in terms of the value of each institution to a conference. I took a variety of sources and the formula I used was a linear combination of
1/3 University Endowment – why? Because money talks (and with schools like Stanford, Texas, Michigan and Northwestern near the top it does an adequate job of acting as a proxy for the academic component of conference associations)
1/2 Football – components:
Adjusted (for SOS) winning percentage; 50% historical, 50% from 1990
Average Attendance
Estimated fan size (from the Nate Silver’s NY Times’ blog)
1/6 Men’s Basketball
Winning percentage; 50% historical, 50% from 1990
Average Attendance
Obviously it is an approximation
1 Texas
2 Michigan
3 Ohio St.
4 Notre Dame
5 Texas A&M
6 Alabama
7 Penn St.
8 USC
9 Florida
10 Wisconsin
11 North Carolina
12 Oklahoma
13 Michigan St.
14 Tennessee
15 Washington
16 Nebraska
17 Arkansas
18 UCLA
19 Iowa
20 LSU
21 Missouri
22 Purdue
23 Kentucky
24 Pittsburgh
25 California
26 Virginia
27 Stanford
28 Illinois
29 Georgia Tech
30 Minnesota
31 BYU
32 Georgia
33 Kansas
34 Syracuse
35 Virginia Tech
36 Boston College
37 Florida St.
38 Texas Tech
39 Auburn
40 Indiana
41 Miami
42 Louisville
43 West Virginia
44 South Carolina
45 Oklahoma St.
46 Duke
47 Clemson
48 Vanderbilt
49 Maryland
50 North Carolina St.
51 Oregon
52 Arizona
53 Utah
54 Colorado
55 Northwestern
56 Arizona St.
57 Cincinnati
58 Mississippi
59 Kansas St.
60 Connecticut
61 Rutgers
62 Iowa St.
63 Wake Forest
64 TCU
65 Baylor
66 Mississippi St.
67 Oregon St.
68 Washington St.
69 South Florida
70 Rice
71 Tulsa
72 UAB
73 Temple
74 SMU
75 Boise St.
76 Navy
77 Houston
78 San Diego St.
79 Memphis
80 Wyoming
81 New Mexico
82 Central Florida
83 East Carolina
84 Air Force
85 Hawaii
86 Fresno St.
87 UNLV
88 Southern Miss
89 Marshall
90 Miami (OH)
91 Colorado St.
92 Toledo
93 UTEP
94 Tulane
95 Utah St.
96 Nevada
97 Ohio
98 Buffalo
99 Troy
100 Army
101 Louisiana Tech
102 Akron
103 Western Michigan
104 La.-Lafayette
105 Arkansas St.
106 Western Kentucky
107 New Mexico St.
108 Florida Atl.
109 Bowling Green
110 North Texas
111 Middle Tenn. St.
112 Idaho
113 Ball St.
114 Florida Int’l
115 Central Michigan
116 La.-Monroe
117 Kent St.
118 Northern Illinois
119 San Jose St.
120 Eastern Michigan
LikeLike
Its done. President’s approved 4 team about 10 minutes ago. May be press conference at 6:30.
LikeLike
Someone note the time of death – 6:03 PM, 6/26/2012. RIP college football.
LikeLike
Woohoo! Some level of common sense has finally made it to the 21st century. The NCAA was stuck in 19.. (pick a year…).
Thanks to the commissioners, thanks to the presidents… but, mostly thanks to the FANS that finally pushed the “system” over the cliff…
Is this perfect—NEVER will be– cannot please everyone… Is this better—thank you, yes…
LikeLike
Thank the tv providers and their willingness to quadruple their bill every couple years enabling them to provide the financial incentive.
LikeLike
On the other hand, I hope this playoff is a complete clusterfuck and you all suffer endlessly for ruining a great sport. May your cable bills skyrocket and your teams always lose.
LikeLike
Some folks around here obviously have more invested in this than the average fan. My local team has not been a major factor since the last of their 6 MNC’s in 1960. I was born 8 years AFTER that.
I love college football–but what’s most important to me is how my local university does overall (academics 1st). I happen to follow hockey, basketball, women’s volleyball and wrestling pretty closely as well. I well understand the importance of FB in the big scheme, and understand that the Gophers are not likely to compete for additional national titles anytime soon (if ever) based on the current dynamics of college football— being that everyone seems to desire the “traditional” powers (a.k.a. present beauty queens) in anything beyond the lower level bowls. I firmly believe the Gophers, Boilers, Hoosiers, Illini, Spartans (look no further than the f-job the Spartans got last year) have to fight a battle similar to the Boise State’s of the world due to the all the F$%@ED-up pre-conceptions in div. 1 NCAA football.
I (unlike what seems like many out there) do NOT care about the performance of any other B1G conference team (in any sport). Why would I root for Iowa or Wisconsin?—they are Minn’s biggest rivals–that’s just crazy. Watching/attending any games outside of the ones the Gophers are playing in is simply for the love of the sport in general. This is why I have an interest in this “playoff”. To me it is TOTAL bunk that ‘Bama and LSU replayed a game for the MNC when previously ‘Bama could NOT EVEN WIN THEIR DIVISION, LET ALONE CONFERENCE!! This game thankfully led to public outcry for some semblance of a playoff… As a college football fan, the Rose Bowl means no more to me than the Orange, Sugar, or Capital One for that matter. Here again it is all Historical Perception… It’s 2012… Time to move past 1937…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“Some folks around here obviously have more invested in this than the average fan. My local team has not been a major factor since the last of their 6 MNC’s in 1960. I was born 8 years AFTER that.”
It is hard to inflict too much more losing on the Gophers, true.
“I well understand the importance of FB in the big scheme, and understand that the Gophers are not likely to compete for additional national titles anytime soon (if ever) based on the current dynamics of college football— being that everyone seems to desire the “traditional” powers (a.k.a. present beauty queens) in anything beyond the lower level bowls.”
Casual fans have only heard of the big names. Why would they want to watch teams they’ve never heard of?
“Spartans (look no further than the f-job the Spartans got last year)”
They didn’t screwed at all. They weren’t eligible for the BCS. The computers hated their schedule and knocked them down. The loss to ND really hurt them. Most teams that lose a CCG don’t make the BCS, though.
“I (unlike what seems like many out there) do NOT care about the performance of any other B1G conference team (in any sport). Why would I root for Iowa or Wisconsin?—they are Minn’s biggest rivals–that’s just crazy.”
Why? Because the performance of your opponents matters for getting higher rankings and better bowls. The overall opinion of the conference matters to how MN is perceived. Besides, spoiling an undefeated season for your rival is just more fun than beating a bad team.
“This game thankfully led to public outcry for some semblance of a playoff…”
The BCS is a playoff. You may not like how it selects the 2 teams, but it is a playoff.
“As a college football fan, the Rose Bowl means no more to me than the Orange, Sugar, or Capital One for that matter.”
That’s too bad. Maybe if MN had played in any of them in your lifetime you’d understand the difference. To not understand the difference between the Rose and the Cap 1 is a shame. To not appreciate a long history of conference champions meeting versus a random game named after a bank is sad.
“Here again it is all Historical Perception… It’s 2012… Time to move past 1937…”
The Rose was just fine in 1997, too. Being 2012 now is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Far be it from me to stop someone from bashing the Gophers, but as a fan of a school that has far more Rose Bowl experience over the last 20 years than Brian’s, let me say that someone can appreciate the Rose while also embracing the progress this new system gives us. There are bound to be controversies on the way, but nowhere near as bad as the ridiculousness of having two polls spit out different “national champions” and not facing them off. If you think college football is dead, you have an extremely cramped view of what college football is.
LikeLike
jcfreder,
“Far be it from me to stop someone from bashing the Gophers,”
I just agreed with what he said.
“but as a fan of a school that has far more Rose Bowl experience over the last 20 years than Brian’s,”
I blame John Cooper and the BCS. OSU missed out on Rose Bowls in 2002, 2006 and 2007 because of the system, which would raise their total to 5 from 2. Cooper cost OSU another 2 or 3 by choking against MI every year. MI had 5 I believe in that period.
“let me say that someone can appreciate the Rose while also embracing the progress this new system gives us.”
Yes, they can. But that’s very different from not seeing a difference between the Rose Bowl and the Cap 1.
“There are bound to be controversies on the way, but nowhere near as bad as the ridiculousness of having two polls spit out different “national champions” and not facing them off.”
You have no way of knowing how bad the controversies will be. Between selection and seeding and a committee member being killed by a disgruntled fan, the sky’s the limit.
Having split champs wasn’t always ridiculous and in fact was a more fair representation of the season than always trying to pick the “best” team each year. There are nowhere near enough games to accurately determine the best team every year. I greatly prefer to hear arguments about whether MI or NE was better in 1997 than about the team that got left out of a playoff that could have won it or how bad seeding gave someone an unfair advantage. The world didn’t spin off of its axis when two teams were named champs.
“If you think college football is dead, you have an extremely cramped view of what college football is.”
What it isn’t is a professional sport solely designed to make money. This playoff is a clear sign that what was CFB has become NFL Lite, and thus CFB is dead.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t hold my breath. This is almost certain to increase the popularity of the sport by a considerable degree.
LikeLike
They aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. It can be a terrible thing and become more popular (see popular music, TV and movies).
LikeLike
It means the playoff is unlikely to be a clusterfuck and I fail to see how changing one game a year is going to “ruin” a sport. It’s not making any fundamental changes to the game.
LikeLike
First, it changes a lot more than 1 game. Second, your failure to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Third, you clearly have a different definition of what is fundamental to CFB than I do.
I didn’t tell you all not to go enjoy your NFL Lite. I just stated my honest wish, which is that it fails miserably. I really hope the players form a union and demand pay to play based on this money grab.
LikeLike
I didn’t say you couldn’t wish for the failure of the system, I just said not to get your hopes up.
To your last point, this may be a cash grab, but it doesn’t make it any more likely that the players will unionize. Post season games have been about money from the very beginning (the Rose Bowl game started because the city of Pasadena needed to find a way to offset the costs of the parade).
LikeLike
frug,
My hopes aren’t up. The system will make money for everyone but the players and that’s all that matters anymore.
I disagree that it doesn’t make it any more likely that players unionize. There have been groups advocating it for several years, and every time more money comes in to the system, that movement gains traction with the players. I’m not saying it’s likely to happen, but it is more likely and I hope it does happen.
LikeLike
Idaho’s Robb Akey
Idaho is one of two football-playing schools left in the decimated Western Athletic Conference. New Mexico State is the other.
“We’ve been trying like a son of a gun to find a home. The best place for us would be the Mountain West. They don’t want us right now. I understand all those things. Hopefully, it’s going to re-allocate. I would expect there would be a change again in a couple more years,” Akey told the Idaho Statesman on Tuesday.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up having to operate as an independent for a few years. We’re just looking for a home, my brother.”
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/06/26/bmurphy/akey_wouldnt_be_surprised_if_idaho_becomes_football_independent#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
LikeLike
Bowl schedule is getting crowded. Is Orange going to try to claim noon?
LikeLike
I expect that it will be played (if its not a semi final) after the semi finals and before the final.
LikeLike
bullet,
They pretty much have to at this point. The Rose is keeping 5ish and the Champs or a semi will be at night. There’s no point in competing with either of those.
Where the other 3 semi-hosting games will fit is the question. First come, first served for slots?
LikeLike
Ouch
https://twitter.com/McMurphyCBS/status/217761552927965185
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/McMurphyCBS/status/217761552927965185
LikeLike
OK for some reason twitter URLs are formatting right..
“BCS denies Mountain West’s BCS AQ exemption for 2012”
LikeLike
I’d say that pretty much rules out BSU staying in the MWC.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’m not surprised since the teams that earned them the chance at an exemption are all gone/leaving.
LikeLike
Given that the 4 team event is now official, isn’t it time we started to reform it?
Here are 4 ideas that are worth considering:
* Preseason Bowls – This works beautifully in cbb where preseason tournaments encourage great programs to clash in neutral environments. Instead of playing the Rose Bowl January 1, why not play it in August? Let a team from the B1G play a team from the Pac12 each year, do the parade and all, make it a time to celebrate college football. Do the same for the Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, etc…one big national party for college football with huge matchups across the board. In August, weather is not an issue, Soldier Field could have a bowl, so could Yankee Stadium, etc. It could be an amazing, amazing 120 team event and since we are kicking off before the NFL regular season, college football would have the eyes of the nation upon it. These games count as one of the 12 regular season games.
* Let’s end the practice of playing all or most of the non-conference games the first few weeks of the season. Conference schedules should run from the week after Bowl week through Thanksgiving. Non-conference foes and Bye weeks should be sprinkled throughout.
* The postseason will kick off the week after Thanksgiving. Its a 32 team playoff, 11 AQs and then 21 at-large selections. A committee selects and seeds the teams and all games are played at the better seeded teams’ home field until the National Championship game which is bidded out and played on New Year’s Day.
* The Sport needs a single leader a la Stern, Goodall, Selig, Bettman. The conference commissioners should make it a goal to incorporate and fund this office by 2016.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Given that the 4 team event is now official, isn’t it time we started to reform it?”
Sounds good. Step 1: Kill it with fire.
“Here are 4 ideas that are worth considering:”
OK.
“* Preseason Bowls – … These games count as one of the 12 regular season games.”
Terrible.
Most schools prefer more home games for revenue reasons and to keep in touch with fans and alumni. Most teams also don’t want to open with a tough game. Why have half of the top 25 start with a loss? It doesn’t matter in hoops because you can afford to lose some games. Football is different. Besides, you don’t know who to pair at the beginning of the season, so it would just reinforce brand status and preseason polls.
“* Let’s end the practice of playing all or most of the non-conference games the first few weeks of the season.”
Terrible.
OOC games should be the appetizers to the main course of conference play. Other leagues do that so they can basically fit in another bye during conference play by whipping a I-AA or SB team. It discourages tough OOC games because schools focus on doing well in conference as they should.
“* The postseason will kick off the week after Thanksgiving. Its a 32 team playoff, 11 AQs and then 21 at-large selections. A committee selects and seeds the teams and all games are played at the better seeded teams’ home field until the National Championship game which is bidded out and played on New Year’s Day.”
Terrible.
More than 25 of those teams have no business playing for the title. There is almost never a year when the MAC champ should get a shot, for example, let alone the #21 non-champ. On top of all that, it’s 5 extra games for the champ and that’s too many.
“* The Sport needs a single leader a la Stern, Goodall, Selig, Bettman. The conference commissioners should make it a goal to incorporate and fund this office by 2016.”
Terrible.
Pro sports are businesses run solely to conduct that sport. CFB is a side product of educational institutions. The presidents of those schools are in charge of each one as they should be. The school trumps the sports side.
Based on what you want, just watch the NFL and stop trying to ruin college football.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I think that was sarcasm. At least I hope it was.
LikeLike
Brian, not Bullet. Sorry
LikeLike
I’ve heard playoff proponents say things just as dumb, and I’ve seen at least two of those proposals made seriously.
LikeLike
I agree totally with Brian. Everyone whose immediate response is to expand the playoff, including all the media types whining about a number 5 undefeated possibly left out, just go watch the !@#$ing NFL. You can then follow your 10-6 team to a super bowl victory.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, my mistake, the NYGiants were 9-7. Sure makes the regular season must see TV doesn’t it.
LikeLike
You’re on to something — somebody tell the NFL there’s a reason their regular-season ratings are in the tank!
But seriously, I’d agree with you that we don;t need a 32-team playoff. 4 will pretty much always encompass all possible “deserving” teams.
LikeLike
The fly diet argument never works. Nobody said the NFL isn’t popular. Being popular doesn’t make it more right than CFB, though. The NFL drove me off years ago with their approach to football, and now CFB is dong the same thing. I’m perfectly willing to spend my time and money elsewhere.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac – In regards to preseason bowls, the Chick-fil-a folks has been doing this to an extent now for several years by matching SEC & ACC teams (and Boise St last year) up to start off the season. Jerry Jones has now got in on the the opening season cross-conference matchups. I think this will probably grow over time.
LikeLike
You’d think someone would start a northern and/or western game like this. Have MI face FSU in NYC. Have OR face NE in Los Angeles. Maybe UT against PSU in St. Louis. OSU versus ND in DC?
LikeLike
Alabama apparently loves playing in those type of games, I know as a fun I love for Bama to play in them. We played Clemson in 2008, VT in 2009, Michigan this year, will play VT again in 2013, and we’re supposed to play WVU in 2014.
LikeLike
Interesting tidbit in the CBS article (thanks Stever20 for pointing it out to me). They say one semi-final will be on New Years Eve and the other on New Years Day. Taking all the news together, we know the Rose Bowl will stay in its traditional time. We know the SEC/Big 12 want their bowl to be in on New Years Day in the evening. We heard the ACC is looking for the Orange Bowl on January 1st, and we read here that one semi-final will be on New Years. All of that may not turn out to be, but if it is, that means 4 BCS games on New Years and probably 2 on New Years Eve.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19426629/bcs-presidential-oversight-committee-approves-four-team-playoff-chosen-by-selection-committee
LikeLike
Here’s the full quote, “While the semifinals will be held at existing bowls, the dates of those bowls will be moved back to accommodate the seminfials before the new national championship game. One of the semifinals will be held on New Years Eve, the other on New Years Day.”
LikeLike
Somewhere else I saw a December 30 or 31 comment.
LikeLike
I could see 12/30 in prime time more than 12/31.
LikeLike
Eric,
It’s a terrible idea and I can’t believe the TV people haven’t pointed that out to them. They are throwing away money by playing a semi on 12/31. They’d be much better off doubling up on 1/1 if 1/2 is too late for them.
LikeLike
Yeah – I do not understand why a 12/31 semifinal is preferable to a 1/2 game.
LikeLike
Things may change in the fall when they start serious discussions with the TV people.
LikeLike
On second thought, there is one way you could do it and only have 3 BCS games on New Years. You could have the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Big 12/SEC Bowl all on different parts of the rotation. One of them would always be the semi-final played on New Years.
LikeLike
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I’m not sure how the networks can approve a New Years Eve semi-final. The loss of viewership would be substantial. I mean, what time do you put it?
LikeLike
It’s probably on around 7pm would be my guess.
I think they decided this time to emphasize the New Years feel even if doesn’t quite maximize revenue. The BCS maximized revenue by giving each bowl its own night (outside the Rose Bowl with its daytime spot). That didn’t really help them in the end.
LikeLike
Eric,
The Peach Bowl kicks off at 7:30 to give a comparison. It draws about a 5, and that’s with a lesser match-up. Maybe a semi will do OK, but I think it will be down 20% or more from what it could be.
Only CFB would do a money grab and not maximize the money. Idiots.
LikeLike
Sugar in 1995 was a New year’s eve game and had about 7 or 8k empty seats. Texas and Virginia Tech were playing. Texas hadn’t been in a Sugar Bowl in ages and a big bowl in about 5 years. Virginia Tech had never been in a big bowl. There were pretty good turnouts from the schools, but perhaps the locals didn’t show since it was a New Year’s Eve. That night just doesn’t work well from attendance in addition to TV.
Chick Fil A has managed to do it, but they are the exception. And they focus on teams in driving distance. The last 5 have been NYEve and were Auburn-Clemson, LSU-GT, VT-Tennessee, FSU-S. Carolina and Auburn-UVA.
By having a semi-final that night, they are trying to change the New Year’s Eve habits of large numbers of sports fans, not just Auburn or FSU fans for a night.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’d make it three days, but I actually kind of like the idea of pushing everything together in two days too. They spread the games apart and gave everyone exclusive times before and it just seemed to dissolve interest. Six games in 48 hours over a holiday might not maximize any of the games, but might make the whole event bigger, which is a more important long term goal.
Thinking through it again, I’m wondering if they’ll allow a little overlap in order to get the games a little later (and allow non-BCS bowls earlier). For instance, I’m wondering if we could see something like this:
New Years Eve:
11am: Non-BCS bowls start
2pm: Peach
3:30pm: Fiesta Bowl
7:00pm: Sugar Bowl (semi-final)
New Years Day:
10am: Non-BCS bowls start
2:30pm: Orange Bowl
5pm: Rose Bowl
8:30pm: Cotton Bowl (semi-final)
On New Years I could see the network working something like this (if Disney has all the rights). 10am Dallas Bowl (ESPNU), 11am Gator Bowl (ESPN), noon Outback Bowl (ESPN 2), 1pm Citrus Bowl (ABC), 2:30 pm Orange Bowl (ESPN), 5 pm Rose Bowl (ABC), 8:30pm Cotton Bowl (ESPN).
LikeLike
Eric,
Overlap is great for fans, but it’s terrible for networks paying $50M+ per game. They can’t afford to split the audience like that. Back in the old days, they didn’t pay nearly as much for the games so they could tolerate having overlap. This is part of the price you pay for having a playoff.
LikeLike
Brian,
That would have been my assumption too, but then I remember that last year ESPN started the Outback, Gator, and Citrus Bowls at the exact same time. There was little reason you couldn’t have kept staggered starts like the last couple of years. If they were all together, I was assuming it was because TV preferred later starts even if it they did overlap some.
I’m definitely not saying you are wrong (you probably aren’t). I’m just not as sure as I would have been before.
LikeLike
Eric,
“That would have been my assumption too, but then I remember that last year ESPN started the Outback, Gator, and Citrus Bowls at the exact same time.”
And it was a bad plan as it split the B10 fan base 3-4 ways. It did make sure the games were done before the Rose started, though. It’s important to remember that Disney owns the rights to all 5 but pays much more for the Rose. The little bowls cost a lot less so they can afford to lose some fans (thank the $5/month everyone pays ESPN).
“There was little reason you couldn’t have kept staggered starts like the last couple of years. If they were all together, I was assuming it was because TV preferred later starts even if it they did overlap some.”
As a reminder, this was the schedule on 1/2/2012:
TicketCity – Noon, ESPNU/ESPN3
Outback – 1 p.m., ABC
Capital One – 1 p.m., ESPN/ESPN3
Gator – 1 p.m., ESPN2/ESPN3
Rose – 5 p.m., ESPN/ESPN3
It was essentially the same the previous year. On 1/1/2009 it was this:
Outback – 11 a.m., ESPN
Capital One – 1 p.m., ABC
Gator – 1 p.m., CBS
Rose – 4:30 p.m., ABC
The big differences were that CBS had the Gator and the TicketCity didn’t exist.
ESPN has no control over when CBS airs a game, and CBS had no other game that day. CBS knew better than to compete with the Rose, though, so they played at 1.
LikeLike
A couple of dueling viewpoints on NE joining the B10, both from the Daily Nebraskan:
Pro:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/myers-big-ten-offers-more-stability-for-nu-1.2745486#.T-ohOvWqYud
His points:
1. Stability
2. B10 has better football, basketball and wrestling
3. The similar weather across the conference is better for the baseball team but the B12 has much better baseball
Con:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/holstein-huskers-leap-to-big-ten-proves-to-be-the-product-of-desperation-1.2745479#.T-ohP_WqYuc
It starts by explaining why NE did go and to go
Questionable quote:
“The Big 12 is a stronger athletic conference than the Big Ten. It provides more opportunities for success with its stronger competition, marquee match-ups and national attention. Admittedly, the Big 12 has its problems but it’s a better fit, from a purely competitive standpoint, than the Big Ten.”
LikeLike
“The Big 12 is a stronger athletic conference than the Big Ten. It provides more opportunities for success with its stronger competition, marquee match-ups and national attention. Admittedly, the Big 12 has its problems but it’s a better fit, from a purely competitive standpoint, than the Big Ten.”
A quote that probably wouldn’t come from any administrator of a Big 12 institution not located in Austin, Texas…particularly from those in Ames and Lawrence, who have the AAU chops for Big Ten membership but will likely never have the chance to join.
LikeLike
Yeah, not sure how you can have better football and basketball and be a weaker athletic conference.
LikeLike
Basketball, yes. Football? Probably not.
That said, top to bottom the Big 10 is probably the stronger athletic conference. The schools have higher athletic budgets which means better depth.
LikeLike
It’s typical group think: big ten stinks at football, big12 is great. Funny that the whole reason the BIG’s reputation as a football conference has taken a dive is because of OSU’s performance in BCS games, particularly the championship game. Yet Oklahoma has had way worst results but the big12 reputation remains good. This is all ESPN driven group think to promote their own products over the one that had a balls to stand up to their cabal and threaten their monopoly. Just wait until 2016 when the BIG leaves (I hope) espn/abc completely.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“It’s typical group think: big ten stinks at football, big12 is great. Funny that the whole reason the BIG’s reputation as a football conference has taken a dive is because of OSU’s performance in BCS games, particularly the championship game.”
It’s even more specific than that. It’s the loss to UF in the NCG mostly, with a little help from the loss to LSU. OSU won the NCG against Miami, but that doesn’t help. OSU is 6-3 in BCS games overall, but that gets forgotten. MI is 2-3, WI is 2-2, IA is 1-1, PSU is 1-1, IL is 0-2 and PU is 0-1. OSU should get credit for being the best of the bunch, but instead it draws ridicule.
“Yet Oklahoma has had way worst results but the big12 reputation remains good.”
Too true. OU is 3-5 overall, 1-3 in NCG (including getting crushed by USC), and the B12 has a worse overall record than the B10 (8-11 vs 12-13).
“Just wait until 2016 when the BIG leaves (I hope) espn/abc completely.”
Unlikely. As long as ESPN is by far the leader in CFB coverage, the B10 needs to be there.
LikeLike
Not quite right. Biggest reason is OSU and the BCS. The public often looks at how the best teams do. But the rest of the conference has slipped in the last 5 years. PSU has been down. Michigan has been down. In the 1st two years of the AQ evaluation period, Big 10 was SIXTH in the computer rankings. Yes, behind the ACC and Big East. The reason a lot of people say Big 10 football stinks is because it IS well below where it was from the mid-90s to mid-00s when it usually competed with the SEC for the top spot. If you look at the top 25 for the last 5 years that CBS did, you see just how far behind the SEC and Big 12 the Big 10 has been.
And you are 100% wrong on ESPN. ESPN loves the Big 10. Big 10 dominates their coverage. I got more Big 10 games in Texas than Big 12 games. Fox does Tier 2 on Pac 12 and Big 12. ABC normally gets the Big 12 games. There has been an ESPN bias, but it is against the Pac 12 and Big 12. They mostly ignore them. That may change with the latest deals where they will pretty much share Tier I & II with Fox for both conferences. They may like all of the Big 5.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014
More details:
There will be three contract bowls — the Champions Bowl, which is a partnership between the Big 12 and SEC, the Rose Bowl, which has a longstanding tradition between the Big Ten and Pac 12, and a bowl to be determined for the ACC, which is likely to continue its partnership with the Orange Bowl.
…
The three other bowls, called “access bowls,” have yet to be determined, but the decision will force the Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl to become bidders.
Also not involved in the automatic postseason picture is the Mountain West Conference, which did not receive a waiver to automatically qualify for the next two years.
“The championship game will be managed by the conferences and will not be branded as a bowl game.”
LikeLike
If you want to “take back New Year’s Day”, lets get real. If I were the Nissan 4-Team Event Commissioner for a day, I would schedule five games on NYD and one game, a semifinal, the day after. Game times ET: 11, 1, 3, 5 (Rose Bowl), 8 (semifinal).
LikeLike
If you just paid $500M for this year’s N4TE, I don’t think you’d like the overlap. Maybe you can tolerate 11, 2, 5, and 8, though. Put the other semi on 1/2 at 8. That leaves 1 game for 12/31 at 6 or 7.
LikeLike
They’ll paid $500M primarily for the semis and title game. Overlap in the other four games may be a good thing. ESPN’s wizards decided that 3 simultaneous SEC/B10 tilts was the way to maximize New Year’s Day profits, and the NCAA tourney benefits from overlap.
LikeLike
If they didn’t overlap all of them, they’d overlap the Rose. I assume they figured it gave the fans some choice if one game was boring and really there is no other competition. Besides, ESPN doesn’t need ratings to be as high since they get $5/month from about 100M people every month on top of the advertising money.
LikeLike
I’d even say just forget 12/31. Play 3 (including one semi) on 1/1, one semi on 1/2 and two of the other games during the week in prime time.
LikeLike
But the one thing that BCS has taught us is that moving games to later in the week doesn’t work. Hard for fans to attend without burning a lot of vacation, etc.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099725/college-football-playoff-approved-questions-remain
More possible details:
“The commissioners will take bids to host the other three bowl games that will be part of the semifinals mix. The Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl will probably be considered, but a source told ESPN.com that commissioners probably favored having the additional games in the Southeast, Texas and the West Coast.”
So you have the Rose, Champs and Orange locked in, and now they want 2 each in the SE, TX and out west. I’d think the Fiesta would qualify as West Coast, and the Sugar as Southeast or maybe TX if isn’t the Champs site. Likewise, the Cotton would be a TX site. I guess that means the site of the Champs will determine which other bowl can get in.
My guesses (Citrus could be Peach):
Champs = Sugar:
Rose, Sugar, Orange; Fiesta, Cotton, Citrus
Champs = Cotton:
Rose, Cotton, Orange; Fiesta, Sugar, Citrus
Champs = new site, maybe Houston:
Rose, Champs, Orange; Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar
Maybe they’ll surprise me and only count the Sugar as a SE bowl, but that would lead to three bowls really close together (2 in TX, 1 in LA).
“Under the 12-year agreement approved by the presidents on Tuesday, each of the six bowl games would host a semifinal game four times. But a source told ESPN.com that there might be one or two more opportunities for hosting semifinals because the Rose Bowl might prefer to host its traditional Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup, instead of being included in the semifinals rotation four times.”
It seems unlikely to me that the Rose would pass on its turn in advance, and once the semis are set it’s too late.
“Swofford said the commissioners’ plan is for the six major bowl games, including the two semifinals, to be played on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day each season. Commissioners said the first semifinals games will be played on either Dec. 31, 2014 or Jan. 1, 2015. The first national championship game is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2015, and commissioners plan to play the championship game on the second Monday night of January in each of the first five seasons.”
The NCG would be on 1/12/15, 1/11/16, 1/9/17, 1/8/18 and 1/14/19. Why will they listen to TV about playing that Monday night for the NCG but not about 12/31 being a bad time slot? Is it just because playing on 1/8 would be too soon after 1/2? As late as the other NCG are, why not just play 1/15 that year?
“Commissioners did reveal Tuesday some of the criteria for how the money will be divided: on-field success, teams’ expenses, marketplace factors and academic performance of student-athletes.”
Good to see academics get a nod, although I’m sure it’ll be a minor impact. Marketplace factors sounds a lot like “AQ status” to me. Expenses will also be a small chunk.
LikeLike
I think at some point the networks will slap some sense into the commissioners regarding New Years Eve especially when it’s presented to them how much money they are leaving on the table. I also think it’s not smart to have semi-finals on different days as it gives one team and advantage of 1 extra day’s rest. Hopefully we see something like the below. If you want to maximize TV viewing for the semi-finals, I don’t see how you don’t put them both on New Years Day.
New Years Eve
Non Playoff BCS Bowl – 3:00
Non Playoff BCS Bowl – 7:00
New Years Day
Playoff Semi-Final #1 – 12:00
Non Playoff BCS Bowl – 4:00 (this will be Rose Bowl 4 out of 6 years..when Rose Bowl is hosting semi-final, 12:00 slot becomes non-playoff semi-final)
Playoff Semi-Final#2 – 7:30
January 2nd
Non Playoff BCS Bowl – 7:00
LikeLike
“I also think it’s not smart to have semi-finals on different days as it gives one team and advantage of 1 extra day’s rest.”
Given that the title game is 10 to 14 days after the semis, I don’t think one day either way makes much of a difference.
LikeLike
greg,
“Given that the title game is 10 to 14 days after the semis, I don’t think one day either way makes much of a difference.”
It’s not always that far. They said the second Monday of January, so it could be as early as the 8th. That would be 1 week after the semi.
LikeLike
Looking at how the cities would be spread across the country is interesting.
LA – Rose
Phoenix – Fiesta
Dallas – Cotton
New Orleans – Sugar
Atlanta/Orlando – Chick Fil A/CapitalOne
Miami – Orange
All very Sun Belt but pretty well proportioned across the country. Kind of sucks for B1G fans.
Could also picture this:
LA – Rose
San Diego – Holiday
Dallas – Cotton
Houston – Champs
Orlando – CapOne
Miami – Orange
That’s 2 each in California, Texas and Florida, probably the 3 best states for recruiting.
LikeLike
There’s no reason to elevate the Holiday unless they pony up the money. It would be surprising if we end up with anything other than the four current BCS bowls and some mixture of the Cotton, Peach and Cap One bowls – those are where the money is.
LikeLike
It will be a bidding process, but it will almost certainly be:
LA
Phoenix
Dallas
New Orleans
Miami
The only question is the 6th. If somehow Houston gets the Champions Bowl, they’re #6. Most likely the Sugar gets the Champions bowl and #6 will be Atlanta. I think Tampa, Charlotte and Orlando are long shots. Orlando has some money, but not the stadium. I don’t think the others will match the Chick Fil A bowl offer. And Atlanta gives better geographic balance than another Florida bowl.
San Diego really has no shot to beat Phoenix and they won’t put 3 bowls way out west.
LikeLike
If Houston becomes the site for the Champs bowl that makes things interesting for the Sugar.
LA is locked with the Rose/PAC-B1G
Houston is locked with Champ/Big12-SEC
Miami is locked with Orange/ACC
That leaves 3 spots open to bidding.
Fiesta has money in Phoenix.
Cotton has money in Arlingon/Dallas
It’s hard to picture those two being outbid.
The question becomes would the Sugar in New Orleans, with no tie-in to the SEC champ, have enough cash backing to beat out Atlanta or Orlando or Tampa, etc.
To me this scenario makes the Sugar bid even harder for the Champs bowl and therefore a larger payday for Big12/SEC.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“If Houston becomes the site for the Champs bowl that makes things interesting for the Sugar.
LA is locked with the Rose/PAC-B1G
Houston is locked with Champ/Big12-SEC
Miami is locked with Orange/ACC
That leaves 3 spots open to bidding.
Fiesta has money in Phoenix.
Cotton has money in Arlingon/Dallas
It’s hard to picture those two being outbid.”
Agreed. There are also the geographic constraints of wanting 2 bowls in each region. Is New Orleans far enough away from TX to count as a SE bowl with Houston in driving distance?
“The question becomes would the Sugar in New Orleans, with no tie-in to the SEC champ, have enough cash backing to beat out Atlanta or Orlando or Tampa, etc.”
I think the history of the Sugar would help it.
LikeLike
bullet,
“It will be a bidding process, but it will almost certainly be:
LA
Phoenix
Dallas
New Orleans
Miami”
Agreed. They have too much history to ignore.
“The only question is the 6th. If somehow Houston gets the Champions Bowl, they’re #6.”
I don’t see Dallas, Houston and New Orleans all getting games. They said they want 2 out west, 2 in TX and 2 in the SE. I don’t see them bunching up 3 sites like that.
“Most likely the Sugar gets the Champions bowl and #6 will be Atlanta.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about Atlanta. It has a fighting chance, but I wouldn’t say it’s a favorite.
“I think Tampa, Charlotte and Orlando are long shots. Orlando has some money, but not the stadium.”
Did you not see the news about the $150M renovation of the Citrus Bowl to be done in time for the start of the playoff? I think their stadium will be fine by then, and Orlando is a better destination than Atlanta.
“I don’t think the others will match the Chick Fil A bowl offer.”
The Mouse can outspend them, and they get tourism money out of it.
“And Atlanta gives better geographic balance than another Florida bowl.”
Many see FL as a better destination and less of an SEC-only area. Atlanta is an SEC hotbed and has nothing to do. I think hosting the SEC CG counts against them when deciding where to put the bowls.
“San Diego really has no shot to beat Phoenix and they won’t put 3 bowls way out west.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
I read about the renovation. It still leaves Orlando with a college type stadium (instead of a falling down college type stadium that even UCF didn’t want to play in) competing against pro stadiums. That puts them at a disadvantage.
Orlando was always happy to stay out of the BCS rotation. One question is whether they now feel like they are threatened by the expansion to 6 bowls or whether they are happy to take the next available SEC and B10 teams.
Orlando is a much better destination, but I wonder if they would rather have a site a little further north like Atlanta (or Charlotte). Not far enough north that you would be in the snow, but a little closer. There is no doubt they want east/west geographic diversity. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also wanted south/far south geographic diversity.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I read about the renovation. It still leaves Orlando with a college type stadium (instead of a falling down college type stadium that even UCF didn’t want to play in) competing against pro stadiums. That puts them at a disadvantage.”
The Georgia Dome won’t be a pro stadium for long. Maybe the new stadium will dwarf the improved Citrus Bowl.
“Orlando was always happy to stay out of the BCS rotation. One question is whether they now feel like they are threatened by the expansion to 6 bowls or whether they are happy to take the next available SEC and B10 teams.”
Happy, or resigned? There was no way they were getting in over the traditional bowls.
“Orlando is a much better destination, but I wonder if they would rather have a site a little further north like Atlanta (or Charlotte). Not far enough north that you would be in the snow, but a little closer.”
I doubt it. If northerners are heading south in January, they want sun, beaches and heat. Nobody but Delta wants to come to Atlanta.
“There is no doubt they want east/west geographic diversity. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also wanted south/far south geographic diversity.”
Yeah, I noticed a strong push to include Indy/Detroit/MSP/StL.
They want the traditional warm weather sites and that undermines Atlanta’s bid unless they outbid Jerry Jones.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“Looking at how the cities would be spread across the country is interesting.
LA – Rose
Phoenix – Fiesta
Dallas – Cotton
New Orleans – Sugar
Atlanta/Orlando – Chick Fil A/CapitalOne
Miami – Orange”
That seems the most likely group to me (probably Citrus over Peach based on location).
“All very Sun Belt but pretty well proportioned across the country. Kind of sucks for B1G fans.”
We should be used to it by now. The key is that higher ranked B10 teams won’t have to play the SEC in the SE anymore. That’s progress.
“Could also picture this:
LA – Rose
San Diego – Holiday
Dallas – Cotton
Houston – Champs
Orlando – CapOne
Miami – Orange
That’s 2 each in California, Texas and Florida, probably the 3 best states for recruiting.”
TPTB don’t care about recruiting when deciding where to play the playoffs. I’m hard pressed to see the Holiday outbid the much more lucrative Fiesta, and I doubt the Sugar gets left out. I don’t think Houston has a shot at a semi but could easily snag the NCG.
LikeLike
Question concerning the ‘Champions’ Bowl; what if one of those conferences send a team in the playoff; do they get the runner-up or would that be an at-large bowl?
LikeLike
Runner-up. Just like the Rose Bowl will do with Big Ten/Pac-12. No more AQs weasling their way in anymore. 2 out of every 3 years…the Rose/Champs will be a guaranteed matchup between their preferred conferences.
LikeLike
Commentary from Dan Wetzel:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–four-team-college-football-playoff-bcs-presidents-oversight-committee.html
LikeLike
Here’s some more commentary from Dennis Dodd and Dan Wolken:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19427810/new-playoff-setup-eliminates-havenots-doesnt-quite-solve-the-problem
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/27/062712-sports-wolken-column-cfb-playoff-1-2/
LikeLike
From Dodd’s article:
“The sad part about this, it’s all about money now,” one bowl executive said. “That has trumped everything. How much is enough money? I think they [commissioners] want to control the bowl system. They want to control whatever it is they do.”
You have to wonder if that bowl exec was aware of the irony as he said that. The greed of the bowls was a large part of the problem.
LikeLike
That’s a great quote. The shoe is on the other foot.
LikeLike
On the one hand, there is always something to complain about.
On the other hand, I hope that Wetzel’s laser-eye focus on the bowls’ corruption will empower the conferences to neuter them into submission when the contracts are signed.
LikeLike
They talked months ago about reducing ticket allotments and such.
LikeLike
Dan Wetzel’s new drum that he’s banging (since he got his “Death to the BCS” at last) is that the conferences are still getting shafted by the bowls. I’m wondering though…with all the information that’s been brought to light by Wetzel and PlayoffPAC, how can the bowls keep stealing from the schools? It seems like the bowls can keep some of their loot and their power, if they only stop slamming the schools. The huge paydays are over, but if they are willing to be responsible, then they can still have a seat at the table. That’s what I think the conferences are going to be telling the bowls from here on. They don’t want to take over ALL the bowls…but they don’t want to lose money anymore.
LikeLike
The ultimate conflict is that many of the bowls are now owned by ESPN. So they get content, pay the schools, but also charge them for ticket allotments.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“Dan Wetzel’s new drum that he’s banging (since he got his “Death to the BCS” at last) is that the conferences are still getting shafted by the bowls.”
That was his main motivation to kill the BCS, too. Too bad the facts don’t always support him.
“I’m wondering though…with all the information that’s been brought to light by Wetzel and PlayoffPAC, how can the bowls keep stealing from the schools?”
You are assuming that they ever were stealing from the schools. The schools didn’t seem to feel that way since they kept signing contracts with the bowls. Did they force the schools to buy a lot of tickets? Yes, but the schools signed a contract to allow that to happen and it got them bigger payouts. They still made a huge profit from a BCS bowl trip.
Was there some corruption, especially at the Fiesta? Obviously. That doesn’t mean every bowl was like that.
“It seems like the bowls can keep some of their loot and their power, if they only stop slamming the schools. The huge paydays are over, but if they are willing to be responsible, then they can still have a seat at the table. That’s what I think the conferences are going to be telling the bowls from here on. They don’t want to take over ALL the bowls…but they don’t want to lose money anymore.”
The B10 and P12 have helped run the Rose for years. The B12 and SEC will help run the Champs. I doubt any of them are getting screwed, and the terms they have will inform the deals for the other major bowls. I think this is more Wetzel blowing things out of proportion than anything else.
LikeLike
Disagree. Not sure how much of Wetzel’s stuff you’ve read, but overall, the bowls are ALL ABOUT prestige and hardly anything about PROFIT. Very few do make much profit on the things.
LikeLike
Michigan released its non-conference schedules thru 2106. Notre Dame stays on the schedule and the two schools intend to play one another beyond the 2018/9 hiatus. UM is playing a number of Pac 12 teams–Utah, Oregon State and Colorado are all on the future schedules. For those teams, at least, it looks like the Big Ten-Pac 12 scheduling agreement is going to be put in place prior to 2017. See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/062712aab.html
2014
Aug. 30 APPALACHIAN STATE
Sept. 6 at Notre Dame
Sept. 13 MIAMI (Ohio)
Sept. 20 UTAH
Sept. 27 at Indiana
Oct. 4 Open
Oct. 11 MICHIGAN STATE
Oct. 18 at Minnesota
Oct. 25 PENN STATE
Nov. 1 IOWA
Nov. 8 at Nebraska
Nov. 15 Open
Nov. 22 NORTHWESTERN
Nov. 29 at Ohio State
Dec. 6 Big Ten Championship Game
2015
Sept. 3 at Utah
Sept. 12 NOTRE DAME
Sept. 19 OREGON STATE
Sept. 26 UNLV
Oct. 3 at Michigan State
Oct. 10 WISCONSIN
Oct. 17 MINNESOTA
Oct. 24 at Illinois
Oct. 31 Open
Nov. 7 NEBRASKA
Nov. 14 at Northwestern
Nov. 21 at Iowa
Nov. 28 OHIO STATE
Dec. 5 Big Ten Championship Game
2016
Sept. 3 TBA
Sept. 10 at Notre Dame
Sept. 17 COLORADO
Sept. 24 TBA
Oct. 1 MICHIGAN STATE
Oct. 8 at Minnesota
Oct. 15 NORTHWESTERN
Oct. 22 Open
Oct. 29 at Wisconsin
Nov. 5 ILLINOIS
Nov. 12 at Nebraska
Nov. 19 IOWA
Nov. 26 at Ohio State
Dec. 3 Big Ten Championship Game
LikeLike
Interesting. Two P12’s in 2015?
LikeLike
It would appear that’s correct–Michigan has at Utah on a Thursday night and Oregon State in the third week after the Notre Dame game in the 2015 season.
As a Michigan fan, I have to say I’m a bit disappointed by the course UM is taking on the non-conference schedules. While the Wolverines have a break in the series with the Irish in 2018/9 that was agreed upon three or four years ago, it looks like UM is tied to the hip with ND ad infinitum. With the Pac 12 agreement starting in 2017, that means Michigan is looking at playing a tandem of Notre Dame and one lower or perhaps middle tier Pac 12 team on the non-conference schedule (Washington State, maybe California, maybe UCLA, the two Arizona schools along with Colorado, Oregon State, Utah). For now, that means no USC or Oregon or Washington or Stanford on the schedule.
It also means the likelihood of playing a major program from the other power conferences is entirely unlikely as well. So no LSU, no Texas, no FSU, etc. Perhaps one of those programs will be available when UM takes its two year hiatus from ND in 2018/9.
OTOH, it appears UM AD David Brandon may be willing to play two non-conference home-and-home series (we’ll see what happens with Oregon State and Colorado). That means he seems to be willing to essentially cap the number of home games at seven per year, which means one less home game payday every two years. The two TBA games in 2016 will be at home to ensure there are seven home dates (or perhaps one home, one neutral site).
LikeLike
Since college baseball was a subject of discussion in the last post, Michigan just hired Maryland baseball coach Erik Bakich to replace the previous coach. Kent State’s manager opted to stay there (for a nice salary boost), so it appears Bakich was the backup choice.
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/062712aab.html
LikeLike
Surprised to see an ACC coach take a step down to the B1G. It wasn’t too long ago Michigan St’s head coach left to be pitching coach at LSU.
LikeLike
Maryland has an awful baseball program – maybe the worst in the ACC – so this is a big upgrade for Bakich, even if it is the Big Ten. Maryland baseball hasn’t made an NCAA tournament since 1971
LikeLike
In relative terms, MI is a baseball power in the B10.
LikeLike
Maryland baseball is like Penn State men’s basketball — a perennial lost cause.
LikeLike
That hurts vp19…but mostly only because its true.
*Though I think Chambers will turn us around to “respectable”*
LikeLike
Mike – not to add another indignity to Michigan State, but LSU had to run Grewe off after last season.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/44360/ncaa-fb-with-rittenberg
From the B10 chat:
“Brad (Valdosta)
Has there been anymore talk about teams having to win 7 games to qualify for a bowl game
Adam Rittenberg
Glad you asked, Brad. I’ve been told that while some leagues like the Big Ten still advocate a 7-win minimum, momentum has cooled from other conferences (SEC, Big 12). They see how hard it will be for some of their teams to get into bowls. One potential compromise I’ve been told is to allow a 6-win team to qualify if it hasn’t been to a bowl in a number of years. Once it has made a bowl, it would have to go a certain number of years without qualifying to get the 6-win provision again.”
LikeLike
One potential compromise I’ve been told is to allow a 6-win team to qualify if it hasn’t been to a bowl in a number of years. Once it has made a bowl, it would have to go a certain number of years without qualifying to get the 6-win provision again.”
Let’s just end the win qualification altogether and use some of the extra playoff money to fund bowl games for all 120 teams.
LikeLike
A couple of threads on bowl timing. Here is one writer’s attempt to schedule.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19430893/what-will-the-playoff-system-look-like
LikeLike
I have three main problems with his ideas:
1. I’m pretty sure they said no bowls between 1/1 (maybe 1/2) and the NCG. They want to “take back” 1/1 and 12/31. I’m not sure when they think they had 12/31, but whatever.
2. I don’t think the tie-ins will stay for the Peach if it is #6. The committee will decide who plays in that game. Only the 5 champs tie-ins will survive for those 6 bowls.
3. I don’t think the Orange will have two teams locked.
LikeLike
Questions:
* Will the LHN survive? We are almost a year into the deal, there are still no major carriage agreements and we still have Big12 teams screaming bloody murder about their games playing on LHN. If I recall correctly, there were mutual out-clauses written into the agreement. So, does the LHN network survive?
* Is there a chance that the TV rights for the 6 rotating Semifinals bowls and championship games will be split among multiple TV networks?
* What grade would you give this plan from the following perspectives?
Overall:
Student Athletes:
Fans:
Big 4 conferences:
ACC:
Big East:
Other conferences:
TV partners:
Players:
College Presidents:
Academics:
Knight Commission:
LikeLike
* Will the LHN survive? We are almost a year into the deal, there are still no major carriage agreements and we still have Big12 teams screaming bloody murder about their games playing on LHN. If I recall correctly, there were mutual out-clauses written into the agreement. So, does the LHN network survive?
IMHO – For the near term it will. There is just too much profit potential. There are rumors that Texas will have three games on the LHN this year. For that to happen, I’m assuming there is a side deal between ESPN and FOX to let some Texas games slide down to Tier Three [remember, any Texas game not selected for ESPN or Fox becomes institutional property]. We’ll have a lot better answer after this year.
LikeLike
Letting UT games slide to tier 3 is a slap in the face of the other 9. A piece of the tier 1 and 2 contractswould then be subsidizing the LHN. Double dipping.
LikeLike
Longhorn Network–BTN didn’t have much carriage 1 year in. “Out clauses” are internet legend. There’s no such thing in the publically released documents. ESPN still asking for a lot and long term committments. Still way too early to evaluate how successful it will be.
LikeLike
BTN had DirectTV and Dish Network agreements at launch. It had Comcast nailed down before the start of year 2 as well.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard anything about unilateral out clauses. In fact, Texas has bragged from the moment the deal was signed that they get payed no matter what so I kind of doubt it.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Questions:
* Will the LHN survive? We are almost a year into the deal, there are still no major carriage agreements and we still have Big12 teams screaming bloody murder about their games playing on LHN. If I recall correctly, there were mutual out-clauses written into the agreement. So, does the LHN network survive?”
Yes. Do you have any evidence of these out clauses (I don’t remember them)?
“* Is there a chance that the TV rights for the 6 rotating Semifinals bowls and championship games will be split among multiple TV networks?”
There’s always a chance, but no. The cross-promotion possibilities mean it will get more from 1 network than a mix.
“* What grade would you give this plan from the following perspectives?”
The plan is far from complete. I think it deserves an I from most perspectives right now.
“Overall:”
F
“Student Athletes:”
C-
“Fans:”
D-
“Big 4 conferences:”
B-
“ACC:”
C-
“Big East:”
D-
“Other conferences:”
A
“TV partners:”
D
“Players:”
How are these different from the Student Athletes above? C-
“College Presidents:”
F
“Academics:”
F
“Knight Commission:”
F
LikeLike
“Players:” How are these different from the Student Athletes above?
Katzenmoyer v. Krenzel. Got it?
Regarding the LHN, UT redacted the second clause in the Termination section when it released the document publicly. It is my understanding that this redacted section contains mutual out clauses pertaining to # of subscribers and certain timelines.
LikeLike
And how do you have this understanding if the section is redacted?
LikeLike
I tend to agree with brian on the LHN, at least for the first 3 years, as I think they will attempt to add more content to generate positive revenue positions. It would not surprise me to see them do any of the following :
a) make another run at broadcasting high school sports
b) make runs at IMG partner school content (Kansas, Baylor, And TCU)
c) add content from other schools in texas
d) have UT vs IMG OOC games between schools like Notre Dame and BYU
I am not so fast to cast the DOA position on the LHN just yet and see this as biding time till Texas A&M and Missouri are gone to make another move with more pliable conference additions in TCU and West Virginia.
LikeLike
Did you just imply TCU and WVU are UT’s b!tch€$?
LikeLike
And that the LHN as the defacto conference network is going to be accepted by TT, OU, OkSU, KU, etc?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
no.
I think you will have multiple groups trying to best protect their interests
IMG will use influence to enhance their schools (UT, BU, TCU, KU)
OU is not IMG, so their agents will use the non IMG schools to help the Sooners
Still not sure where West Virginia will fall, in that it goes under wing of other 2, or puts teams like ISU and TT under their wing to make 3 “group” dividing the B12 media pie.
LikeLike
According to internal Big 12 documents, both ESPN and Fox have told the conference that only the addition of Notre Dame would increase the TV contracts.
I guess this explains the slow play of FSU and Clemson?
This would also seem to indicate that the WVU blog rumors indicating the new Big 12 contracts had established rate increases for FSU and Clemson were bogus.
http://newsok.com/article/3688049
LikeLike
Interesting find. I would be curious to know what “adding value” meant. Does that mean adding Lousiville kept the total contract exactly the same, or does that mean that it only increased it a per capita amount? I know it was said that adding Baylor and Texas Tech to a Big 8 + 2 made no change to the total TV contract back in 1994. They had to have a championship game to pay for the other two teams.
Although, this doesn’t clarify who was discussed. Since UL was the preferred #11, it may be that ACC schools were not evaluated then.
I never thought the $24-$28 million numbers that were thrown around were reasonable expectations.
LikeLike
Just out of curiousity, I looked up the 2 ESPN and 1 Fox executive’s bios discussed in the article.
ESPN guys were UNC and Holy Cross/UMass. Fox guy was St. Joseph’s of Maine. Conspiracy theorists have claimed ESPN was run by ACC folks and would protect the ACC.
LikeLike
I agree. I don’t think this evaluation included ACC schools. I can’t imagine anyone would prefer Louisville to FSU.
LikeLike
Barry Tramel-OKC writer:
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/06/27/big-12-football-does expanded-playoff-mean-expansion/
Barry has been an expansion skeptic and is inclined to believe the Big 12 stays at 10. He believes FSU/Clemson would add value and the Big 12 would add them if interested.
LikeLike
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/06/27/big-12-football-does-expanded-playoff-mean-expansion/
Corrected link.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-swarbrick-notre-dame-nears-decision-on-new-nbc-deal-20120627,0,7786513.story
ND will likely decide in July whether to sign a new deal with NBC now or wait until closer to the end of the current contract in 2015. Leaving NBC for someone else doesn’t seem to even be under consideration.
Suffice it to say that ND will get paid quite well and is happy with their current situation.
LikeLike
They’re happy as far as football. Unclear about the rest. They have no financial need to leave the Big East.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has no financial needs, period. It really is all about pride and identity with them.
LikeLike
Unless he is sure that Kelly has them turned around, Swarbrick would be smart to lock up the deal now before things get any worse. Their ratings were down 20% last year which followed similar drop from the year before. The NBC brass likely to be very cautious about doing a deal with ND after Ebersol was fired.
LikeLike
Its a tough decision. Does he wait 5 years until the big 10 resets the market and goes on the open market? Or does he lock in now knowing the market is good and there is no guarantee it gets better. The Big 12 is getting the money now by re-upping with ESPN.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is even happier about the new bowl setup. From Swarbick’s standpoint, they are in a better position than before.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0628-bcs-notre-dame-20120628,0,6039605.story
LikeLike
Apparently, the Irish won’t shop for a guaranteed high-profile spot in a Fiesta Bowl or Orange Bowl in years neither party is in the playoff structure. The new selection committee seemingly will disperse chosen teams to the four “host” bowls not running semifinals.
Well that clears up one thing – no ND vs ACC in the Orange. The pretty much assures that the Orange will be ACC vs whoever.
So in a de facto top 12, the Irish could land in multiple locales. Swarbrick likes that. He also likes the potential for the next tier of bowls to wait on the upper tier to flesh out yearly, meaning middling Irish teams could be in beauty contests they almost always win.
“In this model, I can get to all those bowls,” Swarbrick said of the “host” tier. “No one has locked them up to the exclusion of anybody else being in them. And then because all that activity happens at that level, I think there’s going to be more flexibility among the next tier of bowls.
Of course all the other bowls will wait, they have to. That doesn’t mean there won’t be tie-ins like now for the lower bowls.
As for not excluding anyone, I fail to see how the new system really gives ND any more leeway than the BCS. They can’t make the Rose or Champs now, and couldn’t make just the Rose before. There will be 2 more bowls without tie-ins than there used to be, but there will also be semis in two of the bowls.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why ND is so excited about the new bowl set up. They have a clear advantage with bowl selection committees due to their popularity. If the playoff selection committee selects the teams for the top six bowls (2 semis and 4 other) then they lose their biggest advantage. In order to make a “major” bowl, they would have to be at least top 12 (just like today). If they signed up with the Orange bowl, they conceivably would need to just be bowl eligible.
LikeLike
@Mike – I was curious about that, too. Notre Dame definitely benefits more from a beauty contest-type system as opposed to anything based on pure merit, so one would think that they are much better off having some type of guaranteed tie-in with a major bowl.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they feel good? 9 wins is pretty close to a guarantee for a top 12 finish. Then it looks like the major conferences are colluding and agreeing to forgo locking up all the next tier of bowl slots which is a big bonus for ND and all the other conferences.
Seems to me that Slive and Delaney have positioned their conferences to dominate the slots in those top 6 bowls and as a concession they have agreed to forgo creating contracts with 9 or 10 bowls to take their teams, opening up slots for ND and teams who have had great seasons from these lesser conferences.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Why wouldn’t they feel good? 9 wins is pretty close to a guarantee for a top 12 finish.”
Based on the final regular season AP poll, the top 9-3 team was:
2011 – #16 Baylor
2010 – #15 AL
2009 – #12 VT
2008 – #13 OkSU
2007 – #9 FL
2006 – #17 TN
2006 was the start of 12 game schedules, and 9-3 has hardly been a guarantee of top 12 status since then. 9-2 was a safe bet, but that third loss hurts.”
“Then it looks like the major conferences are colluding and agreeing to forgo locking up all the next tier of bowl slots which is a big bonus for ND and all the other conferences.”
I don’t know that it’s colluding when everyone agrees and it’s part if the decision that allowed the playoff to happen. The little guys got more access to the non-host games in exchange for losing access to the top 4.
“Seems to me that Slive and Delaney have positioned their conferences to dominate the slots in those top 6 bowls and as a concession they have agreed to forgo creating contracts with 9 or 10 bowls to take their teams, opening up slots for ND and teams who have had great seasons from these lesser conferences.”
I think the third tier of bowls and below will lock in teams like they do now. They all want a piece of the SEC and B10 fan bases. Maybe the bottom bowls will be open to anybody.
LikeLike
Brian:
I think you’re off by a decade or two on the start of 12 game schedules.
LikeLike
Perhaps less, but how does tOSU go 14-0 in ’02, 10-3 in ’97, 9-4 in ’94, 11-2 in ’95?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I think you’re off by a decade or two on the start of 12 game schedules.”
I’m talking about the permanent 12 game schedule, not the calendar-dependent one.
In 2005, most teams played 11 regular season games. That’s why I stopped at 2006.
LikeLike
Also, don’t forget there used to be the preseason classics that didn’t count against the total. That’s how OSU hit 14 games in 2002.
LikeLike
@Brian –
Just like Mark McGwire, I’m not here to talk about the past.
Going forward, the general trend seems to be teams being aggressive with more difficult schedules and that makes sense as several forces (Playoff expanding from 2 to 4, pressure from TV partners, 9 game conference schedules) are all pushing in that direction. As a result, I think you’ll see the winning %s for the teams at the lower end of that top 12 start to drop.
I also think you’ll see ND get benefit from a selection committee given the fact that they tend to avoid playing FCS teams and teams from the weakest FBS conferences. Line up there schedule vs. almost any SEC or Big12 team and NDs schedule will look more difficult in most seasons.
I may have overstated it with the phrase “close to a guarantee” but I think ND feels pretty good about their chances of getting selected for a big boy bowl if they end the season with 3 or less losses.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Just like Mark McGwire, I’m not here to talk about the past.”
It’s the only relevant data we have.
“Going forward, the general trend seems to be teams being aggressive with more difficult schedules and that makes sense as several forces (Playoff expanding from 2 to 4, pressure from TV partners, 9 game conference schedules) are all pushing in that direction.”
I don’t see the SEC changing. I think most leagues have basically peaked unless their fans force them to schedule better games. Until proven otherwise, power schools will prefer to go 11-1 than 10-2 with a tougher OOC schedule.
“As a result, I think you’ll see the winning %s for the teams at the lower end of that top 12 start to drop.”
I’m guessing it won’t change much, as other teams will have a good year to go 10-2.
“I also think you’ll see ND get benefit from a selection committee given the fact that they tend to avoid playing FCS teams and teams from the weakest FBS conferences.”
I-AAs I’ll give you, and they avoid the SB and WAC and mostly avoid the MAC. They play many MWC/CUSA/BE level teams though, plus weaklings from the power conferences.
“Line up there schedule vs. almost any SEC or Big12 team and NDs schedule will look more difficult in most seasons.”
ND still has a solid SOS every year, don’t get me wrong, but so do most top 10 schools.
Sagarin SOS (after the bowls, unfortunately):
2011
ND = 25
SEC/B12 teams above them = AL, LSU, OkSU, OU, AR, Baylor, TAMU, MO, TX, KSU, GA, FL, AU, ISU, TN, TT, KS, MS
Bold indicates they were in the top 15 of his final poll.
I’m not saying he’s correct, but ND’s schedule isn’t above what these teams face. Look at last year:
top teams – Stanford, USC, MI, MSU
others – USF, Pitt, PU, AF, Navy, WF, MD, BC
That’s a solid list, but a lot of fluff between the 4 good teams.
“I may have overstated it with the phrase “close to a guarantee” but I think ND feels pretty good about their chances of getting selected for a big boy bowl if they end the season with 3 or less losses.”
10-2 or better, yes. 9-3 will really depend on the year, the teams on their schedule and who they lost to. 9-3 with a loss to Navy isn’t making it. 9-3 with losses to top 10 teams like USC, MI and TX might.
LikeLike
Notre Dame also has a somewhat unique perspective in that their are probably limited options given what the Irish want i.e. playing a nationally televised games in the afternoon in South Bend. CBS is out for now given the SEC contract. ABC won’t nationally television all of your games at 3:30 on ABC. Fox is really the only other option. Notre Dame is clearly happy with NBC. Given that arrangement, there is less downside to waiting. There isn’t really a Pac-12 open market scenario in play here.
LikeLike
Final Sears cup link:
Click to access finalD1.pdf
Stanford, Florida, UCLA, Ohio St., Florida St., Texas, USC, North Carolina, Texas A&M, Michigan were top 10. Interestingly, Alabama was only #23 despite 5 national titles this year.
LikeLike
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9661.html
For those interested in ranking methodologies and such, this is the book for you apparently. Scientific American had a short article by the authors about ranking things.
LikeLike
Piggy backing off something Brian said earlier. What happens if the 2 semifinals in one year have no tie ins? Doesn’t that significantly reduce the possibilities for non-tied in conferences/teams?
For Example:
Cotton: 1 vs 4
Fiesta: 2 vs 3
Sugar: SEC vs Big12
Rose: Pac vs B1G
Orange: ACC vs At Large
CapOne: At Large vs At Large
3 At Large Spots
Opposite
Rose: 1 vs 4
Orange: 2 vs 3
Cotton: At Large vs At Large
Fiesta: At Large vs At Large
Sugar: SEC vs Big 12
CapOne: At Large vs At Large
6 At Large Spots
The solution would be to pair tied-in bowls with non tied-in bowls for the semis but there will still be fluctuation from year to year.
That’s why anchoring semi-finals to top seeded tie-ins made more sense to me but there is probably a corporate sponsorship angle that made more financial sense.
LikeLike
I would assume that they wouldn’t let that happen; they’d make it so that one of the 3 bowls with tie ins has a semifinal with one of the 3 bowls without tie ins…
LikeLike
@Read the D – I’d 99.9% expect it to be similar to the pre-2006 BCS system when the bowl games themselves hosted the national championship game (as opposed to having a separate game via the double hosting model). In the years that the Rose Bowl was the national championship game, one of the other BCS bowls *had* to take the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs if they weren’t national title game participants. It might be even more formalized in the new system, where, say, the Fiesta Bowl would have a contract to host Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1 in the years that the Rose Bowl is the semifinal. The “Champions Bowl” is clearly proceeding in this manner, as well – the SEC and Big 12 aren’t creating a “new” bowl game (which will really likely be an existing bowl game like the Cotton or Sugar with the financial underpinnings changed) so that the matchup doesn’t exist when that bowl is a semifinal.
LikeLike
@FTT isn’t that the definition of an Automatic Qualifier?
LikeLike
LOL. They said they were getting rid of the “Automatic Qualifier”, they didn’t say they were getting rid of conferences being able to automatically qualify.
LikeLike
@Read the D – Of course! They’ve just changed the label. I’ve said from the moment that people were discussing the elimination of AQ status that it wouldn’t mean much in practicality to anyone other than the Big East. Now, they’re just going to be called contractual tie-ins.
LikeLike
If that comes to fruition you will be correct.
LikeLike
Frank,
I think the SEC and B12 potentially set a nice precedent for the B10 and P12 with the Champs Bowl. If they do what some have said, they will rotate between the Cotton and Sugar so there is always a Champs Bowl even if the other hosts a semi.
I’d like to see the B10 and P12 follow that up with a formal agreement with the Fiesta to host the Rose Bowl match-up any time the Rose has a semi. The game stays out west so travel is about the same for fans, the match-up is preserved which is good for traditional fans and both conferences, and the Fiesta gets a desirable game with a lot of travelling fans which is great for them.
LikeLike
@Read the D – I think conferences will basically have back up tie-ins when their host tie-in is one of the semi-final. Let’s say the Cotton Bowl becomes the SEC/Big 12 tie in. In the years the Cotton hosts the semi-final, that tie-in becomes the Sugar Bowl. When the Rose Bowl is a semi-final, that backup-tie in could be the Fiesta Bowl for PAC 12 and Sugar Bowl for Big 10. The Peach Bowl could be a backup tie-in for the ACC
Then on top of all that, what could also happen is regardless of who is hosting, if a conference tie-in doesn’t meet some basic criteria (ie ranked in the top 12), the tie-in becomes an at-large. I’m not sure if that will happen, but I think it should happen if you want to prevent bad matchups.
Example:
Cotton: 1 vs 4
Fiesta: 2 vs 3
Sugar: SEC vs Big12
Rose: Pac vs B1G
Orange: ACC vs At Large
Peach: At Large vs At Large
Rose: 1 vs 4
Orange: 2 vs 3
Cotton: SEC vs Big 12
Fiesta: Pac vs At-Large (backup PAC tie-in)
Sugar: Big 10 vs At Large (backup Big 10 tie-in)
Peach: ACC vs At Large (backup ACC tie-in)
LikeLike
If they schedule the semifinals appropriately it should be something like this:
Rose: 1 vs 4
CapOne: 2 vs 3
Sugar: Big12 vs SEC
Orange: ACC vs At Large
Fiesta: At Large vs At Large
Cotton: At Large vs At Large
So most years you would have 5 At Large spots. If the Orange hosts a semi you would only have 4.
I can’t see them allowing backup tie ins. 7 of the 12 founders would have no reason to go for that. One of the main problems with the BCS is the fact that West Virginia or UConn can have a BCS ranking in the 20’s and still make a BCS bowl.
I can’t imagine TV will go for backup tie-ins either. If there are 5 at large spot and the winner of a conference isn’t one of the best 9 teams in the country then they shouldn’t be guaranteed a spot.
LikeLike
@Read the D – We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think all of the power conferences will insist upon those backup tie-ins and the bowls will heavily support them on that. The Cotton Bowl, for instance, doesn’t need/want flexibility: it wants Big 12 vs. SEC (whether it’s the Champions Bowl or their 2nd/3rd place teams). The Capital One Bowl has consistently beaten at least one BCS bowl in the TV ratings and that has featured Big Ten #3 vs. SEC #3 every year since 2006 (as Big Ten #2 and SEC #2 have received at-large bids every year since that time), so TV certainly wouldn’t have an objection when there are brand name teams involved.
Essentially, it’s largely a preservation of the status quo where there would be 3 at-large spots. The carrot they throw to the non-power conferences is that those 3 at-large spots are determined based on merit (overall ranking or something similar to the top 12 non-AQ champ rule of today).
LikeLike
So in your view the only the only non tied in spots will be 1 spot in the Orange and 2 in the Fiesta? Makes you wonder if the deal will preclude the Orange and Fiesta from having agreements with any other conferences/Notre Dame in order to preserve the At Large concept.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“So in your view the only the only non tied in spots will be 1 spot in the Orange and 2 in the Fiesta?”
Not quite. The Sugar and Cotton probably won’t both have SEC and B12 locked in. Each year, 1 of them will have that locked in as the Champs Bowl. The other will have 2 openings or be a semi.
“Makes you wonder if the deal will preclude the Orange and Fiesta from having agreements with any other conferences/Notre Dame in order to preserve the At Large concept.”
ND said they aren’t locking themselves into a bowl, so there is nobody left for the Orange or Fiesta. If the Fiesta is smart, they’ll lock in the B10 and P12 for the years when the Rose hosts a semi.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/62463/3-point-stance-filling-up-the-bowls
Info from Ivan Maisel:
“1. The semifinal teams get four of the 12 slots in the new six-team rotation of “major bowls.” The commissioners are studying two plans to fill the other eight slots. One would simply follow whatever ranking will be used, from 5-12. Another would guarantee any conference champion that finishes at a certain ranking –- Top 16? Top 20? — and use the rankings to fill the remaining slots. That’s good news for the Mountain West and Conference USA. That system would have produced five bowl berths in the last 12 years. “
LikeLike
Sounds like the selection committee will not be ranking the top 4 teams in the country, but the top 12 teams. I like this idea as we’ve had some strange BCS bowl matchups in recent years.
LikeLike
It should be a little more fair, both to the non-kings (KSU, MSU, etc) and the elite non-AQs (really just Boise at this point). I think they also plan to use geography to place the teams in bowls so travel should be easier for fans.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8107210/rose-bowl-game-broadcast-espn-2026
The Rose Bowl TV deal is set. It’s on ESPN through 2026 (I know Frank is just thrilled about that).
“The Rose Bowl will be part of the postseason bowl rotation, hosting semifinal games on two occasions between 2015 and 2026. Those games, plus games when the Rose Bowl is not part of the rotation, will be played at 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 1 (Jan. 2 if New Year’s Day is a Sunday). ”
So it’s official, the Rose will always be at 5 (no shifting to prime time when it has a semi). It seems like news that the Rose will only host a semi twice in the 12 year period. It should be 4 times if it is split equally, so which bowl gets the 2 extra slots or did ESPN.com get it wrong? I’m guessing ESPN.com got it wrong.
LikeLike
I like that its always on at 5. I dislike that it will be on ESPN rather than ABC a lot.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/06/27/playoff-atlanta-bowls.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a4
The Peach Bowl says it will bid to either be a host bowl or get a NCG. Personally, I think they are better off going for a NCG. Atlanta isn’t a good bowl destination city but it does big events well.
LikeLike
It depends on how often they can get it. Becoming a BCS bowl would be big every year and even bigger every 3 years (more often if the Rose Bowl chooses not to host all years). If they can get the national championship a couple years in the cycle, that would be really big though.
LikeLike
I think they may have complicated matters by calling things “access and contract” bowls. In reality, it’s beginning to look like this.
“Every conference can sign one automatic contract with a BCS bowl per year (this does not include the semi-finals). All other teams will be chosen by committee.
The only conferences able to sign tie-ins are the big 5. They’ll sign both a regular and a back-up bowl for when the regular is a semi-final.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel twitter
Stewart Mandel @slmandel
According to Bill Hancock, the “Big Six” bowls will be played three each on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1, around 1 pm/4:30 pm/8.
LikeLike
Very dumb to have them on New Years Eve. That’s usually not a Holiday.
LikeLike
Its possible TV execs will change that. Minor bowls will get better TV slots.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Very dumb to have them on New Years Eve. That’s usually not a Holiday.”
Agreed. That’s 2 of the 6 games played during business hours for tens of millions of people. Like bullet, I hope/think the TV folks will talk them out of this lunacy.
LikeLike
I’m divided, but actually kind of like it. I know I’ll watch less on New Years Eve than I would on later days, but it turns the whole 2 days into a big college football event and I think I’m hoping they keep it. I wouldn’t be too disappointed if they put a game or two on January 2nd though.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I’m divided, but actually kind of like it. I know I’ll watch less on New Years Eve than I would on later days, but it turns the whole 2 days into a big college football event and I think I’m hoping they keep it. I wouldn’t be too disappointed if they put a game or two on January 2nd though.”
What makes no sense to me is that one of their goals is to draw more viewers. How does this help with that? They could play 2 non-semis early on 1/1, then the Rose at 5 and the Champs at 8:30 every year when either the Rose or Champs hosts a semi. Then play the other non-semi 12/31 at 7 and the other semi 1/2 at 8:30. If neither the Rose nor the Champs hosts a semi, then play 1 semi early on 1/1 instead of the 2 non-semis and play those 2 on 12/31 at 7.
More specifically, they can play 1/1 at 11 and 1:30 (and replay the 11:00 game at midnight for night owls and west coasters that missed the game). When they have two games on 12/31, they can play at 7 and 10 if they pair two western teams in the late game and play it out west.
LikeLike
Welp, guess I’ll have to change my name. Perhaps to 8-Team Playoffs Now.
LikeLike
[audio src="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/stewart_mandel/listenlive.player.html?file=http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/stewartmandel/audio/2012/06/28/062812.mandel_hancock_1-2.mp3" /]
Notes from Stewart Mandel’s podcast interview with Bill Hancock:
All just discussed in concept only, but:
1. The committee will have 1 member per conference plus some at larges. They will be active people (commishes, etc), not retired coaches.
2. They may release standings starting in midseason, but not necessarily weekly.
3. As part of a selection show they will explain why they picked the four they did.
4. The committee will also rank the top 12-20 teams and fill in the other 4 bowls with input from the bowls and considering geography while avoiding rematches.
5. When the Rose hosts a semi, the B10 and P12 champs will play in another bowl.
6. The 6 bowls will be played 3 each day, at 1, 5 and 8.
LikeLike
@Frank,
Stewart Mandel asked almost verbatim the question you posed to him regarding what happens when the Big Ten #2 team is ranked around 18 to Bill Hancock. Hancock says that the Rose Bowl, when not a semifinal, will be Big Ten vs. Pac-12 teams, no matter what.
I wonder if Mandel asked Hancock that question because you asked him first.
LikeLike
@Brian – Thanks for posting this. It’s extremely helpful.
LikeLike
No problem. It’s always best to hear things from the horse’s mouth in my opinion.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/06/28/bcs-bowl-selection/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
This is Mandel’s column that is based on his interview with Hancock. At the end he gives a sample of what NYE and NYD would have looked like based on last year.
The worst news is limited diversity. With the limit on teams gone, the bias runs wild.
Teams by conference:
SEC 4
B12 3
P12 2
B10 1
ACC 1
other 1
Mandel does say it’s possible there will be a cap on teams from one conference (3, presumably).
The other bad news is playing at 1 and 5 on a day when many people have to work.
LikeLike
Why would they choose #13 9-3 Baylor over #11 10-2 Michigan? Thats a huge nod to SOS, if SOS was Mandel’s reason.
LikeLike
This looks like a big improvement in the bowl system (except for December 31 at 1 & 5). Bowl fatigue was a big problem in the old conference tied systems. Texas had a streak in San Diego 3 out of 4 years and a similar streak in the Cotton. Oklahoma has been to the Fiesta a lot. Even the SEC and B10 have had some fatigue with Tampa and WallyWorld.
I wonder if, in the end, the conferences and bowls will allow best team matchups instead of best TV value matchups. Will they take a #13 Baylor instead of a #20 Notre Dame? That’s one of those, I’ll believe it when I see it.
If this does happen this way (which I think his term was “conceptual”), then there is no question every bowl that thinks it has a chance will go for being one of the top 6. Otherwise, the Capital One might be happy continuing to get the best available SEC and Big 10 teams. But this type of system could push them way down the list if they don’t make it. The battle for the #6 bowl slot could be fierce.
LikeLike
greg,
“Why would they choose #13 9-3 Baylor over #11 10-2 Michigan? Thats a huge nod to SOS, if SOS was Mandel’s reason.”
Baylor was #12 in the BCS while MI was #13. Considering 2 of their losses came to top 10 teams (OkSU and KSU) and they beat 2 other top 20 teams, I’m sure their SOS was higher. MI lost to #17 MSU and unranked IA, and their only ranked win was #20 NE. Missing WI and PSU hurt MI’s SOS.
LikeLike
bullet,
“This looks like a big improvement in the bowl system (except for December 31 at 1 & 5).”
Ignoring the playoff aspect, there is a lot to like about this, yes.
“Bowl fatigue was a big problem in the old conference tied systems.”
I think it will still happen for the next level of bowls, but it’ll be nice if they do spread these guys around some.
“I wonder if, in the end, the conferences and bowls will allow best team matchups instead of best TV value matchups. Will they take a #13 Baylor instead of a #20 Notre Dame? That’s one of those, I’ll believe it when I see it.”
I think they will because the committee makes the decision. I don’t think TV even gets to add input (the bowls will, I think). I don’t see #20 ever getting in unless it’s a champ getting the tie-in spot.
“If this does happen this way (which I think his term was “conceptual”), then there is no question every bowl that thinks it has a chance will go for being one of the top 6. Otherwise, the Capital One might be happy continuing to get the best available SEC and Big 10 teams. But this type of system could push them way down the list if they don’t make it. The battle for the #6 bowl slot could be fierce.”
Yes, it should be a bloodbath. I think there’s still a lot of value to getting the next best available B10 and SEC teams, though. They should get better games and still gets lots of fans to travel.
LikeLike
We’ll see if the committee would take a 9-3 Baylor over 10-2 Michigan. I personally don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
Me neither, but not just for brand reasons. At some level, I have to believe they’ll consider balance of conferences as well. Too many teams from 1 conference can hurt viewership. I’d be surprised to see:
4 SEC
3 B12
2 P12
1 ACC, B10, other
when it could easily be:
3 SEC (LSU, AL, SC)
2 B12 (OkSU, KSU)
2 P12 (OR, Stanford)
2 B10 (WI, MSU)
2 ACC (VT*, Clemson)
1 other (Boise)
That’s AP #1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 17
Teams skipped – #5 USC (ineligible), #7 AR* (3rd in division), #13 MI (MSU won division and head to head)
*I don’t think VT would drop as far in the committee’s eyes as they did in the polls for losing the CCG (5 to 17). If they did drop that far, then AR would obviously get in instead. MI might get the nod over MSU, too, but I didn’t want to make too many heads explode.
LikeLike
I don’t see any obvious top ten teams, like Arkansas last year, getting passed over in the new set-up. One of the primary goals is to pit the best teams against one another to increase ratings and attendance, and the committee is in place to help avoid bias.
I can maybe see a cap of 4 teams per conference, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t end up with any such restrictions.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“I don’t see any obvious top ten teams, like Arkansas last year, getting passed over in the new set-up.”
Well that’s the question. Were they obviously a top 10 team? They got hammered by LSU and AL (not a sin, but it shows they weren’t at their level). Their top win was SC at home after SC lost their stud RB just 2 weeks before. And what was SC’s best win? UGA in a nail biter, and then Clemson I guess. Here’s AR’s schedule with final records:
MO St 2-9
NM 1-11
Troy 3-9
at AL 12-1
vs TAMU 7-6
AU 8-5
at MS 2-10
at Vandy 6-7
SC 11-2
TN 5-7
MS St 7-6
at LSU 13-1
They played nobody OOC, beat nobody on the road, and had 1 good home win over a team missing their star. If you weren’t told they were an SEC team, that resume wouldn’t sound impressive at all.
“One of the primary goals is to pit the best teams against one another to increase ratings and attendance, and the committee is in place to help avoid bias.”
Yes, and part of their job is to evaluate the teams and what they actually accomplished that year. They could easily think AR was more like #10-12 than #7.
“I can maybe see a cap of 4 teams per conference, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t end up with any such restrictions.”
I wouldn’t be surprised either, but I think the little guys will push for a cap or strict instructions to make sure their champs get a fair shot against SEC #4. If champs status means something, then not being close to a champ should also mean something.
LikeLike
There will be a cap of some sort. More likely 4 than 3. They are chafing at being limited to 2 of 10. 3 of 12 isn’t much of an improvement.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19431546/playing-selection-committee-bcs-history-proves-picking-four-isnt-easy
Tony Barnhart tries to guess what a committee would have done the past 5 years. Butr first, he talks about the system a little.
“If I was in charge of a bowl game, any bowl game, I would be very, very nervous right now. With this move the commissioners are basically telling the bowls: We are not going to outsource our product to you anymore. You can host the game and sell some local sponsorships to help pay your bills. But we control everything else: TV, tickets, hotels etc. That’s what the SEC/Big 12 Champions Game is all about. The Big Ten/Pac-12 have been doing that at the Rose Bowl forever. It will be the new financial model between conferences and bowls. And if the bowls want to be part of the New World Order and remain relevant, they will go along.”
Teams left out:
2011 – #4 Stanford 11-1
2010 – #4 Stanford 11-1
2009 – #3 UC 12-0 BE champ, #6 Boise 13-0 WAC champ
2008 – #5 USC 11-1 P10 champ, #6 Utah 12-0 MWC champ
2007 – #5 UGA 10-2
Even Barnhart admits the committee might well take USC and pass on UT or AL in 2008, and there would be a lot of talk about all the undefeateds left out.
Personally, I think they’ll give undefeateds little guys more of a chance than that.
LikeLike
Actually, I read this as what he would have done. He would have picked 2009 SEC Florida, #5 over #3 Cincinnati and doesn’t think a committee would have left Cincy out. I don’t see any way Cincinnati gets left out. He’s using a little after the fact knowledge. He also would have picked 2008 SEC Alabama #4 over #5 USC and #6 Utah. I suspect a committee would give USC the nod over Alabama as a conference champ. Utah didn’t have the overall strength of schedule or people’s belief at the end of the regular season to jump two out of USC, Alabama and Texas.
LikeLike
I took it as him acting like the selection committee, meaning he tried to follow the procedure of honoring champs and SOS.
“Like a selection committee, I used the BCS Standings as a tool but was not bound by them. I took conference championships into consideration but, quite honestly, all conferences are not created equal.”
As for UC:
“A real selection committee probably would have put Cincinnati or Boise State in the FFF to keep the peace.”
He doesn’t sound convinced, but he knows he’s an SEC homer and that a geographically diverse group might feel differently.
LikeLike
From what I’ve gathered, this six-bowl system will be set up this way.
1. During years in which the Rose, Sugar (assuming “Champions Bowl” becomes Sugar), and Orange Bowls ARE NOT semifinals:
Rose: Big Ten champion (or highest ranked non-champion, non-playoff B1G team) vs. Pac-12 champion (or highest-ranked non-champion, non playoff P-12 team)
Sugar: SEC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. Big 12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)
Orange: ACC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. At-large (one of three highest-ranked teams that does not into semifinals, Rose, or Sugar Bowl)
2. During years in which the Rose IS a semifinal:
Fiesta: B1G champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. P-12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)
During years in which the Sugar IS a semifinal:
Cotton: SEC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. Big 12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)
3. During years in which the Orange IS a semifinal:
Chick-fil-A or Outback or Capital One: ACC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. At-large (one of three highest-ranked teams that does not into semifinals, Rose, or Sugar Bowl)
4. During years in which neither the Rose nor Fiesta are semifinals:
Fiesta: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if a Pac-12 or Big Ten is among those three teams, the Fiesta would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)
5. During years in which neither the Sugar nor Cotton are semifinals:
Cotton: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if an SEC or Big 12 is among those three teams, the Cotton would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)
6. During years in which neither the Orange nor Chick-fil-a/Outback/Capital One are semifinals:
Chick-fil-a/Outback/Capital One: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if an ACC or SEC is among those three teams, this bowl game would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“From what I’ve gathered, this six-bowl system will be set up this way.
1. During years in which the Rose, Sugar (assuming “Champions Bowl” becomes Sugar), and Orange Bowls ARE NOT semifinals:”
It’s important to note that is a big assumption still. I’ve heard they may split equally with the Cotton, making sure it has a home when the other is hosting a semi, but it’s all speculation right now
You’re also assuming that all three bowls will host semis in different years. While unlikely, it’s possible the choice of other bowls forces 2 of them to host in the same year.
“Rose: Big Ten champion (or highest ranked non-champion, non-playoff B1G team) vs. Pac-12 champion (or highest-ranked non-champion, non playoff P-12 team)”
Sugar: SEC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. Big 12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)
Orange: ACC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. At-large (one of three highest-ranked teams that does not into semifinals, Rose, or Sugar Bowl)”
Agreed.
“2. During years in which the Rose IS a semifinal:
Fiesta: B1G champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. P-12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)”
That’s a likely scenario, but nobody official has said it that I know of. We know those two champs are promised a spot, but it’s unclear if the match-up will be preserved or if their runners up automatically can fill in for them.
“During years in which the Sugar IS a semifinal:
Cotton: SEC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. Big 12 champion (or highest ranked et. al.)”
Another rumor, but it seems reasonable.
“3. During years in which the Orange IS a semifinal:
Chick-fil-A or Outback or Capital One: ACC champion (or highest ranked et. al.) vs. At-large (one of three highest-ranked teams that does not into semifinals, Rose, or Sugar Bowl)”
I assume you’re saying those three are the options for bowl #6. It again seems likely that any of them would love to lock in a champ every 3 years, but who knows?
“4. During years in which neither the Rose nor Fiesta are semifinals:
Fiesta: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if a Pac-12 or Big Ten is among those three teams, the Fiesta would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)”
Reasonable guess.
“5. During years in which neither the Sugar nor Cotton are semifinals:
Cotton: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if an SEC or Big 12 is among those three teams, the Cotton would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)”
I think they may get a 50/50 split of the Champs Bowl when neither is a host. The other one would get this scenario.
“6. During years in which neither the Orange nor Chick-fil-a/Outback/Capital One are semifinals:
Chick-fil-a/Outback/Capital One: At-large vs. At-large (matchup of two of the three highest ranked teams who are not in the semifinals, Rose, or SEC-B12 “Champions” bowl matchup. I assume that if an ACC or SEC is among those three teams, this bowl game would be given them over the bowl that gets the third at-large)”
They may or may not get SEC priority. An SEC West team would be a better fit in the Sugar or Cotton than the Outback or Cap 1.
LikeLike
I kind of like the outcome for the Rose Bowl.
10 out of 12 years it gets the traditional matchup instead of 9 out of 12 (had to give up 1 of the 8 slots in current 4 year contract to non-AQ).
The playoff itself is distributed among 6 bowls instead of 4, so it doesn’t really devalue the Rose Bowl as much in leaving 2 playoff games on the table and only have 2 semifinals over 12 years compared to Sugar, Orange, Fiesta getting a bit more than 4 on average over 12 years (splitting 13 or 14 between the 3 bowls assuming they get the extra Rose Bowl slot(s)).
The Rose Bowl maintains more tradition than it would have under the current system and still takes some share of the playoff value. That’s not a bad thing in the name of compromise.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I kind of like the outcome for the Rose Bowl.
10 out of 12 years it gets the traditional matchup instead of 9 out of 12 (had to give up 1 of the 8 slots in current 4 year contract to non-AQ).”
From what I understand, that hasn’t been settled yet. The Rose may host 4 semis or 2 or some other number. Yesterday ESPN.com said they’d try to find out for sure, and their company has the TV deal. If ESPN doesn’t know how many times they’ll host, nobody does.
“The playoff itself is distributed among 6 bowls instead of 4, so it doesn’t really devalue the Rose Bowl as much in leaving 2 playoff games on the table and only have 2 semifinals over 12 years compared to Sugar, Orange, Fiesta getting a bit more than 4 on average over 12 years (splitting 13 or 14 between the 3 bowls assuming they get the extra Rose Bowl slot(s)).”
The existence of semis and a NCG devalue the Rose. Hosting a semi less often devalues the Rose nationally.
“The Rose Bowl maintains more tradition than it would have under the current system and still takes some share of the playoff value. That’s not a bad thing in the name of compromise.”
The best I can say for it right now is it gets to keep its exclusive time slot. That will keep it important.
LikeLike
Meanwhile in College Hockey,
UCONN, Big East member but hockey slacker just got an invite to the Powerhouse Hockey East tkeep even teams when the Irish Join. Now all the Big East teams will be in the sam e conference.
LikeLike
I saw that the other day. Is that the end of the dominoes, or will someone move to fill their old spot?
LikeLike
Hard to say. There’s now an opening in the AHA (with UConn’s defection they are at 11), but the only available team to fill it is UAH, and supposedly (according to the USCHO boards) the majority of AHA schools don’t want to go down to Alabama, since it’s really a low-major conference that is *very* interested in cost containment. Guessing, I think they’d prefer Navy get a team.
What I find more interesting is that the Irish have made stronger ties to the East Coast, particularly to the Big East by bringing a UConn team with them to one of the big time conferences. UConn is not a team that would have made Hockey East on its own. Despite the name, the UConn Administration has not supported the program like the basketball teams. I know hockey is different, but I think this has all the earmarks of ND showing commitment to it’s Big East brethren by keeping them all together in a hockey conference (or, at the very least showing it’s preference to East Coast/ACC over Midwest/NCAC/BXII), and that this whole thing with the the Big XII is more wishful thinking by Dodds.
@ bullet
LOL
LikeLike
It helps that UConn will start to offer scholarships once they join in 2014. I’m sure that was a condition of joining.
LikeLike
There were rumours UConn and Notre Dame were joining the ACC. I guess some people got the sports mixed up.
LikeLike
Pretty impressive performance for the SEC in last night’s draft despite not being known for its basketball:
SEC – 16 players drafted (8 first round) from 8 different schools
ACC – 8 players drafted (6 first round) from 4 different schools
Big East – 8 players drafted (5 first round) from 4 different schools
Foreign – 8 players drafted (1 first round)
Other – 7 players drafted (2 first round)
Big 12 – 6 players drafted (3 first round) from 3 different schools
Big Ten – 4 players drafted (2 first round) from 4 different schools
Pac-12 – 3 players drafted (3 first round) from 2 different schools
LikeLike
That 16 counts the 2 drafted from Mizzou and the 1 from Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Kentucky and Vanderbilt had really good crops of students. The two schools combined outnumber any other conference.
LikeLike
Latest on Boise St.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19446937/boise-state-doesnt-withdraw-from-mwc-for-big-east-could-cost-millions
Boise State did not formally withdraw from the Mountain West Conference by the end of business on Friday, sources told CBSSports.com, a decision that will cost the Broncos millions of dollars in exit fees if they still choose to join the Big East in 2013.
Boise State may still withdraw from the MWC and join the Big East in 2013, but it will now cost the Broncos substantially more — anywhere from $7.5 million to $24 million — because they will be providing less than one year’s notice. If Boise State had withdrawn before the end of business on Friday, it would have only had to forfeit its final year of league revenue (about $2.5 million).
If Boise State still joins the Big East, the lowest amount it would owe the MWC is $7.5 million in forfeited league revenue and exit fees if it doesn’t receive a BCS bowl bid, but $24 million if Boise State earns an at-large BCS bowl berth. If another MWC team other than Boise State receives a BCS bowl berth this fall, Boise State would owe about $10.5 million.
LikeLike
The story has been pulled. False Alarm.
LikeLike
bullet and Frank, isn’t this what you said was going to happen at Mizzou (even though it never did and there haven’t even been any accusations, let alone evidence of wrongdoing)?
Couldn’t have happened to a finer university:
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/29/3683465/prosecutor-accused-pot-dealer.html
LikeLike
Sorry Frank, meant to say Bullet and Brian. There I go with the typos again. I really should be more careful.
LikeLike
No. Its your extreme homerism clouding your reading comprehension. In fact, this is exactly why you want to be careful who you let close to your players as everyone tried to explain to you.
LikeLike
And this is where your hostility to Mizzou clouds your logic into retardation.
“Allowing” a booster to bring a guest (with no criminal record or accusations at the time) along with him on trips where they sit on the back of the plane away from the players isn’t any more of a risk to the players than it would be if he wasn’t on the plane at all. If the players want to connect with drug dealer, they don’t need for him to be on the back of a plane to do that. There are plenty of drug dealers out there. Players would have zero trouble finding one if they want to. The jayhawk players certainly were able to find one even though he didn’t ride on their plane.
LikeLike
More to the point, the most important factor is not whether or not boosters can bring guests that don’t have criminal records onto planes. The most important factor is recruiting good kids and then fostering a culture that keeps them out of trouble. Name the last time a Missouri basketball player was found to have any involvement in drugs whatsoever? I can tell you: Duane John, 10 years ago:
http://www.mutigers.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/051502aaa.html
LikeLike
The most important factor is recruiting good kids and then fostering a culture that keeps them out of trouble.
Good kids like Ricky Clemons?
LikeLike
Predictable response. Yeah, 9 years ago (and 2 coaches ago) Missouri had a player named Ricky Clemons who was found guilty of assaulting his girflriend. He was kicked off the team, but not as quickly as some would have liked. He denied any wrong doing and wasn’t kicked off until after he was found guilty by a jury.
LikeLike
btw, ever since Ricky Clemons, Missouri has been far stricter than most programs in vetting recruits before offering them scholarships. Multiple times the Missouri athletic director has vetoes the recruitment of high level players because of what happened with Clemons. This may be part of why Missouri has gone the last 9 years without too many problems. (occasional bar fight notwithstanding).
LikeLike
Come on, Andy. The story is way better than that. Just a sample:
Floyd, who is the university’s first black president, said his “nightmare” started with his consent to basketball coach Quin Snyder’s request last spring that he befriend Clemons, who is also black.
The optimistic relationship went awry almost from the start, when Clemons — then in a halfway house serving his sentence — wrecked an all-terrain vehicle at a July 4 party at Floyd’s official campus residence.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/basketball/ncaa/12/12/bc.bkc.missouri.clemons.ap/index.html
LikeLike
At that point he wasn’t on the team anymore. And I really don’t see how leaving his halfway house and wrecking a four wheeler (and getting seriously injured in the process) is worse than assaulting his girflriend.
I listed the worst (and only really serious) thing he did that was bad. The rest was just a bunch of silliness. He was also a compulsive liar and pretty much everything he ever told anyone wasn’t true, including stories of his dead mother (who wasn’t dead), etc. He was a troubled kid from a rough background. It’s a sad story, really. He was a good player. Averaged 14 pts and 4 assists per game. But he was kind of nuts unfortunately.
No substance abuse problems as far as anyone has told the story, though. So his relevance to this conversation is marginal at best.
LikeLike
This may be part of why Missouri has gone the last 9 years without too many problems. (occasional bar fight notwithstanding).
http://sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Fulmer_Cup_2010
Are you familiar with the Fullmer Cup? It tracks off season arrests. Its an invention of EDSBS.
Currently Missouri is sitting at 14th in the Fullmer Cup. (Failure to appear, Failure to appear, Leaving the scene of an accident)
In 2010 Missouri Finished Second. (Shoplifting, Bunch of Bullcrap arrests, DUI, DUI, Sexual Assault)
In 2009 Missouri finished 12th (Drugs, DUI)
In 2008 Missouri finished second again (Various Drug Offenses, Vandalizing Cars, Drunk Gun Waving, Typical underaged college student, Hit and run with a mailbox)
All time Missouri is 6th.
Relatively speaking, Missouri has more problems than most schools.
LikeLike
Almost all of those are football. I was talking about basketball.
LikeLike
And yes, Mizzou’s football team gets into trouble pretty regularly, no doubt. But there are some problems with the Fullmer Cup’s ranking system. 1) It seems to give a lot of weight to things like traffic violations, but I’m not sure they give substantially more weight to violent offenses or drug use, even though they probably should. And 2) It seems to rely almost entirely on media reports for their statistics. The University of Missouri is home of the world’s #1 ranked school of journalism, so there are no shortage of young reporters roaming around hunting after stories. No doubt Missouri wracks up a lot of exta ticky-tack complaints because of that. So that probalby boosts their rankings. That said, the traffic offenses and minor drug offenses and occasional fist-fights by football players aren’t a good thing. But let’s not forget Missouri’s football team ranked 1st in the Big 12 in APR the last few times, and would have ranked 2nd in the SEC and 4th in the Big Ten. They do a decent job with those kids overall.
LikeLike
Trying this again
1) It seems to give a lot of weight to things like traffic violations, but I’m not sure they give substantially more weight to violent offenses or drug use, even though they probably should.
They do.
2) It seems to rely almost entirely on media reports for their statistics. The University of Missouri is home of the world’s #1 ranked school of journalism, so there are no shortage of young reporters roaming around hunting after stories.
They have to be arrested, and they do rely on media reports. Given how simple it is to search through arrest records, Missouri’s impressive scores in the Fullmer Cup have nothing to do with MU’s journalism school. I’d bet MU, like all major schools, gets monitored for arrests by their local media.
LikeLike
Mike, you might be surprised. The media in Columbia, St. Louis, and Kansas City are very attentive. It seems like a lot of schools are better at downplaying or covering up problems. The opposite seems to be true at Mizzou.
As for the Fullmer Cup weighting system, I’m just not sure I would give traffic accidents and the like hardly any weight at all, really. I mean, sure, there have been a few serious offenses by Missouri football players, but typically most everything over the last few years has been of the misdemeanor variety.
LikeLike
Mike, you might be surprised. The media in Columbia, St. Louis, and Kansas City are very attentive.
I would be surprised if they were any more attentive than outlets in Austin, Lincoln, Knoxville, Gainsville, etc.
I’m just not sure I would give traffic accidents and the like hardly any weight at all, really.
You have to be arrested to earn points. They didn’t earn points for the traffic offense. They earned points for “Leaving the Scene,” for which they got arrested.
LikeLike
Yeah, and later it turned out that the “scene” he left was a very minor accident. Less than $1000 damage. The trouble is there’s no follow up. You get arrested and boom there’s your points.
I’m not saying that Missouri football players haven’t committed a lot of misdemeanor offenses. They have. I’m just saying the Fullmer Cup is a pretty crude measuring tool.
LikeLike
I’m not hostile to Missouri. My only complaint with Missouri is the same as that of Chuck Neinas. The various conferences had a meeting and even the SEC agreed it would be best if teams (anyone declaring after A&M) moved in 2013. Missouri insisted on moving with short notice and it lead to chaos and lawsuits with a whole bunch of leagues.
As for the rest, you already spent 30 or 40 posts proving that you not only didn’t agree, but also failed to comprehend the point several of us were making-unless you are now claiming that Missouri does a criminal background check on everyone they allow on those flights.
LikeLike
I don’t blame Mizzou for not wanting to stick around for another lame-duck year in the Big 12. That would be nothing but bad for them. It all worked out fine. The Big 12 survived, and Missouri joined a better conference, beating Texas in football, three times in basketball, and three times in baseball on our way out the door, carrying Big 12 trophies in basketball, baseball and wrestling with us.
As for your argument that having a guy ride on the back of the plane somehow puts the players at risk of being exposed to drugs or whatever, you’re right, I don’t comprehend it. I assume it’s because you don’t make any sense. But maybe you and I just don’t speak the same language. I don’t know. What language to they speak where you come from? Texan?
I don’t know how thorough the Missouri background checks are to travel to away games. But if they did run one it wouldn’t have found anything because Levi didn’t have a criminal record.
LikeLike
1) It seems to give a lot of weight to things like traffic violations, but I’m not sure they give substantially more weight to violent offenses or drug use, even though they probably should.
They do.
) It seems to rely almost entirely on media reports for their statistics. The University of Missouri is home of the world’s #1 ranked school of journalism, so there are no shortage of young reporters roaming around hunting after stories.
They have to be arrested, and they do rely on media reports. Given how simple it is to search through arrest records, Missouri’s impressive scores in the Fullmer Cup have nothing to do with MU’s journalism school. I’d bet MU, like all major schools, gets monitored for arrests by their local media.
LikeLike
What the? Why is this down here?
LikeLike
Because the interface in this comments section sucks for long discussions involving multiple people.
LikeLike
http://sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Fulmer_Cup#Rules
The scoring for the Fulmer Cup. Scores range from 1 traffic violations to 10 for murder.
LikeLike
Yeah, and that’s stupid. 10 traffic violations do not equal 1 murder.
LikeLike
Well seeing as no player has been arrested for murder since the cup began it hasn’t been a big issue. Even if you gave a 1000+ points for murder Missouri would still be sixth all time
http://sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=Fulmer_Cup_Dynasty
LikeLike
I think that article needs to get taken off for inaccuracy. UGA had about 5 get arrested for driving w/o a license just last year alone. Fulmer’s TN only has 3 points? They had 3 fb players try to commit an armed robbery at a gas station (As I recall they just pretended to have a gun-but I may be mistaken on that) and they only get 3 points for that?
LikeLike
thank you bullet. I don’t follow this closely, but the general consensus I’ve heard is that the Fulmer Cup is a shoddy way to measure things. Sounds like their data collection is suspect.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Fulmer’s TN only has 3 points? They had 3 fb players try to commit an armed robbery at a gas station (As I recall they just pretended to have a gun-but I may be mistaken on that) and they only get 3 points for that?”
Wasn’t that 2 or 3 years ago? The 3 points is for 2012 only.
LikeLike
You’re right Brian. I read too quickly. I saw “all-time” right under the title and then shifted down to the scores. I didn’t think a school could get 68 points in one year.
I still question the completeness. Schools don’t disclose a lot of things both to cover it up and for legitimate student privacy reasons. USC 4 points all time? (I AM looking at the all-time list now). I think this is more of a “for fun” type list.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing for it’s completeness at all.
LikeLike
UGA picks up a few Fullmer points with a couple of felony charges. Loses top tailback and freshman of the year in the process.
My spouse’s comment: good riddance. He was too much trouble and he was getting freshman in trouble. He’ll probably end up at LSU! (UGA’s expected QB starter last year got kicked off the team and now is expected starter for LSU).
http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog/2012/06/29/georgia-tailback-isaiah-crowell-jailed-on-weapons-charges/
LikeLike
At some point UGA has to face the fact that the players don’t fear Richt enough. He punishes players when they screw up, but they just keep screwing up. They need to hire someone just to discipline players and he needs to be brutal.
I give Richt credit for swiftly giving Crowell (5* RB) the boot, but he almost had to with the gun charges.
LikeLike
“At one occasion law enforcement had Mr. Villeareal this basketball season at the Sprint Center sitting behind the KU basketball bench with a number of the players,” she said. “So we know that he had probably not only a personal relationship with them but a professional relationship as well.”
——————
That doesn’t sound good.
LikeLike
The question is will there be any consequences whatsoever? I can’t remember the last time ku suffered any sort of seirous consequences for anything, and they’ve been on probation more times than any other program. In fact, I think they might even be on probation now.
LikeLike
The consequences will be to the individual players.
LikeLike
For some reason it’s not letting me post links. Google “Sherron Collins exposes himself in elevator” or “Sherron Collins sexual assault”. There are plenty of stories of Kansas players doing awful things, and I can’t recall the las time any of them suffered any consequences.
LikeLike
That’s up to the school. And you will find in the SEC as shown in that AJC article last month, that most of the schools are pretty lenient on drug use. UGA and UK are pretty strict, but others allow athletes to fail multiple drug tests before serious action is taken.
LikeLike
You have no way of knowing this. It depends entirely what ku’s administration – including Self – did or did not know.
OSU got in trouble for players exchanging merchandise for tattoos, and then Tressel not owning up to it. There’s no reason a similar situation couldn’t play out here.
LikeLike
bullet you seem to be missing the point. The story is not players using drugs, the story is players potentially exchanging products/services associated with the basketball program for drugs. How did these drug dealers get seats behind the bench?
LikeLike
How did these drug dealers get seats behind the bench?
Maybe they bought the seats?
Information about Villeareal’s alleged connection to basketball players is not contained in the 44-page complaint and supporting affidavit filed in court that outlines the extensive investigation that began in 2008 and included the use of court-approved interceptions of cell phone conversations between the alleged conspirators.
Not saying there isn’t a connection but nothing in the article says there was.
LikeLike
“nothing in the article says there was”
huh?
The title of the article? Most of its contents? Did you read it?
LikeLike
All we know based on the article is that Villeareal allegedly suppl[ied] marijuana to a number of individuals, “including a number of Kansas University basketball players from the 2010-2011 season.”
Nothing suggests the players gave Villeareal anything other cash which isn’t against NCAA regulations.
LikeLike
And technically, we don’t even know that the players actually payed him anything. I doubt he would just give them pot as a gift but based on the indictment and statements by the prosecutor we don’t know otherwise.
LikeLike
Fair enough I guess. Looks like they got the drugs somehow. And yes, I also doubt that it was free.
LikeLike
@Brian2
There is no such point. What the article says is at least 4 KU basketball players had connections to a drug dealer who had front row seats. The logical deduction is they had the same supplier.
LikeLike
Bullet that absolutely is the implication of the article. A story about players smoking pot is not news-worthy. But a story about players potentially exchanging drugs for tickets is, and will draw the attention of the NCAA. That is the angle everyone is looking at, and is the one I guarantee ku is concerned about.
LikeLike
That certainly would be a violation. But I can’t imagine players getting front row seats to give away. The university sells those for a lot of money. They may have decent seats, but not great ones. One time I bought some fb tickets off the street and discovered I was sitting right behind the coach’s wives. They were good seats, but they were at the 30 yard line about 30 rows up. They weren’t 50 yard line seats.
LikeLike
Drug bombshell could cripple KU’s basketball program
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/drug-bombshell-could-cripple-kus-basketball-program/#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
http://www.kcrg.com/sports/hawkeyes/Football–160745165.html
IA’s AD says the B10/P12 deal likely will happen:
Days after a report declared waning interest for a Big Ten-Pac-12 annual challenge, Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said the collaboration remains on track between the leagues.
“I think it’s still a very strong possibility,” Barta told The Gazette. “There’s been a lot of discussions about how to implement it. We knew that when we agreed to do it back in December, we knew there was a lot of work to do to finalize all the details. There’s been a lot of discussion about the details.”
Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News cited multiple sources in a report Tuesday writing “that several Pac-12 schools are … how should we say it? … less than enthusiastic about the partnership.”
Barta, who spent seven years as a senior administrator at Washington and the last six at Iowa, said “I still have strong feelings that it will come to fruition.”
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-how-football-playoff-affects-big-ten-20120628,0,5701533.column?dssReturn&dssReturn
Teddy Greenstein with some interesting stuff:
“After polling its players and learning that they wanted a bowl experience, the Big Ten scrapped its own plan to have the top-ranked teams host semifinal games on campus.”
Why didn’t they ever say that publicly? Everyone wondered why they just dropped it, and this sounds much better than a lack of support nationally.
“To emphasize the importance of the regular season — winning a conference championship and scheduling legitimate nonleague teams — Delany lobbied his colleagues to approve a selection committee that will follow specific guidelines.”
I’m curious to see how they work that part. Will they focus on OOC SOS, or total SOS, and how will they calculate/estimate it?
“Over the 14 years of the BCS, 42 of the 56 teams that finished in the Top 4 were conference champs or co-champs. Delany believes that with a selection committee, perhaps 48 of the 56 selected would have been league champs.”
That’s a better percentage (from 75% to 86%), but I’d prefer 100%.
LikeLike
Actually you would prefer 0 of 0. Right?
I do remember them saying they would go back and talk to the student-athletes in addition to the presidents.
LikeLike
No, someone still has to finish in the top 4 of the rankings. But for a playoff:
0 of 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 56 of 56 >>> 48 of 56 > 42 of 56
LikeLike
I can see that students preferring the bowl experience. Actually as much as most fans cry for a playoff, I think the student-athlete and coaches were much more divided and I’m glad that was taken into account. (Granted, they could have taken it into account by having the semi-final at home on what is now championship week and announcing the bowls after that (including both semi-final winners and losers).
LikeLike
Eric,
Home playoff games would make bracket creep easier. By putting the games in bowls, they’re trying to make it more difficult to expand it. I don’t think it will work, but that was the idea.
LikeLike
That was the big reason I liked bowls better than neutral sites. You can’t expand the playoff now without devaluing the entire 2 day experience they are trying to create.
LikeLike
If we assume the committee would follow the AP poll fairly closely (I think that’s likely), the last 3 years would have looked something like this.
2009
Final Regular Season AP Poll
1 Alabama (58) 13-0 1498 (SEC Champs)
2 Texas (2) 13-0 1425 (Big 12 Champs)
3 TCU 12-0 1376 (Mountain West Champs)
4 Cincinnati 12-0 1302 (Big East Champs)
5 Florida 12-1 1253
6 Boise State 13-0 1237 (WAC Champs)
7 Oregon 10-2 1128 (PAC-10 Champs)
8 Ohio State 10-2 1080 (Big Ten Champs)
9 Georgia Tech 11-2 952 (ACC Champs)
10 Iowa 10-2 925
11 Penn State 10-2 883
12 Virginia Tech 9-3 866
13 LSU 9-3 686
14 Miami (FL) 9-3 660
15 Brigham Young 10-2 658
This is probably the most difficult year in the entire BCS for a ranking (no other year comes close to 5 undefeateds). It’s possible given strength of schedule that Florida would be in over an undefeated, but my guess is that given Alabama just solidly beat them and given they are up against conference champs, they don’t get in.
Bowls
New Years Eve:
Cotton Bowl: Florida vs. #20 Oklahoma
Fiesta Bowl: Boise State vs. Penn State
Peach Bowl (semi-final): Texas vs. TCU
New Years Day:
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs. Iowa
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl (semi-final): Alabama vs. Cincinnati
2010
Final Regular Season AP Poll
1 Auburn (36) 13-0 1473 (SEC Champs)
2 Oregon (23) 12-0 1462 (PAC-10 Champs)
3 TCU (1) 12-0 1379 (Mountain West Champs)
4 Wisconsin 11-1 1289 (Big Ten Champs)
5 Stanford 11-1 1283
6 Ohio State 11-1 1179 (Big Ten Champs)
7 Michigan State 11-1 1101 (Big Ten Champs)
8 Arkansas 10-2 1085
9 Oklahoma 11-2 976
10 Boise State 11-1 932 (WAC Champs)
11 LSU 10-2 863
12 Virginia Tech 11-2 817 (ACC Champs)
13 Nevada 12-1 759 (WAC Champs)
14 Missouri 10-2 705
15 Alabama 9-3 628
Bowls:
New Years Eve:
Peach Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. LSU
Cotton Bowl: Ohio State vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl (semi-final): Auburn vs. TCU
New Years Day:
Sugar Bowl: Arkansas vs. Oklahoma
Rose Bowl: Stanford vs. Michigan State
Orange Bowl (semi-final): Oregon vs. Wisconsin
2011
Final Regular Season AP Poll
1 LSU (60) 13-0 1500 (SEC Champ)
2 Alabama 11-1 1418
3 Oklahoma State 11-1 1400 (Big 12 Champ)
4 Stanford 11-1 1283
5 USC 10-2 1179 (ineligable)
6 Oregon 11-2 1170 (PAC-12 Champ)
7 Arkansas 10-2 1148
8 Boise State 11-1 1107
9 Wisconsin 11-2 1038 (Big Ten Champ)
10 South Carolina 10-2 946
11 Kansas State 10-2 829
12 Michigan State 10-3 733
13 Michigan 10-2 707
14 Clemson 10-3 663 (ACC Champ)
15 Baylor 9-3 656
Bowls:
New Years Eve:
Fiesta Bowl: Stanford vs. Wisconsin
Peach Bowl: Michigan State vs. Kansas State
Cotton Bowl (semi-final): LSU vs. Oregon
New Years Day:
Orange Bowl: Clemson vs. Boise State
Rose Bowl (semi-final): Alabama vs. Oklahoma State
Sugar Bowl: Arkansas vs. Kansas State
LikeLike
Eric,
2009
“New Years Eve:
Cotton Bowl: Florida vs. #20 Oklahoma
Fiesta Bowl: Boise State vs. Penn State
Peach Bowl (semi-final): Texas vs. TCU
New Years Day:
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs. Iowa
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl (semi-final): Alabama vs. Cincinnati”
I think they would switch TCU and UC to avoid an all-TX game (plus that’s now a conference game).
2010
“New Years Eve:
Peach Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. LSU
Cotton Bowl: Ohio State vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl (semi-final): Auburn vs. TCU
New Years Day:
Sugar Bowl: Arkansas vs. Oklahoma
Rose Bowl: Stanford vs. Michigan State
Orange Bowl (semi-final): Oregon vs. Wisconsin”
I think they might swap LSU and OSU for geography. LSU crushed VT and beat OSU in 2007, but Boise would be new.
2011
“New Years Eve:
Fiesta Bowl: Stanford vs. Wisconsin
Peach Bowl: Michigan State vs. Kansas State
Cotton Bowl (semi-final): LSU vs. Oregon
New Years Day:
Orange Bowl: Clemson vs. Boise State
Rose Bowl (semi-final): Alabama vs. Oklahoma State
Sugar Bowl: Arkansas vs. Kansas State”
You picked KSU twice. I’ll guess you meant MSU/SC. I think they might swap MSU and Boise to get better matches in terms of ranking.
LikeLike
2009: I think they have liked the idea of an all Texas semi-final considering the two didn’t play. It would gain headlines. Now you are definitely right though, in the same conference they’d avoid it.
2010: You are probably right. I was thinking LSU southeast, but Cotton makes more sense for them and Peach probably more for Ohio State.
2011: I just think Kansas State is that good 🙂 South Carolina would definitely be the one in there. I didn’t like the fact I had to choose between them and I guess didn’t (choose Kansas State before because unofficially I think the committee will decide against a 4th team in all else being equal).
LikeLike
Eric,
“2009: I think they have liked the idea of an all Texas semi-final considering the two didn’t play. It would gain headlines. Now you are definitely right though, in the same conference they’d avoid it.”
The problem is, an all-TX game mostly draws TX viewers. It’s a semi so hardcore fans will always watch, but casual fans may be turned off by the regional nature of it. I think they’d prefer to intersectional games instead.
LikeLike
It will be very interesting to see how the committee treats mid-majors. Fair or not, I think poor mid-major performances could hurt the placement of future mid-major teams in the selection process.
For example, in your setup if TCU or Cincinnati are throttled in their 2009 playoff games, I think there’s a good chance we see the public push for one of the other 1 loss Big Ten teams in 2010. The mid-majors will get only so much rope before ESPN and the public decide they are not capable of hanging with the big boys.
LikeLike
CBS’s Dodd lists coaches hot seat level. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/hotseat
Boy. He is a tough grader, Reach the Rosebowl, play for the NC, win the Rose Bowl and Kelly is listed as “on the bubble, feeling pressure”.
LikeLike
must have been a typo.
LikeLike
Paying some dude money for a “recruiting service” that consists of photocopied reports from past years to get a recruit doesn’t help.
LikeLike
Please… The only bubble Kelly was on was whether to take an NFL job or stay put. I’d bet Nike support doesn’t fade as quickly as an NFL owners does.
LikeLike
They had him at a 0 last year, so it could just be a mistake. It’s hard to imagine winning the conference and finishing in the top 5 hurt him. Now, if there is more to this Lyles thing he could get in trouble fast, but I don’t think it has teeth yet.
LikeLike
Congrats to former LSU Tiger and current D-Back Aaron Hill on hitting for the cycle for the 2nd time this season. The last time someone hit for 2 cycles in a season was 1931.
LikeLike
Stories leaked on Friday afternoons are almost always bad and this is no different
http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/w?storyId=8114416
Emails show Schultz, Curley and Spanier originally planned to go to authorities with allegations against Sandusky but opted not to after speaking to “Joe”. No last name given but I can only think of one Joe who could essentially overrule the president, VP and AD.
LikeLike
wow.
LikeLike
Again, PSU must be judged by the Big 10 guilty of LOIC and they need to act sooner rather than later. Delany could say today “if verified… the emails made public today present a disturbing trend of behavior that… the values and goals of the Big 10.” It is still not too late Jim — but the clock is ticking.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll go that way. This isn’t really an athletic issue and they aren’t going to want to get into it. It’s a legal issue that is already costing Penn State a lot in both money and reputation.
LikeLike
Rich2,
LOIC is an NCAA rule, not a B10 one. There are things the B10 can do, but I think they’ll wisely stay out of it. Let the legal system fully investigate and prosecute everyone first so all the possible evidence is discovered, then let the civil suits happen. Between the two, that’s sufficient penalty. B10 punishment, like NCAA punishment, should be reserved for things where nobody else will punish the behavior.
LikeLike
Totally agree that this should be left to the legal authorities. Those that think this should result in NCAA sanctions are misguided.
There are a number of schools across the country that try to hide on campus assaults/rape/crimes to protect the image of the University and its safety to prospective students. These types of actions are beyond the scope of the NCAA.
LikeLike
And if the NCAA does get involved in this, then don’t they have to start getting involved in tons of other things? Like coaches/athletes getting into criminal situations and the like? Do they really want to go there?
LikeLike
Good point, Zeek. Does Boss Hog putting his blonde mistress on the payroll cost Arkansas a bowl ban and 20 scholarships now?
LikeLike
@Richard, I was thinking about that example as well. At Marquette University there was somewhat of a cover up of basketball players allegedly raping a female student. The University Police failed to report the incident to Milwaukee police for months. Charges were never filed but the AD ended up resigning over the story as it broke big time in the Chicago Tribune. Buzz Williams still has his job.
LikeLike
@Rich2
Are you going to ‘run this up the flagpole’ every week? I would agree with you totally, immediately after the Pope finds the Catholic Church guilty of LOIC. Otherwise, as has been repeatedly offered, the legal process, and the court of public opinion will hammer my alma mater, and deservedly so, I might add! Now back to that church thing; would it be The Pope vs the CC, or vice versa?
LikeLike
I don’t have time for a response to every post. I read your replies. Let me provide a summary response:
1. The principle is what is crucial. If you believe that (if accurate), when Spannier writes in 2001 “…after talking to Joe… I think we should not tell authorities…” that this does not become a NCAA issue, we disagree fundamentally on what is the relationship between a university’s sports program and the university itself.
2. I cannot “let it go” because at every step along the way my worst fears have been proven to underestimate the pervasiveness of this coverup — since November when I presented at IU Faculty Council a petition to urge the Faculty Senate to condemn the participation of Penn State in a bowl game — unfortunately, there want not time to respond — and it was left hanging until it was moot — PSU had already agreed to a bowl bid with the Big 10’s blessing and culpability.
3. The Big 10 and PAC 12 are two conferences that say they are more than a tv rights distributor and entertainment subsidiary of ESPN. This would be an excellent opportunity to show it.
4. Bringing up the Catholic Church is not unexpected. I don’t know what the “Pope vs.the CC” means but if you mean to ask ” do I support the “heinous activities of the Church in the pedophilia scandals and resultant cover-up” — it is but only one of many areas where I strenuously and completely object to the behavior of the officials who lead my Church — who cannot be affected by public opinion or the opinion of its membership in any way. So, now— where does your analogy lead you — Is Paterno the Pope of PSU? What is your point? There are legal channels and there are membership “self-governance” mechanisms. The legal channel can proceed while the self-governance channel proceeds its own separate way.
5. Let’s frame it differently, if the Big 10 and NCAA feel that they cannot act on this one with PSU — is there any illegality sponsored and promoted by a university and its sports program through action and inaction that the Big 10 and NCAA could act upon?
LikeLike
1. Sandusky was not an employee of the university
2. He was not involved in intercollegiate activities at the time
This is only peripherally related to sports as it was a former employee and an employee discovered the activity and the AD was one of the 3 who decided not to report it. And the coach may have contributed to them making that decision.
Compare this to a faculty member using the facilities doing the same thing. It is just not an NCAA responsibility. There are plenty of others who will deal with it.
LikeLike
In fact, the NCAA would probably get in the way of the legitimate authorities who are going to prosecute and victims who are going to sue.
LikeLike
Spannier, Paterno, et al were employees of PSU.
Let’s make this easy and not tied to the Big 10 or PSU. Hypothetical case
Phil Knight, Nike, and chief booster of Oregon is found to have gone “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” on people for a decade. He captured victims at the University of Oregon Sports Facility, dragged them back to this mansion and then filleted them. The president of OU, the AD of OU, and other high ranking administrators at OU strongly believe that Phil is doing this. The president speaks with the head football coach at OU and then writes an email in which he writes “… I don’t think we should pursue this issue with the legal authorities…” Phil then continues to actively participate in OU sporting events, assists OU in recruiting football players, and is an active part of the OU Football program — for another 10 years.
So, this board is saying that PAC – 12 and the NCAA should do and say nothing about this situation because the NCAA has “bigger issues to address,” “should not be involved in legal issues.” Really? It is a laughably weak response.
LikeLike
About as weak as ND’s response to an actual death of one of its students involved with its football program.
LikeLike
Well I doubt I will ever, like yourself, present to a faculty council, but I do occasionally talk to my parole officer, and he told me that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, or was it, people shouldn’t throw stones at people in glass houses?
LikeLike
Ooooooooooooooooops! Sorry I don’t have a JD to compete with your intellectual attack on everything B1G, but I have been working on Hi per linking and this is a fav of mine.
http://deadspin.com/notre-dame-rape/
LikeLike
rich2,
1. The principle is what is crucial. If you believe that (if accurate), when Spannier writes in 2001 “…after talking to Joe… I think we should not tell authorities…” that this does not become a NCAA issue, we disagree fundamentally on what is the relationship between a university’s sports program and the university itself.
The NCAA only deals with the sports side of it. There wasn’t a LOIC in NCAA terms because the issue got reported to the top and the president was in on the decision. The NCAA doesn’t have jurisdiction over breaking laws, just their own athletics bylaws.
If you expect the B10 to punish them, you first need to establish what rule/bylaw/whatever they violated.
2. I cannot “let it go” because at every step along the way my worst fears have been proven to underestimate the pervasiveness of this coverup — since November when I presented at IU Faculty Council a petition to urge the Faculty Senate to condemn the participation of Penn State in a bowl game
Oh, great, you’re one of those people.
Nothing would be more cutting than a condemnation of PSU going to a bowl from the faculty of a school that never goes to a bowl. I’m sure that would have convinced Delany, the COP/C and the NCAA to do something.
Do you understand that the only faculty members that anyone might have listened to are at PSU, and that would be an internal decision, not an external one?
PSU had already agreed to a bowl bid with the Big 10′s blessing and culpability.
There’s no culpability here. The football program didn’t have a problem, especially with the only potentially involved coach gone.
What is your point?
Presumably that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. ND and covering up player sexual misconduct go hand in hand, and the FB program actually killed a student employee. Where was your constant outcry not to go to a bowl for them?
There are legal channels and there are membership “self-governance” mechanisms. The legal channel can proceed while the self-governance channel proceeds its own separate way.
Only an idiot wouldn’t wait for the legal process. First, only the legal side has the subpoena power and incarceration threat to get all the hidden evidence. Second, the lawsuits for interfering with a prosecution would be huge. Third, it is the ultimate arrogance to think some tsk tsking from the NCAA or B10 would compare to what the legal system can and will do.
5. Let’s frame it differently, if the Big 10 and NCAA feel that they cannot act on this one with PSU — is there any illegality sponsored and promoted by a university and its sports program through action and inaction that the Big 10 and NCAA could act upon?
No.
LikeLike
Rich…..your agenda’s showing…………..
LikeLike
I’m sure Delaney will right on that as soon as the new Big East commissioner sanctions ND for valuing practice footage over the life of a student volunteer…
LikeLike
Good one, frug. I am actually quite certain that you do see the two situations are structurally and conceptually equivalent.
LikeLike
should be: “Good one, frug. I am actually quite certain that you do see the two situations as structurally and conceptually equivalent.”
LikeLike
In one situation, the head football coach killed a student. How was he disciplined? Was he disciplined?
LikeLike
If anything, the ND football program was more implicit in causing the death of the student. He was ordered to engage in affairs that furthered the ND football program.
Certainly, under your logic, ND football program deserves the death penalty.
LikeLike
Let’s see PSU officials engaged in a coverup that enable a serial predator to continue sexually assaulting children. That is pretty darn bad.
Notre Dame on the other hand got a student killed because their AD was too cheap to hire a professional to oversee their scaffolding usage and their head coach couldn’t go one single day without practice footage. That is also pretty darn bad.
And let’s you forget, Penn St. cleared house, while Swarbrick and Kelly still have their jobs.
LikeLike
As a Notre Dame Alum, I think some heads should have rolled for Declan. I don’t remember anyone outside the ND administration sticking up for coach Kelly…or AD Swarbrick come to think of it. I have more thoughts on the situation, but I know y’all don’t care.
As for this, I’m not sure that the situation with Sandusky or even JoePa’s coverup is necessarily the B1G’s to address. JoePa, for all intents and purposes, got the death penalty for covering it up. Those higher-ups will likely go to prison or at the very least never be hired for any school job again. Should Penn State have went to a bowl game last year? I don’t know, but it is sad to think in 20 yrs the vast majority of folks won’t care or remember.
LikeLike
Declan’s death was an accident. Maybe Kelly was negligent or even reckless and he should have been punished if that’s the case.
But Sandusky intentionally raped/molested people and PSU knowingly and intentionally ignored it and let him hang around. Big, big difference.
LikeLike
@ ND Rocks
you know what’s sad? i bet those guys do get other jobs.
and i am interested in your thoughts on the ND situation.
LikeLike
As an IU fan and alum, I just have to ask…..isn’t there any other Big 10 U that will take this clown off our hands?
LikeLike
JJ…..not as big a difference as you make it out to be…….ND officials swept it all under the rug pretty effectively………..
LikeLike
jj
“Declan’s death was an accident. Maybe Kelly was negligent or even reckless and he should have been punished if that’s the case.”
There’s no maybe. It was an extremely windy day and scissor lifts aren’t rated for use in high winds for good reason. Nobody seemed to bother to read the manual that says that, but common sense tells you that nobody should be 20+ feet in the air on a swaying platform. Would he have let his own child go up there to film?
“But Sandusky intentionally raped/molested people and PSU knowingly and intentionally ignored it and let him hang around. Big, big difference.”
ND intentionally put someone in known, obvious physical danger. How many times did they get away with it before someone died?
“you know what’s sad? i bet those guys do get other jobs.”
Not at a university. These guys are radioactive and are too old to wait for people to forget about what happened. Add in any possible convictions and they are retired.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“As an IU fan and alum, I just have to ask…..isn’t there any other Big 10 U that will take this clown off our hands?”
OSU could have used him last year to get the team to skip a bowl.
LikeLike
@jj
Notre Dame is big on the concept of [i]in loco parentis[/i]. They use that as a their justification for most of their policies toward students. Foremost among those duties should be making sure to not deliver a kid to his parents worse for the wear. In this situation, Coach Kelly “needed” practice film. As a student, if ND needed that film, well then by God they would get it. Because of that the administration had to send this kid home in a casket. That ain’t right.
Now TPTB made their [i]mea culpa[/i]s and supposedly have concluded this to the satisfaction of his family. That’s good. They’ve accepted blame and fines, and that’s good, too. Most Domers I know are upset that they didn’t do this more promptly than they did and that Swarbrick initially acted more like a lawyer than a human being. That’s good.
However, I remain surprised and a little disappointed that the head coach, who has more latitude that most ND employees and was the one who gave the initial order/guideline, was not made the scapegoat the situation seems to have warranted. I think he probably would have been except for the fact that he was a new hire, and Swarbrick and TPTB did not have a back-up plan in place to more forward without Coach Kelly year before last. That’s not right.
At least there was no cover-up on this one..not that there realistically could have been one.
LikeLike
Was there ever a public report assigning responsibility?
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughts guys. But I’ll never believe these events are relatable. I’m sure many people use all kinds of equipment in unsafe manners. Hopefully some good can come out of this. I’m sure no one wants to say it, but the youngster was obviously a bit negligent as well. If he felt he was in danger, the right thing to do is stop the work. If operates the equipment, he has to be familiar with it. ND should be teaching this obviously, but a 20 year old isn’t immune from the burden of common sense either. Maybe this will encourage people to speak up in the future.
Before anyone flames out … ND was clearly in the wrong here; I’m just not seeing these as equatable offenses.
LikeLike
There’s definitely a parallel in McQueary and the student. McQueary may have felt intimidation (intentional or not) to not go to police authorities. He wanted to keep his job. This student was scared and may have felt intimidated about speaking up.
LikeLike
If operates the equipment, he has to be familiar with it.
That’s the point. The fact the kid felt it was safe to use the equipment in those conditions is proof he was unqualified to use it, and that is entirely on the athletic department.
LikeLike
I read a quote somewhere that he was afraid to go up that day.
LikeLike
He tweeted from the platform. Its not the 20 year old video kid to know how to operate an OSHA-covered lift. In fact, ohsa.gov has a page on the incident.
—-
Sullivan indicated via his Twitter account that he was in a dangerous predicament. According to a report from WTSB in South Bend, Sullivan posted the following tweet at 3:22 p.m. ET, just as practice was beginning: “Gusts of wind up to 60 mph. Well today will be fun at work. I guess I’ve lived long enough.”
Then, at 4:06 p.m. according to the station, Sullivan posted another tweet: “Holy (blank). Holy (blank). This is terrifying.”
—
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/scaffolding/hazard_alert.html
LikeLike
20 year olds are engaged in plenty of dangerous professions.
LikeLike
Link doesn’t work. Was this an erroneous story that they pulled or just a bad link?
Very bad if true, but doesn’t make sense when the president, Spanier, is part of the mix.
LikeLike
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html?htp=hp_t1
Found CNN article ESPN was based on. Pretty much the worst interpretation of events you could have. Discussion of what to do, understanding not reporting could lead to bad things in the future, Joe involved in discussions, a file on allegations against Sandusky.
Its also kind of disturbing this info is leaking from law enforcement. CNN does say they don’t have the e-mails but have been told the content. If its a fabrication its pretty detailed.
LikeLike
So if this accurate it means two things
1) Spanier will probably be indicted for failure to monitor (a grand jury is still investigating the matter.
2) Paterno was complicit in the coverup, even if indirectly.
LikeLike
I meant failure to report not monitor
LikeLike
There will also be some perjury charges as they all denied knowing much of anything about the shower incident. On top of that, some of them emails indicate at least some of them knew about the 1998 incident as well. I’m thinking the PSU endowment just took at least an 8 figure hit.
LikeLike
Once the President gets involved, they’ve got no defense.
I remember Paterno’s will being sealed, which was unusual. If he set aside something for potential lawsuits, that would be a reason to seal it. At the time, I just figured they didn’t want anyone to see who he left his money to because of all the controversy.
Now let me say, since this shouldn’t have been leaked and CNN doesn’t have the actual e-mails, I still have some doubt as to whether this is real, particularly in view of the media’s recent deliberate manipulation just recently in the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy.
LikeLike
I think one has to be very naive or intentionally blind to think this wasn’t the case.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8114416/report-former-penn-state-officials-exchanged-emails-jerry-sandusky-allegations-2001
LikeLike
I never mentioned death penalty but more importantly I guess I hit a nerve!!! It is ok, I didn’t expect many to respond seriously. The board has yet to raise the issue of the Spanish Inquisition but I am sure that will be raised soon. What about the Legion of Christ. What about how Catholics used to drink the blood of children!! But, yes Richard, I bow before your mighty intellect. A 10 year coverup by the president, AD, senior administrators, apparently members of the BOT and the head football coach is certainly not an example of LOIC when compared to the Declan Sullivan accident. Thanks for clearing it up and providing the end point to any rational discussion.
LikeLike
Apparently Richard hit a nerve as well since he hasn’t mentioned or implied anything negative about the Catholic Church or ND’s affiliation with it.
As for a “10 year coverup”, well I have a feeling that ND has been sending unsupervised, untrained, unpaid and unqualified students into a potentially deadly situations for at least that long.
LikeLike
But then again, who I am to let little things like “facts” and “logic” get in the way of a good rant.
LikeLike
rich2,
“The board has yet to raise the issue of the Spanish Inquisition but I am sure that will be raised soon.”
What!? I’ve always been told that no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
LikeLike
“I never mentioned death penalty but more importantly I guess I hit a nerve!!!”
I have little tolerance for moralizing hypocrites.
LikeLike
“The board has yet to raise the issue of the Spanish Inquisition but I am sure that will be raised soon. What about the Legion of Christ. What about how Catholics used to drink the blood of children!!”
Little tolerance for persecution complexes as well, for that matter.
LikeLike
A quote:
“After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved,” read one of the emails, according to CNN.
LikeLike
SB Nation’s Penn St. blog analyzes the new evidence:
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2012/6/30/3128597/agendas-and-emails
Their conclusion:
The attack on Joe and PSU continues.
LikeLike
I should add that I love that they give priority to the “attack” on Joe over the “attack” on the school. I know he was popular, but it wasn’t until his firing that realized exactly how much of a cult of personality he had cultivated in Happy Valley.
LikeLike
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/post_371.html
For those wanting Penn St. sanctioned by the NCAA here is one possibility:
Some of them said they were asked specifically about the relationship between top university administrators and Penn State’s athletic department, and whether university student judicial processes were sometimes interfered with to protect student athletes.
The article said that among emails turned over to the Freeh team are messages written by former President Graham Spanier and Wendell V. Courtney, Penn State’s former general counsel, “which describe steps the two men took to protect players.”
[Emphasis mine]
I don’t have a CoHE subscription so I don’t know the context of this, specifically what the student athletes were being protected from or what connection (if any) this has to do with the Sandusky affair, but this sounds like something the NCAA might look into.
LikeLike
Louis Freeh’s report is due to be released in mid- to late July and will be made public at the same time the BoT gets it. Then we’ll know a lot more.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–joe-paterno-role-jerry-sandusky-coverup-grows.html
Wetzel gets on his soapbox. He managed to kill the BCS, so maybe he has the power to do something about this.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1199135.html
A little shout out to Matthew Smith. I enjoyed your rebuttal to Zemek about the little guys. I think you made a lot of cogent points that needed to be made.
LikeLike
This is a great read! Shouldn’t he change his name to Adam Smith? If there are any econ guys on here, correct my misconception.
LikeLike
Yes, you are correct. Adam Smith wrote, “Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “Wealth of Nations”
LikeLike
I studied Economics (and Engineering) in college.
Quite frankly I’m getting kind of tired of people taking “Econ 101”, applying their lessons to every topic, and claiming “obvious” solutions based on simplistic economic theory. There’s been a few incites into a great range of economic theory over the course of its history and most times they provide answers that alter, or down right contradict, lower level economic analysis.
To speak to the topic…I can’t help but think that perhaps college football is heading down the path of the MLB and it should really be looking more to the NFL on how to organize and develop the game for the modern time.
For the past 20 year there has been an explosion in college attendance and, with the increase in NFL popularity, an according increase in college football. However, despite the explosion of college attendance, the admissions for most of the “large programs” has increased fairly consistently. The point…most of the new applicants to colleges are not attending schools that are currently considered “big programs” (they are already operating at maximum capacity, for the most part). This means the “growth” area of the sport (college football) is coming from areas that traditionally did not / or could not compete with the traditional powers. Even if they don’t win national championships, they do draw from the current programs (ie: the new college attendee who attends Central Michigan is less likely to consider themselves a UoM or MSU fan and thus reduces the “level of support” those schools have typically enjoyed, by virtue of their status as “the only game in town”).
With this (possible) understanding of the current college football landscape we can now see the large programs motivations (the true purpose of economics) and see potential pitfalls in their course of actions. The big programs are (IMO) concerned about their historic dominance in a profitable college sport and feel new programs shouldn’t be able to immediately profit from a century (or more) of their hard work (reasonable concerns). On the other hand they have to recognize the growth areas of the college sports landscape are going to be (mostly) driven by programs currently not in the current “circle” and need to be cognizant of what marginalizing those new entrants can do the sport…and the resultant revenues because of those actions.
Coming back to the MLB/NFL comparison…the MLB was the dominant sport in America, but a marginalization of certain assets and a competition market set up to minimize the ability of any team to compete led to a decrease in interest among the fan base. This permitted the NFL, an organization that understood the importance of sport growth & competitive balance to take the lead as most popular sport in America and turn that into revenue increases for all.
Long winded point being…while it is more than reasonable to expect certain levels of ability for a program to play at the highest levels of the college football landscape, I would be VERY leery of pre-emptively removing / limiting access / potentially alienating the huge college market base that is not currently associated with the “current circle”. To do so may invite college bball, wrestling, or more likely a completely different form of entertainment (the return of Horse Racing?) to take over.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
“To speak to the topic…I can’t help but think that perhaps college football is heading down the path of the MLB and it should really be looking more to the NFL on how to organize and develop the game for the modern time.”
I think CFB combines both models and isn’t following the MLB path for non-economic reasons, but more on that below.
“For the past 20 year there has been an explosion in college attendance and, with the increase in NFL popularity, an according increase in college football. However, despite the explosion of college attendance, the admissions for most of the “large programs” has increased fairly consistently. The point…most of the new applicants to colleges are not attending schools that are currently considered “big programs” (they are already operating at maximum capacity, for the most part). This means the “growth” area of the sport (college football) is coming from areas that traditionally did not / or could not compete with the traditional powers. Even if they don’t win national championships, they do draw from the current programs (ie: the new college attendee who attends Central Michigan is less likely to consider themselves a UoM or MSU fan and thus reduces the “level of support” those schools have typically enjoyed, by virtue of their status as “the only game in town”).”
That paragraph is full of assumptions. Non-alumni have long been the majority of the fan base for many of the major programs. People going to other schools often still root for the big boys since they know their school can’t compete at that level. What I see is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
“Coming back to the MLB/NFL comparison…the MLB was the dominant sport in America, but a marginalization of certain assets and a competition market set up to minimize the ability of any team to compete led to a decrease in interest among the fan base. This permitted the NFL, an organization that understood the importance of sport growth & competitive balance to take the lead as most popular sport in America and turn that into revenue increases for all.”
Huge assumptions here. That argument might make sense if they were playing the same sport, but the simplest explanation is that people like football more than baseball now. That popularity has been shifting as TV grew and a dynamic sport replaced a slow sport best enjoyed on radio.
“Long winded point being…while it is more than reasonable to expect certain levels of ability for a program to play at the highest levels of the college football landscape, I would be VERY leery of pre-emptively removing / limiting access / potentially alienating the huge college market base that is not currently associated with the “current circle”. To do so may invite college bball, wrestling, or more likely a completely different form of entertainment (the return of Horse Racing?) to take over.”
I don’t see any support for that. Fans of Idaho are going to drop CFB to watch horse racing because the local school isn’t any good? They’ve mostly been watching the big boys from other places for decades.
LikeLike
You are right that many of the big colleges (particularly Pac 12 and Big 10) are static on size. But I don’t think a lot of the growth is coming from the new entrants. I think it is coming from community colleges and non-fb playing schools.
And Brian makes the point that many of the new entrant’s students are fans of other schools. I had a friend who was at LA Tech when they decided to go to I-A. She complained that at homecoming, most of the students left at halftime to go watch LSU on TV.
LikeLike
“What I see is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.”
You mean a lot like you do?
“That popularity has been shifting as TV grew and a dynamic sport replaced a slow sport best enjoyed on radio.”
See above? However to continue to play the game, I posit the decrease in popularity had more to do with a string on highly visible labor issues (where literally millionaires were fighting with billionaires) combined with inherent competitive balance issues forcing most fans to acknowledge they were wasting their time (most years) by rooting for their team. This allowed a competitive product (in this case football) to provide better entertainment for the cost. And don’t be myopic…the fact that they are different sports is hugely important once you understand we are talking entertainment…and entertainment comes from disposable funds and disposable funds are always in limited supply. If you gain X units of value from entertainment Y and X-100 units of value from entertainment Z, for roughly the same unit cost, why would any rational being engage in entertainment Y?
“Fans of Idaho are going to drop CFB to watch horse racing because the local school isn’t any good? ”
Guess reading comprehension isn’t so good…my point, again, is that any industry that excludes or minimizes growth areas of its industry risks marginalizing its industry as a whole and as such opens itself to competition from outside sources. This is especially true in the entertainment world (which all sports find themselves residing in).
“I think it is coming from community colleges and non-fb playing schools.”
I have no doubt that a large portion of said new attendees are in fact like you say, however all you need is to look at Florida and Texas. Those two states alone have seen their 2nd and 3rd tier schools exploded in size and have had some football success along with it. Other areas of the country are seeing similar trends.
LikeLike
On baseball, I’ll give you a sample of one. It was once my favorite sport. I doubt I missed more than 1 all-star game from 67 until the 90s. I started souring on it with the strikes. 1981 was bad as the Reds had the best record in the NL, but because the strike led to split seasons, they finished 1/2 game behind both halves. The schedules were unequal and the teams didn’t play the same number of games. Then the strike that caused them to skip the world series was the final straw. The mobility of players hurt, but the strike was it. The inequality of teams has really shown up most since that strike and really only seems to hurt that half dozen or so at the bottom (Pittsburg and KC the worst).
Short point, CFB inequality is not a big issue. And conference titles help minimize that for MAC, SB and other such schools.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
“What I see is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.”
You mean a lot like you do?
You don’t see me proposing an economic basis for a change in entertainment preferences. When you go that far out of the box, it would be nice to have something to support it.
“That popularity has been shifting as TV grew and a dynamic sport replaced a slow sport best enjoyed on radio.”
See above?
Check the data. Football has been trending up since the 60s. CFB grew a lot once the 80s lawsuit allowed for more TV coverage. Football does better on TV than baseball. There’s no need for a fancy economic argument when a simpler argument exists.
However to continue to play the game, I posit the decrease in popularity had more to do with a string on highly visible labor issues (where literally millionaires were fighting with billionaires) combined with inherent competitive balance issues forcing most fans to acknowledge they were wasting their time (most years) by rooting for their team.
Both sports had “highly visible labor issues” over the past 30 years. As for competitive balance, many sports do fine without it (CFB, for example) and many NFL fans know their team has little to no shot in the near future.
This allowed a competitive product (in this case football) to provide better entertainment for the cost. And don’t be myopic…the fact that they are different sports is hugely important once you understand we are talking entertainment…and entertainment comes from disposable funds and disposable funds are always in limited supply. If you gain X units of value from entertainment Y and X-100 units of value from entertainment Z, for roughly the same unit cost, why would any rational being engage in entertainment Y?
I wasn’t the one that ignored the difference between the 2 sports, you were.
“Fans of Idaho are going to drop CFB to watch horse racing because the local school isn’t any good? ”
Guess reading comprehension isn’t so good…
That was exactly the argument you made. You said they should wary of ticking off the fans by making some teams uncompetitive like MLB did or fans might move to another sport, and you even named horse racing.
my point, again, is that any industry that excludes or minimizes growth areas of its industry risks marginalizing its industry as a whole and as such opens itself to competition from outside sources. This is especially true in the entertainment world (which all sports find themselves residing in).
You have yet to establish that schools like Idaho are the “growth areas” of CFB. They just put in a playoff which will grow CFB more than anything else, and casual fans of all sports prefer to have a few big names to follow than to watch a relative nobody compete for a title.
I have no doubt that a large portion of said new attendees are in fact like you say, however all you need is to look at Florida and Texas. Those two states alone have seen their 2nd and 3rd tier schools exploded in size and have had some football success along with it. Other areas of the country are seeing similar trends.
And yet the big boys still have almost all the fans. CFB is like all of baseball in that you can root for a team on each level without conflict. I can root for Mount Union and Youngstown State and Bowling Green and OSU with no real issues, just like I could theoretically root for several minor league teams plus a MLB team. It’s not a zero sum game.
LikeLike
So the purpose of intercollegiate athletics is creating profit? And here I thought that is what pro sports were for. Would make the ncaa’s job much easier as they would only have 2 or maybe 3 sports to administer.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So the purpose of intercollegiate athletics is creating profit?”
In a sense, yes, because a failure to generate profit means it’s a drain on the academics of the school. It’s purpose certainly isn’t charity for other universities which is what it has become for the big boys. CFB is now largely responsible for supporting the entire athletic department at many schools, so yes, it has to focus on profitability.
Rather than letting everyone ride the coattails of successful schools, the NCAA would be much better off splitting I-A and making a tier where the little guys can compete without bankrupting themselves. No school has an inherent right to be I-A and make the other I-As pay for their presence. Athletics are not a mandatory part of the schools, and plenty of schools do fine without being I-A. Why should the successful schools feel bad for those that are trying to play on a level they can’t afford? Why reward bad business decisions?
LikeLike
I might agree if 1) the small fraction that the lessers are being benevolently given was actually a burden, and not a benefit to the powers (it wouldn’t be given if it were) or 2) the powers were actually sponsoring more sports and and expanding opportunities (a few are, cudos to them) rather than just pouring more money into existing programs and saying now it costs more to support. Circular reasoning. It isn’t like the lessers are getting a truly significant amount from the big boys point of view.
What bad “business” decision left Rice or Houston out of the money conferences? Or Army, Navy, AF?
I really don’t want college sports to become even more fragmented than it is now.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I might agree if 1) the small fraction that the lessers are being benevolently given was actually a burden, and not a benefit to the powers (it wouldn’t be given if it were)”
Every extra cost is a burden. Can OSU afford it? Sure. It’s a little harder on ISU, though, and a lot harder on Rutgers.
How is taking their money a benefit to the powers? In what are they better off with less money?
” or 2) the powers were actually sponsoring more sports and and expanding opportunities (a few are, cudos to them)”
You can’t fault most of the B10 or P12 for this. OSU has the most teams in the country and MI just added some, for example.
“rather than just pouring more money into existing programs”
It’s their money to spend. How they would spend it doesn’t change whether it is right to take money from them or not.
“It isn’t like the lessers are getting a truly significant amount from the big boys point of view.”
It depends on who you count as a big boy. With so few schools breaking even on athletics, it’s the students that are funding this charity to other schools through athletics fees. How is that fair?
“What bad “business” decision left Rice or Houston out of the money conferences? Or Army, Navy, AF?”
It’s not that, it’s choosing to lose money by insisting on being a I-A team. If Idaho can’t get enough fans to break even, they should drop to I-A rather than expect a handout from everyone else so they can stay I-A.
“I really don’t want college sports to become even more fragmented than it is now.”
Me neither, but I think it’s more important for students not to pay high fees to indirectly support sports at other schools. The genie is out of the bottle as far as money in college sports, and TPTB need to face that reality.
LikeLike
So you’ve adopted the UT/B12 philosophy? Raising, or maintaining the larger group no longer serves the top individual schools? How long til we suggest Northwestern, Indiana etc are a drain on the “top” half?
LikeLike
Actually, people could go on and on about bad decisions made by UH. With better decisions (or a 3 year earlier timeline) they would have been in the Big 12.
Rice for many years was simply the school in I-A with the smallest undergrad population. They had around 2,500 and were in a conference with Texas who had close to 40,000 undergrads
I agree I don’t want it more fragmented, but there are 4 or 5 Division I conferences that should be Division II and 10-20 I-A schools who should be I-AA. If Idaho had invested in a stadium, they probably wouldn’t be left behind. Trying to be in I-A with a 16,000 seat dome is ridiculous.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So you’ve adopted the UT/B12 philosophy? Raising, or maintaining the larger group no longer serves the top individual schools?”
It never did. Many of these little guys have joined the gravy train after the big TV deals started to be signed. Regardless, at some point the WAC, SB and MAC schools have to make sound financial decisions about the cost of playing I-A versus I-AA. If they weren’t getting charity, the decision would be clear for many of them.
“How long til we suggest Northwestern, Indiana etc are a drain on the “top” half?”
Well, IN will always add in hoops and NW helps the CIC so they’re OK. I don’t see the B10 eating their own any time soon.
LikeLike
Are you saying student population numbers are an athletic dept business decision? I’m not sure enrollment numbers directly correlate to D1 success. Stanford has around 7k undergrads, yet has won something like 18 straight directors cups, have had BB success, and recently FB. Shouldn’t the around 60k ASU swamp them with numbers?
Idaho…is Idaho. I’m not sure a larger stadium would increase attendance. A dome probably made for more consistent, although limited attendance.
Who will the SEC and B12 (and others to a lesser extent) get to replace the bottom half for OOC games? Once a “new” bottom half has been established how long will it take before a move to jettison the “dead weight” starts?
LikeLike
Last post was for bullet.
LikeLike
Brian:
You are saying that the subsidy, and body bag game payments, are solely due to the altruistic nature of the power conferences? I’m betting there is a cost/benefit calculation involved.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You are saying that the subsidy, and body bag game payments, are solely due to the altruistic nature of the power conferences? I’m betting there is a cost/benefit calculation involved.”
No, I’m saying they could be a separate division and still play those same bodybag games. Rules say only 1 I-AA win can count towards a bowl, but in a world with I-A above I-AA and I-AAA (all the smaller guys shift down 1), wins against I-AA teams could still be permitted. The difference is that the Kent States don’t have to try to compete with the Ohio States. There’s no reason why teams pulling that many fewer fans should have to compete with the big boys. Give them their own level so they can have some success and postseason aspirations.
LikeLike
@cc
I’m saying low student populations make it a lot more difficult to compete both in terms of finances and in terms of admissions. If you have 250-300 student-athletes out of 2500 undergrads, that’s pretty significant.
Idaho hasn’t made the investment to keep up. And if 16k is the right size for them, I-AA is the right size for them and I-A is not.
LikeLike
What bad business decisions? Most of college football’s elite programs are from large state universities with built in fans. Never mind that these are not-for-profit institutions who only exist for the well-being of their students.
College athletics are already being taken far too seriously in this country, and fighting over the spoils is just another symptom of the cancer killing the body.
LikeLike
There are bad business decisions that can be made. One Maryland just made was expanding their facilities before the fan base was ready.. UH implemented a requirement for a donation for buying tickets in the late 80s which alienated a lot of long term fans-and they weren’t even selling out at the time. They chose a bad bb coach and a bad fb coach who got them on probation right as the SWC was falling apart. So they had bad teams, probation and bad attendance and got left behind. They’ve made other bad decisions. I tried to go to a Texas/UH game in the Astrodome in the early 90s. I showed up just after the start of the game to avoid the crowd. There was no crowd to get into the parking lot and park, but the ticket booth was a different story. At the beginning of the 3rd quarter, still at least 30 minutes from the ticket booth, I left. The last time UH played Texas (and probably the last time for many, many years), they chose to play in their tiny ancient 32k stadium on campus instead of Reliant Stadium and put up 8k temporary bleachers. Despite constant questions, they claimed they were safe. The city condemned them as unsafe just days before the game when a UT fan asked for an inspection. Naturally, that was where they were putting the UT fans, who days before the game learned they didn’t have seats. They offered either a refund or letting them watch closed circuit. Needless to say, that annoyed people even more. They were going to put 8,000 fans at risk when they had other alternatives.
LikeLike
Still several hours till midnight in Idaho, but no reports of them formally withdrawing from the Mountain West yet. Supposedly the exit penalty drops if they aren’t informed by midnight. Chances of them staying in the Mountain seem to shockingly growing.
LikeLike
They gone: http://www.lvrj.com/sports/boise-state-beats-deadline-will-leave-mountain-west-160977565.html
At least according to this.
LikeLike
Yep. Doesn’t seem like they found a solution for their non-football sports yet though. I didn’t think they could turn the Big East down under any circumstance for a long time, but they sure cut it close.
LikeLike
Maryland hasn’t found a solution for their non-football sports in the ACC. They just dropped 7 of their 27 sports. There’s a Washington Post story if anyone is interested, but it requires registration.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-athletics-financial-woes-reveal-a-broken-college-sports-revenue-model/2012/06/28/gJQAmEvx9V_story.html
They announced they would be dropping up to 8 sports last November. They have a $4.7M deficit this year and it’s expected to grow to $17.6M in 5 years so they cut a bunch of minor sports. And of course they cut more men’s sports than women’s, but never bother to mention Title IX as part of the financial problem. The article does the usual by comparing some FB expenses to how many minor sports it would fund while just sneaking in at the end the fact that a donor paid for it.
Their major problems seem to be that they just expanded/upgraded their FB and MBB facilities to increase revenue, but then success dropped and so did attendance. That’s left them paying more debt with less revenue. Of course, the new playoff will help them significantly.
I’d venture to say the B10 could add MD right now if they wanted to.
LikeLike
And I’d say them dropping all those sports hurt their chance.
The rumours say that FSU and Maryland were two of the schools fighting the increase of the ACC exit fee to $34 million. It merely doubled from $10 to $20 million.
LikeLike
I don’t think it hurt their chance, but that’s only because I already thought they had no chance since the B10 doesn’t want to expand.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8118915/boise-state-broncos-beat-deadline-bolt-mountain-west
They do not have a place for their other teams yet, but the plan seems to be to get some help from the BE to pay the Big West for travel to take their other teams.
LikeLike
Boise leaves Mountain West.
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/boise-state-beats-deadline-will-leave-mountain-west-160977565.htmloise i
LikeLike
Chuck Carlton clarifies that the Big 12 has not yet signed the 13 year GOR.
Chuck Carlton
@ChuckCarltonDMN
Big 12 clarifies 13-year granting of rights: not done but agreed to. Will be signed immediately on completion of Fox, ESPN deals.
LikeLike
hmmm….
Gazette-Mail – Please clear up the issue concerning schools granting media rights to the league. Schools agreed to grant the rights for a minimum of six years, but then word came that was extended to 13 years. Has that agreement been signed?
Bowlsby – It has been extended to 13 years and it has been signed.
http://wvgazette.com/Sports/201206300077?page=2&build=cache
LikeLike
Well, I’ll take the commishes word for it but I don’t think I’ve seen that announced anywhere which is odd.
LikeLike
Somewhere else it was reported that he corrected that. It was agreed to and would be signed concurrent with the signing of the TV contract.
LikeLike
No link?
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/#!/ChuckCarltonDMN/
Basically, it has been agreed to and signing is a technicality.
LikeLike
Carlton’s text was in response to Bowlsby’s comment.
It is strange that the commissioner would get that wrong though.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19457733/big-12-no-grant-of-rights-deal-yet
Here’s a more detailed article from Dennis Dodd about it.
LikeLike
that’s a good discussion of the status of the TV contract. It re-affirms Neinas comment a month or so ago that they were “synching” the ESPN and Fox deals.
Some people are putting too much importance of whether the 13 year is signed or not. Everyone’s tied down for 6 years already. The 13 goes into effect with the new TV contract. Texas and OU aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, so signing it is a technicality.
LikeLike
Just wanted to add my opinion to many others. It is my thought that the media is looking past another option for the future BCS (bowls). There could be something similiar to a plus-one like a plus-two where the semi finals could be played after the bowls. I think this could be a option because it keeps the current bowl system in tact and it also adds two semi games and a championship game. The semi-final games could be played anywhere especially in the northwest where the bulk of sports fans live like myself. The bowl games would end up being matchup with conderence champs having auto bids to thier respective bowls, as in Big Ten/Pac 12 SEC/Big 12. This would also leave room for a ACC champ a Big East champ and a high ranked independent or other conference champ.
If another BCS bowl game were added it would bring the number to 10 teams available for the bowl games. Texas would be a good spot for another BCS bowl game since they do not have one currently. The new Championship game with SEC and Big 12 champs would work well in the largest stadium in Texas. This would also satisfy the Big Ten and SEC conferences desire to have 3 teams in the BCS if rest of the field is chosen among the top ten. After the bowls 4 of the top five teams would make it to the semi’s
The tie-in could be based regionally. Texans will travel to a bowl game in Texas in higher number then they would travel to Arizona for the Fiesta. The ACC champ could play a Big East champ in the Orange. SEC #2 could play Big Ten #2 in Sugar and Fiesta could Host remaining at-large top ten teams.
I would like to see this because it could bring semi-final games closer to me and it keeps the importance of the bowl games.
Reply
LikeLike
John Davis,
“It is my thought that the media is looking past another option for the future BCS (bowls). There could be something similiar to a plus-one like a plus-two where the semi finals could be played after the bowls. I think this could be a option because it keeps the current bowl system in tact and it also adds two semi games and a championship game.”
Problems:
1. The bowls would stay in tact but also lose a lot of status as they become something less than quarterfinals.
2. It would extend the calendar and the presidents claim they don’t want to do that. At best you’re talking a NCG on MLK Day, and that’s with 3 postseason games in 3 weeks. That’s a lot of wear and tear on players.
3. You expect fans to travel to 3 games in 3 weeks on short notice.
4. The bowls may add clarity, but more likely they muddy the waters making the choice of 4 teams even more controversial.
“The semi-final games could be played anywhere especially in the northwest where the bulk of sports fans live like myself.”
Say what now? Since when do most sports fans live in the northwest? Even if you meant northeast, that’s not where CFB fans live. CFB fans live in the midwest and south, and most people don’t seem to want games in the midwest (maybe they’d bid out the semis and let places like Indy host them).
“The bowl games would end up being matchup with conderence champs having auto bids to thier respective bowls, as in Big Ten/Pac 12 SEC/Big 12. This would also leave room for a ACC champ a Big East champ and a high ranked independent or other conference champ.”
The Rose and Champs would be fine, but the other bowls might suffer.
“If another BCS bowl game were added it would bring the number to 10 teams available for the bowl games. Texas would be a good spot for another BCS bowl game since they do not have one currently. The new Championship game with SEC and Big 12 champs would work well in the largest stadium in Texas. This would also satisfy the Big Ten and SEC conferences desire to have 3 teams in the BCS if rest of the field is chosen among the top ten.”
Could other bowls lock in the runners-up from power conferences instead of taking little guys, or would they be forced to take them if highly ranked? Either way, it seems problematic.
“The tie-in could be based regionally. Texans will travel to a bowl game in Texas in higher number then they would travel to Arizona for the Fiesta. The ACC champ could play a Big East champ in the Orange. SEC #2 could play Big Ten #2 in Sugar and Fiesta could Host remaining at-large top ten teams.”
Why would the Orange agree to always be stuck with the BE champ? They’d go bankrupt. I think the Champs game is more likely to be in the Sugar than the Cotton, personally.
LikeLike
Sounds like 6 major bowls (2 would be semifinals) plus a NT that’s bid out. We know four of them are very likely the old BCS bowls; Rose, Orange, Sugar & Fiesta. That leaves two new bowls, with one of the new bowls being the ‘Champions’ Bowl…
That still leaves one bowl slot left; what bowl will ‘upgrade’ its spot to be in the new BCS? Cotton? Capital One?
LikeLike
It’s not quite that simple, since the Champs Bowl might be the Sugar and/or Cotton Bowl. The most likely candidates to join the other 4 are the Cotton, Peach and Citrus.
LikeLike
Who knew that Huntington, WV was the most in-demand market in the country? Within 206 miles are SEC school (Kentucky), a Big East school (Cincinnati), an ACC school (Virginia Tech), a Big Ten school (Ohio State), and a Big 12 school (West Virginia), not to mention hometown C-USA school Marshall and nearby MAC schools Miami (OH) and Ohio U. Strangest of all is that the most distant school among those is home state WVU of the Big 12.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/51478/new-big-12-will-be-much-much-tougher
Would any MO or TAMU fans care to rebut this blog post from David Ubben? Do any TCU or WV fans want to support it?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8124223/penn-state-nittany-lions-joe-paterno-family-wants-emails-records-released
The Paternos want all the emails and records from both the AG’s investigation and Freeh’s internal investigation released. They’ll get anything the AG uses to prosecute the other PSU officials, plus they should get everything from Freeh that isn’t protected by privilege. That should be enough.
Paterno, Sollers said, testified for eight minutes before the grand jury that approved charges and “told the truth to the best of his recollection.” Paterno was not interviewed by the university, was not afforded due process or did not tell his story in full, and was not allowed to see the files or records now in question, the lawyer said.
Several thoughts:
1. They’re already setting up the “he’s a forgetful old man and didn’t remember the discussion” defense.
2. I don’t why they think he would have gotten or needed due process. He was never charged with anything. That’s just a straw man argument
3. Why didn’t he tell his story in full? He was interviewed by authorities and had easy access to journalists until his death. He could have even written about it in a diary to preserve the whole story from his POV.
4. The state didn’t get the info in question until after Joe died. How were they supposed to show it to him? The state only found out after Freeh found the emails (remember the gut that got fired a few weeks ago for not turning over info in a timely fashion?) and gave them to the state. That said, the emails reference a conversation with a PSU official about the Sandusky shower incident and Joe denied ever hearing about it again after the first meeting. He shouldn’t need to see an email to remember that.
LikeLike
Don’t know what your problem is with full disclosure. Their attorney’s position sounds pretty reasonable. Disclose it all, not just snippets. The only problem is whether that hampers prosecution, but they are already doing that with selective disclosure.
Interesting that they won’t let Spanier have access to his e-mails. They may all have thought this was a one time issue until he got caught again last year and details slipped their memory. Or they may all have been lying, but memory is a tricky thing.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Don’t know what your problem is with full disclosure.”
I don’t believe they have any basis to demand it, especially of things not yet used in court. After everyone is prosecuted that will be, then anything that didn’t require subpoena power might be fair game. Other people have rights, too, not just the Paternos trying to protect Joe’s image. I’m guessing the defendants might fight back if they are found not guilty, though. Like I said, they’ll presumably get everything in Freeh’s investigation except privileged communications with PSU’s lawyers, and that should be enough for now.
“Their attorney’s position sounds pretty reasonable.”
Yes, if you only consider their side of it. Since when does a prosecution need to make all potential evidence public before even deciding whether or not to prosecute, let alone before jury selection?
“Disclose it all, not just snippets.”
You’re assuming the investigators leaked it. If they didn’t, then they also don’t need to release more stuff.
“The only problem is whether that hampers prosecution,”
Well, if the only problem is potentially screwing up the prosecution of multiple people that covered up an active pedophile, then of course the feelings of the Paternos are more important.
“but they are already doing that with selective disclosure.”
Huge assumption. It could be someone from Freeh’s investigation that leaked it, or even someone that just knew of those emails.
“Interesting that they won’t let Spanier have access to his e-mails. They may all have thought this was a one time issue until he got caught again last year and details slipped their memory. Or they may all have been lying, but memory is a tricky thing.”
I don’t blame PSU for doing what the AG asked, but I’m betting a judge will say he deserves access to a copy of them if nothing else. They are necessary for his defense.
LikeLike
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/uw-football-bielema-alvarez-talk-about-scheduling-upgrade/article_fdf326b2-c302-11e1-9540-001a4bcf887a.html
Due to the playoff and its emphasis on SOS, WI may start to schedule better OOC. They might play a decent AQ team or stop playing I-AAs.
According to WI, ESPN tried to set up a neutral site game with AL (presumably in the south somewhere as always), and WI countered with an offer for a home and home instead but AL declined.
LikeLike
Well this would certainly put a dent in the argument that a playoff would harm the regular season.
LikeLike
frug,
Only if these things are true:
1. WI actually does something different. Alvarez was very noncommittal in the article, pointing out that a 9-0 B10 team would make the top 4 regardless of OOC SOS.
2. More teams follow WI’s lead than do the opposite. We just saw OSU drop their plans to schedule UGA due to the P12 deal. Will more schools think 12-0 trumps high SOS?
3. The committee really puts a lot of emphasis on OOC SOS, not just using it as a third level tiebreaker or something.
4. You believe that more quality OOC games trumps letting undeserving teams play for a title.
None of those are known to be true.
LikeLike
I’ll believe it when I see it. Wisconsin’s OOC scheduling has been terrible. I understand that Oregon State was good when they put them on the schedule but there should be no D1-AA schools on the schedule. That’s embarrassing. Outside of giving the second and third string some reps they serve no purpose.
LikeLike
FCS schools get scheduled by power schools for economic reasons. Home games pay the bills and there’s a limited supply of FBS schools who want to play road games in hostile environments.
LikeLike
It’s not that hard to find MAC/WAC/CUSA/SB teams to play.
LikeLike
@Peter
yeah, those schools that won’t travel are called vaginas and should be ineligible for any post season.
LikeLike
I’ll believe it when I see it too. The WI plan has worked out really well for them.
LikeLike
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2012/06/new_evidence_of_cover-up_shows.html
Some sports law experts say this new email chain, if substantiated, will likely lead to NCAA punishment. They say the death penalty is a worst case scenario, but is highly unlikely.
The issue seems to be the appearance that the JoePa overruled the AD, VP and president on how to deal with the shower incident. If the full record supports that view, then PSU could be in trouble.
Personally, I don’t think there will be enough evidence to do much of anything. Joe can’t give his side of the meeting and Curley doesn’t have to talk to the NCAA. If they wait for him to get prosecuted maybe there will be enough evidence for them to use regardless.
LikeLike
It’s still dicey on whether or not what happened falls under NCAA jurisdiction, but I suppose the NCAA could just cook up some nonsense interpretation of the a rule and then dare PSU to risk the PR fallout of challenging them in court.
LikeLike
They should call John Roberts seeing that he’s fresh off of one of most finesse interpretations in decades.
In all honesty, if this falls under NCAA interpretation, then there’s hundreds of other things every year that the NCAA should be regulating but of course hypocrisy is their strong suit.
LikeLike
You should read what the experts said. They were fairly specific about why this would fall under the NCAA. It all comes down to what the evidence shows about this chain of emails. If the head coach overruled his supposed bosses, then the NCAA would have LOIC issues to consider. If they can’t establish that Joe overruled them, then there’s nothing to punish.
LikeLike
I am not sure they can prove that Joe overruled them. I would think at every University the head coach has a chance to provide some input. It’s then up to the administration whether to accept their input or not. If I am a decision maker at a University I doubt I make all the decisions in a vacuum. I would likely consult with a number of individuals. In this case it looks like all parties were consulted but ultimately they choose the wrong approach.
LikeLike
Not according to these experts it isn’t. I’m not saying they’re right, but it is their field of knowledge and not mine.
LikeLike
Regardless of what the NCAA can or can’t do, it’s gonna take more than just having new people in charge to change the mindset. I almost think getting the death penalty would be good for them. It would allow everyone to take a step back from football and re-prioritize it in the grand scheme of things. The AD, President, and Head coach weren’t all sociopaths who just happened to all work at the same school by coincidence. There are deep seeded cultural issues embedded at that school that promoted an atmosphere of trying to cover something up.
LikeLike
We don’t have much on what they were thinking, but I’m not sure its not largely a case of being “fair” to someone they knew well (while ignoring the victims who they didn’t know) and just not wanting to believe such awful things about him. The AD and VP were players at PSU. I would believe if they were trying to protect anything, it would be the university more than Paterno or football. All we have is parts of improperly leaked e-mails by someone with an agenda. Hard to tell how much of the picture we are getting.
The main cultural thing may be to quit being so inbred with former players in all these positions. Most universities try to get outsiders as president and in a number of key positions to encourage new ways of thinking. Texas A&M is someone who likes insiders, including presidents (although as the most conservative major state university in the country, they may have trouble getting outside academics as president who tend to be very liberal). That inbred thinking left them blind to the bonfire tragedy that killed 12 students back in 98.
LikeLike
What’s more likely…a sports program (not just football…the entire PSU athletics program) that religiously graduates high percentages of it student athletes with high GPA’s, has never had a major infraction with the NCAA, and has a history of willingly reporting minor infractions…
…is a morally bankrupt entity that puts the status of football above all else, even at the cost of breaking the law…
…or “believes” it always does things the right way so feels comfortable with investigating an issue and determining a course of action by itself?
Personally, I grew up in Centre County. People went to highschool games on Friday, watched Penn State on Saturday, and the Steelers on Sunday…but except for a few there was no more a “culture of football” than in any other part of the country I’ve been too (and if you speak to certain areas of Texas, Florida, and southern states I’ve been too, much less of a culture). What there is though is a very strong streak of independence and “taking care of your own”.
Don’t get wrapped around those words though…it equally means covering up minor indiscretions as it does “pulling the trigger” yourself.
Combine that mentality with, to be honest, arrogance at the highest levels of the PSU administration (ie: “Sandusky can’t possibly be a pedophile, we’ve known him for decades”) and I think it easy to see how a conversation could be started, and carried out, where a “humane” solution was arrived at.
In any case, I’ll do like I did with the trial…actually wait for the facts to come out and not rely on people “reading the emails to us” (that’s what CNN said, which has been the basis for every news article I’ve read since) before I make up my mind on what should happen to Penn State’s athletic program.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
“What’s more likely…a sports program (not just football…the entire PSU athletics program) that religiously graduates high percentages of it student athletes with high GPA’s, has never had a major infraction with the NCAA, and has a history of willingly reporting minor infractions…
…is a morally bankrupt entity that puts the status of football above all else, even at the cost of breaking the law…
…or “believes” it always does things the right way so feels comfortable with investigating an issue and determining a course of action by itself?”
Frankly, I think both are highly plausible. PSU’s national identity was intimately linked to JoePa for over 40 years, so I don’t think it’s hard to see trying to avoid hurting the brand as their top priority. The emails show they clearly weren’t comfortable with their own decision and foresaw the potential blowback from taking that course, but did it anyway. With no mention of the risk to children, only to PSU, it’s hard not to see it as morally bankrupt.
Could it also be due to overconfidence in their rightness? Sure. But when they talk about what might go wrong, that’s harder to swallow. It’s not that they didn’t consider telling the authorities that looks so bad, it’s that they talked themselves out of it after deciding it was the right thing to do. That’s hard to explain away.
“Personally, I grew up in Centre County. People went to highschool games on Friday, watched Penn State on Saturday, and the Steelers on Sunday…but except for a few there was no more a “culture of football” than in any other part of the country I’ve been too (and if you speak to certain areas of Texas, Florida, and southern states I’ve been too, much less of a culture).”
Did you really have any concept of PSU as distinct from JoePa and his Grand Experiment? That’s the cult of personality and culture of football people are talking about. JoePa was PSU in many ways.
“Combine that mentality with, to be honest, arrogance at the highest levels of the PSU administration (ie: “Sandusky can’t possibly be a pedophile, we’ve known him for decades”) and I think it easy to see how a conversation could be started, and carried out, where a “humane” solution was arrived at.”
I believe they’re arrogant (all people at that level are), but the emails don’t support that story. They clearly saw a problem with Sandusky and first concluded going to the authorities was the right thing to do, then changed their minds and tried to be humane. In between, they talked to Joe and he clearly helped change the mind of Curley.
“In any case, I’ll do like I did with the trial…actually wait for the facts to come out and not rely on people “reading the emails to us” (that’s what CNN said, which has been the basis for every news article I’ve read since) before I make up my mind on what should happen to Penn State’s athletic program.”
That’s the reasonable course at this point. Extra info can’t hurt.
LikeLike
@PSUguy
In many ways your description sounds much like the Catholic Church with their pedophile problem. They seemed to believe the priests would stop doing it and simply moved them somewhere else.
LikeLike
What I meant was the present evidence probably isn’t sufficient to prove Paterno was overruling the President. All we know is someone had a conversation with Joe after which they decided on a different course of action. Don’t get me wrong, the implication is clearly that Paterno made the final decision, there is no hard evidence that is what happened.
LikeLike
Agreed. That’s why I say I don’t think the NCAA will do anything unless more evidence turns up. But I do think it becomes a matter for the NCAA to investigate based on those emails.
LikeLike
One thing to consider is if Paterno overruled the Spanier or Schultz (the President and VP) then Penn St.’s ultimate nightmare isn’t the football program getting the Death Penalty, it’s that the university having its accreditation pulled for letting the athletic department dictate policy to the university instead of the other way around.
LikeLike
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/07/gossip-rumors-news-and-insights-from-athletic-directors-convention/
This is an article from Chadd Scott who is an ACC homer with credibility similar to Greg Swaim, but there are some interesting comments he is making after being at the national athletic directors’ meeting.
SEC is keeping a very tight lid on its network plans.
SEC is going to have 2 TH night games.
ACC is comfortable with a merit based distribution of revenue from a college football playoff (My 1st read was that the ACC who would be most opposed to merit and want tiers of conferences, has accepted that it will have some distribution similar to the CBS Sports 15 year top 25 lists. But it could also be read as merit based within the ACC to encourage FSU and Clemson to stay).
And since I posted it, I will add this note so as not to mislead people: his paragraph on SMU is totally off. SMU is good but not elite. And it was setup to replace Vanderbilt, not to emulate Northwestern. When Vandy decided to become more secular, the Methodists setup SMU and moved Emory to Atlanta.
LikeLike
It’s funny you compare him to Swaim, since Swaim, The Dude, et al. have repeatedly mocked him.
LikeLike
I am not implying anything about his credibility, honestly I don’t know.
LikeLike
bullet,
When asked by me if the culture of the Big 12 had changed following the league’s trip to the brink of extinction in the summer of 2011 and a subsequent grant of media rights as it relates to the schools’ unity and commitment to the overall health of the conference, a former administrator at a Big 12 school said, “not one iota.”
What did the athletic director at a former Big 12 school say upon seeing the old Big 12 TV contract and its unequal revenue distribution for the first time, “this will never work.”
I get the feeling if FSU were angling to leave the ACC for the SEC, few in the ACC would stand in its way or attempt to dissuade it, but what stuns the ACC supporters, like myself, is how those within the FSU community pushing the “leave” agenda fail to see or acknowledge all the inherit pitfalls and shortcomings of the Big 12.
In an ideal world Louisville would stay in the Big East as it was previously constituted with Syracuse, Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Louisville feels that was its natural and preferred home – urban based campuses, Eastern Time Zone, basketball-focused, similar academics, similar geography. This is not an ideal world and the Cardinals are working hard to secure a spot in the Big 12.
There’s a lot in those 4 paragraphs.
1. I’m not surprised nothing has really changed in the B12. Change takes time, and UT sees no need to change.
2. Where was that AD before the deal was signed? Did he warn his president and others?
3. I think the ACC would try to hold on to FSU regardless of the destination. They might be more understanding about going to the SEC, but it’s still their top FB school.
4. I’d love to hear Pitt and Syracuse’s responses to UL claiming to have similar academics.
Other tidbits:
“Mississippi State is hiring an in-house beat writer. Florida has done this for years. With the death of the newspaper industry and schools wanting greater control over their message, look for this to become the norm.”
Great, just what sports needs. More spun coverage.
“ESPN says the SEC must play two Thursday night games per season”
Well, that’s one part of their deal the B10 won’t match for a long time.
“Two separate consultants advised San Diego State NOT to join the Big East, for a variety of reasons.”
And yet they did anyway. Money trumps common sense?
“One former C-USA school now joining the Big East secretly solicited the help of media members to positively influence public opinion on its behalf.”
And people say the media is biased.
LikeLike
Chadd has been in a twitter battle with the Dude and tries to badmouth the Big 12 any chance he gets, so you have to take any Big 12 comments with that understanding. He’s looking for the negative. Note that he talked to a former Big 12 adminstrator and AD from a former Big 12 school (every one of which supported unequal revenue sharing-the ones who opposed it are still in the conference).
LikeLike
bullet,
The statement from Chad Scott…”ACC is comfortable with a merit based distribution of revenue from a college football playoff”…could be interpreted a lot of different ways:
1) Different payout depending on conference affiliation tiers (e.g., a BCS-like payout model where AQ and non-AQ conferences where receiving different payments).
2) Different payout depending on specific conferences (e.g., SEC would get a different payout than the ACC…although both conferences have same number of teams).
3) Different payout to teams within the conference (e.g., the old Big XII revenue model).
It would be stunning if ACC athletic directors meant “merit based distribution” to be anything other than #1. IMHO, the majority of major conferences would not support unequal revenue sharing amongst specific conferences. Unequal revenue sharing is not going to be popular with most university presidents…mainly because it makes college athletics seem more of a for profit venture than collegiate competition.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodds on $, bowls, and the championship game.
Says general consensus expects 6 bowls to be Atlanta, Dallas and the existing 4 bowls.
Rose and Champions Bowl are “loaned” to the playoffs to serve as semis every 3rd year.
Mentions Detroit, Indianapolis, Tampa, Atlanta, New Orleans and Dallas as favorites for the early championship games.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19482340/college-footballs-playoff-will-be-huge-and-everyone-wants-a-piece-of-it
LikeLike
bullet,
Says general consensus expects 6 bowls to be Atlanta, Dallas and the existing 4 bowls.
Not quite. He said, “For now, the assumption is that Cowboys Stadium (Dallas) and the Georgia Dome (Atlanta) will fill out the six-bowl rotation for the semifinals.”
.
LikeLike
And New Year’s Day is set. Orange Bowl with ACC champ at 1 pm eastern, followed by the Rose and then the Champions Bowl
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/070312aaa.html
LikeLike
I’m OK with that……NYD has always been my favorite holiday…….looks like it’s set up nicely. Will there still be other bowls that day as well?
LikeLike
Smart for Orange Bowl and ACC to lock up that slot too. Don’t want to deal with being on the other playoff day given that Jan 1 is always going to be the biggest day, especially if the other day is Dec. 31.
LikeLike
I’ll be interested to learn when the Capital One and Outback type bowls will be played. Fiesta etc…
LikeLike
Kevin,
It’s looking like late December for everyone else because I don’t think they want any bowls between the semis and the NCG. Maybe they changed their mind and they’ll play games like the Outback in prime time in early January.
LikeLike
So are the semi-finals (when not Rose & Champions) going to be after NYD, then? NYE?
You could very well see the Outback at 10AM EST & probably that bowl at the old Cotton Bowl (if it keeps existing). Maybe the Gator at 10AM as well. CapOne would be pushed out unless it gets in the 6-bowl rotation.
LikeLike
NYE, apparently. TPTB don’t seem to see a problem with that.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“I’m OK with that……NYD has always been my favorite holiday…….looks like it’s set up nicely. Will there still be other bowls that day as well?”
It’s hard to compete with the big boys. The Rose and Champs will presumably have exclusivity because they’ll crush any competition. I’d expect 1-2 early games (11ish am ET) to lead into the Orange and provide something to watch at halftime. Maybe a west coast bowl will be really gutsy and start late to pick up the post-Champs crowd (8pm PT).
LikeLike
In case there was any doubt about this before, Joe Schad confirmed for me that when a bowl loses its tie-in to the semifinals, that bowl can choose any other team from that conference regardless of ranking (e.g. the Orange that loses the ACC champ to the semifinals can choose another ACC team even if it’s unranked because it’s a contractual tie-in):
LikeLike
So basically the Orange/Rose/Champions (either Sugar or Cotton) will lock in the January 1st time slots. So that means each of those three will be in a different semi-final rotation so that January 1st has one semi-final game and two non-playoff games with New Years Eve going the same way. The time of the semi-final game will be determined by what bowl is hosting.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Cotton Bowl becomes the Champions Bowl
Year 1: Orange/Fiesta
Year 2: Cotton/Peach
Year 3: Rose/Sugar
So the Fiesta/Peach and Sugar bowls could be fixtures on New Years Eve then.
It makes sense from a logistical standpoint to have the bowls/time slots pre-determined.
What I wouldn’t agree with is any conference tie-in applying no matter what ranking the team is. That makes for bad television
LikeLike
texmex,
“So basically the Orange/Rose/Champions (either Sugar or Cotton) will lock in the January 1st time slots. So that means each of those three will be in a different semi-final rotation so that January 1st has one semi-final game and two non-playoff games with New Years Eve going the same way.”
Maybe, maybe not.
“The time of the semi-final game will be determined by what bowl is hosting.”
Yes.
“For the sake of argument, let’s say the Cotton Bowl becomes the Champions Bowl
Year 1: Orange/Fiesta
Year 2: Cotton/Peach
Year 3: Rose/Sugar
So the Fiesta/Peach and Sugar bowls could be fixtures on New Years Eve then.”
Yes.
“It makes sense from a logistical standpoint to have the bowls/time slots pre-determined.”
Yes and no. I wouldn’t want to lock in a semifinal at 1 pm on 12/31 when much of America is at work. I think they have to rotate the 12/31 games so the semi is always in prime time. The timing matters a lot less on 1/1 since it’s a holiday.
“What I wouldn’t agree with is any conference tie-in applying no matter what ranking the team is. That makes for bad television”
But it makes bowls and conferences happy, and that seems to be the deal.
LikeLike
Agreed. There is no way a semifinal will be played during the work day on New Year’s Eve. It just defies all common sense.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“In case there was any doubt about this before, Joe Schad confirmed for me that when a bowl loses its tie-in to the semifinals, that bowl can choose any other team from that conference regardless of ranking (e.g. the Orange that loses the ACC champ to the semifinals can choose another ACC team even if it’s unranked because it’s a contractual tie-in):”
We already knew that about the Rose and Champs, I think.
My question is, what happens in the same scenario when the bowl is hosting a semi?
EX. The Rose and Sugar are hosting semis. OSU is #3 and plays in the semis. The B10 runner up is unranked 8-4 NE. USC is #4 and also in the semis. The P12 runner up is unranked 8-4 Oregon.
Where do NE and OR play? The Fiesta (will there be a deal to move the Rose there when Pasadena has a semi?)? Not in the big 6?
Bowls:
Rose – #3 OSU vs #4 USC
Sugar – #1 Vandy vs #2 Duke
Fiesta – ??? vs ???
Cotton/Champs – B12 #1 vs SEC #2
Orange – ACC #2 vs ???
Citrus – ??? vs ???
LikeLike
bullet,
“Details on both the opponent and broadcast partner will be forthcoming.”
Nothing is set in stone until TV deals are signed for the Orange and Champs, but it does seem likely. I’m curious to see if the Orange tries to lock in anybody else (a runner up or bets of a group of champs deal) based on that throw away line about the opponent.
LikeLike
And the ACC controls the media rights for the Orange Bowl now.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – I’ll expand upon this once I can finally put up a new blog post (it’s been crazy lately), but the fact that the ACC controls the media rights for the Orange Bowl (and the Big 12 and SEC will do likewise with the Champions Bowl) is pretty important. What I see happening is that the power conferences aren’t just looking to grab “merit-based” revenue based on prior performance, but actually get paid directly for broadcast rights to the semifinals since they’re taking control of the top bowls. Note that the new Rose Bowl deal with ESPN *includes* the semifinals that it hosts and the impending Orange and Champions Bowl TV deals will likely include similar provisions. This means that the ACC, for instance, gets a massive TV payment for the years that the Orange Bowl is hosting a semifinal regardless of whether the ACC actually has a semifinalist or not. Therefore, any NCAA Tournament-esque credits based on performance might be a red herring for those of us discussing how revenue distribution is going to work for this playoff. The *real* money is likely going to be reserved for those conferences that control a bowl that’s a semifinal host since they get the benefit of the TV rights payments… and those conferences just happen to be the 5 power conferences.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
“Host” bowls (Sugar, Fiesta, Atlanta) and champ game to be bundled as single entity for rightsholders. Rose, Champ, Orange making own deals
This is the foundation for your new post.
LikeLike
So does the B1G and Pac12 currently control the same media rights for the Rose Bowl that the SEC and Big 12 does for the Champs Bowl (and apparently that the ACC now does with the Orange Bowl)?
LikeLike
I don’t know the details, but the B10 and P12 have helped run the Rose for a long time. Nobody likes to give details on these sorts of things, though.
LikeLike
@bamatab – That’s unclear to me. The Rose Bowl is a bit different because it’s owned by the Tournament of Roses, so the TV deal also includes certain Rose Parade broadcast rights. (That’s why ESPN corporate sibling ABC gets the best spot for broadcasting the parade.) I’ll try to see if I can find the answer.
LikeLike
@ Frank – That would be interesting to know. I also think that the SEC & Big 12 might be a little more uniquely situated with their setup than the ACC and the B1G/Pac 12, since the Champs Bowl isn’t currently tied to a particular bowl/location at this point.
LikeLike
http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/dave-brandon-says-strength-of-schedule-must-be-a-high-priority-in-new-college-football-playoff/
Dave Brandon on the B10/P12 deal:
Naturally, some Michigan fans held their collective breath hoping to see the Wolverines tangle with Pac-12 powers USC, Stanford or Oregon — but Brandon explained, right now anyway, figuring out a way to match traditional power vs. traditional power within this scheduling agreement isn’t the simplest thing in the world.
Brandon has backed a “tier system” that pits the best teams in each league against one another, but so far, that hasn’t materialized.
“This collaboration is still being weighed and measured,” he said. “It was announced and both conference commissioners are very committed to it, a lot of us think it’s a great idea, but at some point it has to transition from a great idea to ‘how do you operationalize and schedule it?’
“We’re at a moment now where we simply have to wait for this collaboration to take shape and get into some of the details of how that all happens before I can really tell you.”
Brandon maintains his position that the Big Ten-Pac-12 agreement is a good idea, and can be utilized to bring about top-level schedules for all involved.
But now, he says, comes the hard part.
“The concept is a really good one,” he said. “But now it’s like, ‘OK, we’ve got to make this happen.’ We’ve got all these teams with schedules out years in the future and now they’re juggling all these balls to figure out how to put it together.
“There’s a lot of work being put into it. … Stay tuned.”
Basically he doesn’t know anything more than we do and doesn’t know when he’ll learn the details.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19463329/media-inside-room-with-playoff-selection-committee-could-happen
The committee may actually allow a journalist in the room during the whole selection process to provide transparency. There would be some ground rules about what can and can’t be divulged (I doubt they can report who said what about which team, for example, or anything that could lead to that).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/62636/new-playoff-old-bcs
So now that some details are emerging, how much progress is this playoff? AQ status went away, but there are 5 locked spots. At the same time, the #3/4 rule and the top non-AQ champ rule went away.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1199811.html
CFN’s preview of WI. The only reason I mention it is that they compare WI now to NE in the 80s and early 90s. Do fans of those teams care to read it and respond?
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Nebraska was an intimidating, tough and dominant force under Tom Osborne. Year after year after year the Huskers were in the hunt for the Big 8 title and on the fringe of being in the national championship mix, and year after year after year they fell short of the big prize and often got exposed in a bowl game.
Starting with the epic 1984 Orange Bowl loss to Miami up until the equally classic loss to Florida State in the 1994 Orange Bowl, Nebraska went 2-9 in bowl games including a stretch of seven straight losses. As successful as the Big Red Machine might have been, it couldn’t get over the hump. Finally, the program basically said enough was enough. It had to get faster. It had to get more talented. It had to go get better players. And it did.
The Huskers might have sold out a little bit to get where they needed to go – Lawrence Phillips and Christian Peter, anyone? – but with a little bit of tweaking and refocusing they turned into something special losing just three games from 1993 to the middle of 1998.
Sound a wee bit familiar?
He goes on to say WI needs to up their recruiting and get stud athletes instead of just system guys they can coach up if they want to become elite. He also says WI might be blinded by the blowouts of mediocre teams to see the need to change. That certainly fits what many WI fans have been saying.
LikeLike
Of course it would be better if Wisconsin got more “stud athletes,” but wouldn’t everyone? Losing Rose Bowls sucks but it’s not clear how that translates to UW being “exposed,” as that article claims. If anything, TCU won in 2011 with *less* heralded recruiting, and let’s not make it sound like UW got blown out in either game. Both were within a TD. Better coaching, particularly clock management, could have made the difference.
There is plenty of talk here about “how to get to the next level,” but I’m not sure this article has any practical guidance on how to do that. “It’s time to ramp up the recruiting and it’s time to fight Urban Meyer, Hoke, the SEC, and anyone interesting in winning a national title for the top players.” OK, whatever you say . . .
LikeLike
Well, I’ve seen some WI fans say there’s no need to change recruiting at all. It sounds like Fiutak is saying WI needs to start trying to recruit more of these guys rather than settle for system guys. I don’t know how aggressive WI is in chasing the elite players versus taking the next tier.
Any school should be able to parlay success into better recruiting, but not all coaches try to do that. Some have a comfort level and stay there. Is it fair to question how hard Bielema is chasing the elite players?
LikeLike
I don’t think Wisconsin chases the elite players unless they are either “in-state” players or they play O-line or running back. Occasionally Wisconsin will go after a top TE. They’ve only recently been targeting some higher ranked QB’s. They almost always go for system guys on the D-line, Secondary and Wide Receivers. The state has historically produced decent linebackers.
I think they fear all the social problems with chasing the elite recruits. They like the system guys from a chemistry perspective. Alvarez wrote in his book that he made a big mistake chasing the top recruits after his back to back Rose Bowl victory’s as they failed to land most of their targets and were then left with Plan C guys.
I also think they haven’t recruited well because their facilities were bottom of the barrel. This should change significantly starting next year as they are in the middle of an $86 million project to enhance the football facilities. Most will be spent on weight room, locker room, training room, renovated indoor facility and academic support facilities. Project also includes a new scoreboard and new turf at Camp Randall.
LikeLike
Not being able to land the elite players out-of-state is the reason they don’t bother chasing them. They do pretty well recruiting 2nd tier talent in Illinois/Chicago which has a good bit of talent.
LikeLike
Alvarez tried to do exactly this in the late 90s and it ended up backfiring on him. Anyone remember when Indiana ran for like 1000 yards and scored 60+ points in Camp Randall?
LikeLike
NU in the 80’s had to build a defense to stop the OU’s and CU’s to win the conference, then they faced pro style FL teams in bowls games. Once OU declined and CU went to a more balanced offense, NU could go to faster defenses that could defend pro style offenses more effectively.
NU always recruited CA, TX, Cal, Louisiana, FL, etc.
Wisconsin will probably have to do the same to get to the top.
Wisconsin also just lost several coaches including the OC – something NU did not have to contend with in the 90’s.
LikeLike
I don’t follow the premise. The Badgers lost two one-possession bowl games to Top 5 caliber opponents, one being TCU and one being Oregon. WI should have beaten TCU but were hardly “exposed.” The Oregon game went exactly the way everyone expected when it was announced. Videogame shootout that the defenses didn’t stand a chance in.
That’s not surprising, with how the only defense that held Oregon below 30 all year was the NFL prospect-stacked defense of LSU (who still gave up 27 points…). USC – no shortage of talent there – got monkeyhammered for 35.
“Exposed” isn’t losing close games with equal opponents, not unless you are consensus invincible or something. “Exposed” is getting upset by a double-digit dog or the beating Ohio State took from Florida in 2007.BCS championship, where you look like you don’t even belong on the same field as your supposed adversary.
Wisconsin certainly could use some stud defensive backs, Pretty sure everyone in the country wants them some stud defensive backs.
LikeLike
Peter,
I assume he’s basing it mostly on WI’s recent bowl history (0-2, 1-4 or 3-6 depending how far back you go) and how NE went through a similar phase while being a Big 8 power. Since WI doesn’t play anyone OOC, those bowls are the only chance people get to see WI against comparably ranked teams from the rest of the country.
LikeLike
Quite a bit harder for Wisconsin in the B10 to pull off the type of transformation that Nebraska in the B8/B12 did.
As an example, assuming that they can get a guy like Lawrence Phillips to come, could he manage to not get himself kicked out of school at Wisconsin?
Also, for all their recent success, Bucky now doesn’t exactly have the brand cachet that the Huskers in the ’80’s and ’90’s had, at least with 18 year-olds outside their home state.
LikeLike
I think Wisconsin’s brand is improving nationally. The offense is much more balanced under Bielema than under Alvarez. 18 year-olds today were not alive when the Badgers stunk in the 80’s.
Wisconsin is certainly not Oregon and the brand doesn’t represent ‘flash’ etc.. but it is associated with winning both in Basketball and Football and it’s a very strong academic institution.
LikeLike
“I think Wisconsin’s brand is improving nationally. The offense is much more balanced under Bielema than under Alvarez. 18 year-olds today were not alive when the Badgers stunk in the 80′s.”
Agreed. Wisconsin, alongside Oregon and Virginia Tech, are probably the best programs who haven’t won national titles. Over the past 20 years, those three programs have risen to prominence as much as anyone. One of them ought to break the glass ceiling eventually, much in the same way Florida and Florida State did in the mid-90’s after many years close to the top of college football.
LikeLike
I think WI still trails those 2 a little because the others played in a NCG and have been close to playing in others. WI hasn’t won a BCS game under Bielema (last was in 1999 season by Alvarez) and hasn’t made the NCG. VT has come back towards WI, though.
LikeLike
The distributions from the playoff will certainly be important but the main story is that the Big 5 are guaranteeing themselves even larger cuts through control over the 3 New Years’ Day bowls.
The Big East has officially been relegated to second tier status as well which is important.
Thus, even if the playoffs revenue sharing is merit based, the 5 conferences are going to end up so far ahead of everyone else that even differences of $10-15M (or whatever it may be) between the top Big Ten/SEC and the bottom ACC are going to be relatively minor; they’re all going to blow away what everyone else receives…
LikeLike
The TV money has just grown so tremendously over the last 5 years, the gap between the Big 5 and the rest has become huge. Instead of $6-$10 million vs. $3 million for the BE vs. $1 million for CUSA/MWC, now its a $20 + million gap from the Big 5 to the CUSA/MWC. Noone’s really quite sure where the BE will be, but its going to be much more than $3-$5 million behind.
I think the biggest effect may well be in sports other than fb. Many schools have focused on one or two non-revs and may have trouble keeping up. UTEP used to be a track power. Lousiana Tech was one of the premier women’s bb programs. These schools may have to settle for an occassional good year in a sport where one player can make a difference (like basketball). Major football schools already dominate basketball much more than they did in the 80s.
LikeLike
I agree completely. We’re definitely seeing the impact in non-revenue sports, which is where the extra financial muscle makes the biggest difference.
Schools like Florida and Michigan for example are adding sports and building pristine facilities to compete in those new sports. Florida spent $15M on its women’s lacrosse facilities, which blow away what almost everyone else had. Within 3 years of fielding a team, they’re in the Final Four in that sport.
We’re going to see this replicated by most other schools as they build out facilities for non-revenue sports and plow significant money from conference TV deals into the non-revenue sports.
Some point in the next 10 years, the Big 5 conferences are going to start seeing schools take home at least $30M from conference distributions with schools in the Big Ten/SEC (and Texas) probably shooting for $40M+.
It’s just crazy to imagine how big those budgets are going to get compared to the “little guys.”
Back to women’s lacrosse as an example, it used to feature dominant smaller private schools like Princeton and Georgetown near the top. I doubt either of those schools approaches the top again. With a lot more athletics budget money for scholarships and facilities, the Big 5 schools have so much more power in non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
M has tentative plans to build up most all of its non revenue facilities to be the caliber to host regional and/or national events. Not all will be approved but M has $200 million in plans to improve its facilities in swimming/water polo, lacrosse, gymnastics, etc.
This not long after putting $500million into renovating Michigan Stadium, practice facility, Crisler Center, Yost along with baseball/softball and wrestling facilities. This is all coming from the athletic departments budget (and donations to AD) and none of it coming from the university.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/03/playoff-bowls-penn-state-mailbag/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
Stewart Mandel answers my question I posted earlier:
If, say, the Rose Bowl is hosting a semifinal one year and the Big Ten champion doesn’t make the playoff, that team still has a protected spot waiting for it in one of the other three bowls. “If you give up your contracted bowl to have a semifinal, then your champion would have a berth in one of the other games,” Hancock said of those conferences. However, if in the same scenario that champion did make the playoff, no bowl would be obligated to take a second Big Ten team, and it might not even be possible, as those de facto at-large spots would be determined by the selection committee’s rankings.
The caveat is if the B10 and P12 sign a second contract with the Fiesta to take their champs when the Rose has a semifinal. Then the contract would let them take a replacement as well. I think.
As for the impact of these locked in spots:
If we go by the BCS standings — not a precise exercise, since the committee wouldn’t necessarily replicate those rankings — there would have been nine of these protected “contract” champs that ranked 13th or lower since 1998: five from the ACC (2002 and ’05 Florida State, ’09 and ’10 Virginia Tech, ’11 Clemson), two from the Big Ten (2000 Purdue and ’04 Michigan), one from the Pac-12 (1999 Stanford) and — brace yourself — one from the SEC (2001 LSU). We can’t say for sure how many sub-top 12 replacement teams would have made it without knowing the semifinal rotation, but using the BCS’ top four each year as the playoff field, there could have been as many as 13 — or almost one per year.
I think we’ll see fewer of them in the future since conferences have expanded.
LikeLike
But on the other hand, there are ccgs everywhere but the Big 12, MWC and SB now. During most of that period, only the Big 12 and SEC had them among the AQs. The ACC only added theirs around 2005.
LikeLike
Yes, but I don’t see that many runners up being a team that lost the CCG and ended unranked. Larger conferences have lower odds of only having 1 ranked team.
LikeLike
The issue would be low ranked champs like Texas in 96 when they were 7-4 before upsetting Nebraska in the championship games.
LikeLike
But they won it on the field, so playoff fans would eat that up, right?
LikeLike
That’s the champs only crowd.
LikeLike
That is very good info. Actually the way its worded and the way they’ve talked about contract vs. access bowls, I bet that if say the Rose Bowl is the semi-final and if a Big Ten team is in it, then they don’t automatically get another team in.
LikeLike
There are truly no words to describe this other than, “way to go Aggies”
LikeLike
The young lady doing South Carolina was interesting.
LikeLike
Yeah.
Though the best part is the president mispronouncing the name of his school.
LikeLike
I was hoping for scantily-clad coeds. Very disappointing.
LikeLike
Back to business, have we seen a definitive press release from the B12 on their TV deal?
TAMU and Missouri are gone, while TCU and West Virginia are now in. They have been saying this thing was done since last December yet still no press? I do not buy Notre Dame in the B12 and the ACC is owned by ESPN, so I still agree with Frank on them not getting destroyed. Any TV deal in the works will be for the regular season, and the bowl games will be separate so why has this not hit the news yet as official?
LikeLike
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a406ee/article/nfl-eases-local-tv-blackout-restrictions-for-upcoming-season
The NFL has changed their blackout rule due to declining attendance. They’re also adding WIFI to all stadiums.
Will CFB feel these effects soon, or is the greater passion going to protect them? Maybe when the playoff starts making the regular season less important CFB will have this problem.
LikeLike
Ticket prices at these billion dollar stadiums have gotten outrageous. Tough for most to afford to take a family of four to a game, let alone season tickets.
LikeLike
Here’s the link to the Wall Street Journal article-see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577495083707417526.html
The article points out that attendance at NFL games has been down 4.5% since 2007 while broadcast and online viewership is soaring. A combination of the rising prices for tickets, parking and concessions, the overall economy plus an increasingly better (and cheapter) at home experience watching the games is what the NFL feels is hurting the attendance.
I imagine the same forces may be at work for college football as well. CFB certainly isn’t immune to a bad economy or large, flat screen HD television and the ticket prices are now on a rough par as the NFL average ($77.34). For the 2011 season, Michigan sold individual game tickets for $70 or $85 depending on the opponent.
The article also points out that television and online sources are the “lifeblood” for the finances of NFL teams. While that may not be quite the same for college football, it’s pretty clear that when I look at Michigan’s past athletic department budgets that the conference distributions which include the television revenue is growing in percentage of the athletic department’s overall revenue when compared to ticket sales (not including PSLs or donations towards leasing luxury boxes). Given the new television deal that the Big Ten will be inking in a few years plus some of the projections made for money coming from the new post-season format, my assessment is that this trend is going to continue
How college responds to these changes will be telling. One of the major problems I have with the way the post-season is shaping up is the failure to use college stadiums to host the semi-final games. Simply put, it’s not a solution that’s friendly to a large number of fans who regularly attend the games and support the teams by buying a ticket, paying for parking, going to the concession stands, etc. I feel that while TPTB are doing some things right (such as cutting out the bowl middlemen more and more), they’re also chasing the dollar too closely (ex. the SEC and Big XII proposing to bid out the semi-final games). When tickets for the semi-final games cost $350 apiece and you have to travel to see your team in person, it becomes pretty clear why fans would rather watch the game on their Sony from the comforts of the couch.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19496663/rose-and-champions-may-not-want-to-be-in-regular-playoff-rotation
Both the Rose and Champs Bowls may not host semis as often as the other 4 bowls.
LikeLike
Joe Schad is reporting that the Orange may get a second tie-in with ND, with a minimum wins requirement (probably 9 wins if I had to guess).
LikeLike
We’ve been on top of that for weeks.
LikeLike
Us saying it and someone reporting it are two different things.
LikeLike
Sounds good and fills up the last contract bowl. Now the question is, if Notre Dame is not in the game, does the selection committee choose the spot?
LikeLike
I would assume so, unless the ND deal includes a set of replacements who get first crack at it.
LikeLike
Why would Notre Dame do this? I think they would be a prime at-large selection for all the top bowls, so I don’t see why they would tie themselves (and their fanbase) down to one bowl.
I am going to hate this new setup if all the top six bowls have tie ins. I think it should be a more open format so the committee can pair the best teams up in interesting matchups.
LikeLike
Perhaps ND would take less money in exchange for the flexibility of heading to a different Bowl game if it is selected by the selection committee?
LikeLike
The advantage to this sort of tie-in with the Orange Bowl is that ND does not have to be a top 12 team in order to participate in a January 1st bowl. This tie-in would be like risk insurance on a 9-3 record (where ND has a good team, but hardly a sure thing to be in the top 12).
If ND does tie-in with the Orange Bowl, then the Big 3 bowls on January 1st will be more beauty constests. The other Big 3 bowls on December 31 will be more “merit” based games. Fortunately (IMHO), the semi-final Bowls are definitely “merit” based.
The powerful conferences & schools, as well as TV networks, definitely understand that revenues will be maximized by televising popular teams. It appears that Rose Bowl model -that is preferred by the BIG & PAC-, is being replicated as the Champions Bowl for the SEC & Big XII, and now the Orange Bowl with the ACC and possibly ND.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t Notre Dame do this?
The Orange Bowl is going to be the top non-playoff bowl other than the Rose and Champions Bowls.
Why in the world wouldn’t they want to guarantee themselves a slot there?
LikeLike
The Orange Bowl is clearly going to be seen as above the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls given that it’s on New Years Day with the Rose and Champions Bowls and has automatic tie-ins.
Those 3 are clearly the top cut now.
Also, those 3 have rights and whatnot controlled by the conferences themselves.
The other 3 (Fiesta, Sugar, Atlanta or whoever) are going to have their rights completely pooled into the playoff rights and split with everyone else.
If you’re ND, you want to lock yourself in with the Big 5 conferences with the Orange Bowl slot.
LikeLike
“:The Orange Bowl is clearly going to be seen as above the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls given that it’s on New Years Day with the Rose and Champions Bowls and has automatic tie-ins.”
Clearly seen by whom? In most years the Capital One and Outback bowls will likely provide more compelling match-ups than an Orange Bowl featuring a 9 win Notre Dame and a 10 win Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“Clearly seen by whom? In most years the Capital One and Outback bowls will likely provide more compelling match-ups than an Orange Bowl featuring a 9 win Notre Dame and a 10 win Virginia Tech.”
By most fans. BCS bowls were always more important than the other bowls regardless of the match-up. The same will be true of the 3 NYD bowls versus the other 3 host bowls. 3 of the bowls are contract bowls, and the other 3 are access bowls. People will view the contract bowls as more prestigious.
LikeLike
I’m not sure everyone feels that way for all BCS/tier 2 bowls without exception. For example, last year’s Clemson-WVU debacle was definitely, for me at least, far less important than say, MSU-Georgia or Arkansas-Kansas State.
The BCS games certainly carried an air of importance, but I think a lot of fans found various Tier 2 games far more interesting/important, depending upon the match-ups.
If ND is going in as a 9-3 team, or there’s a 10-2 ACC team, or the ACC champ is in the playoffs, I think the interest in the Orange Bowl will be pretty low. That’s not to say this was the wrong decision. I am just not sure Notre Dame can be that happy being stuck there, even if it does mean they can get in at 9 wins. At least they could theoretically play the SEC/Big12 champions before.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I’m not sure everyone feels that way for all BCS/tier 2 bowls without exception.”
Of course not, but it’s fairly accurate especially when you look back after a few years. If I asked people (without looking it up) which was a bigger/better game in 1998, the Sugar Bowl or the Cap 1 I’m guessing almost everyone would say Sugar. The same thing will be true for last year. The details fade from memory rather quickly, but the reputation of the various bowls persists.
“The BCS games certainly carried an air of importance, but I think a lot of fans found various Tier 2 games far more interesting/important, depending upon the match-ups.”
But nobody looks back and brags about how many Cap 1 wins they have instead of BCS wins.
LikeLike
1. Boring for the fanbase to go to the same bowl every year. Ask OU fans how they like going to the Fiesta Bowl every year.
2. ND is a national brand and would be the top at large every year. They don’t have to worry about getting a tie-in to get access to great bowls.
ND isn’t hurting for money or bowl access.
LikeLike
I don’t get your point in #1. You get to go to a marquee bowl against the ACC Champion every year? And you want to say no to that?
Why wouldn’t Wisconsin or Ohio State want to go to the Rose Bowl every year; or Florida or Alabama or Oklahoma want to go to the Champions Bowl every year?
As for point #2. What bowls are going to be open? The Orange Bowl is set up to be one of the most watched bowls now given the tie ins and date/time.
I would think most would agree that the Orange Bowl has jumped the rest of the bowls in the pecking order and is just behind the Rose and Champions Bowls in terms of marquee status.
Sure it may not be as interesting as certain matchups in other bowls, but in terms of status it’s probably just behind the Rose and Champions but ahead of everyone else…
LikeLike
Very interesting how the bowls order has switched around. Under the BCS in the past several years at least, I’d say the prestige ranking looked something like this:
1. Rose
2. Sugar
3. Fiesta
4. Orange (although 2-4 are fairly close).
In the new set-up, with Cotton seemingly more likely for the SEC/Big 12 (the Sugar has been mentioned as an access bowl), it might look more like this:
1. Rose
2. Cotton
3. Orange
4/5/6. Fiesta/Sugar/Peach
Combined with losing their double hosting, the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls look to be the biggest losers as far as BCS bowls go.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“1. Boring for the fanbase to go to the same bowl every year. Ask OU fans how they like going to the Fiesta Bowl every year.”
ND hasn’t been winning 9 games every year for a long time. Since the BCS started, they would have qualified in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2006 (and maybe 2011 at 8-4), and some of those years the Orange would have been a semi meaning ND would have played elsewhere. I’m not sure they’d be too bored with that.
“2. ND is a national brand and would be the top at large every year. They don’t have to worry about getting a tie-in to get access to great bowls.”
If it isn’t a contractual tie-in, then the committee has to pick you as a top 12 team. The glory days of riding their brand into a game they don’t deserve would be over. They’d probably need to be 10-2 to be sure of a spot since the tie-ins for the big 5 mean at least 1 team at #13 or lower will probably get in every year. The contract means they can get in at 9-3 and maybe even 8-4, which is a lot easier than 10-2 or better.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Very interesting how the bowls order has switched around. Under the BCS in the past several years at least, I’d say the prestige ranking looked something like this:
1. Rose
2. Sugar
3. Fiesta
4. Orange (although 2-4 are fairly close).”
I wouldn’t say the Orange was close to the Fiesta. The Orange got a lot more bad games. I also think the Sugar was generally above the Fiesta by a sizable margin due to getting the SEC #2 so often.
“In the new set-up, with Cotton seemingly more likely for the SEC/Big 12 (the Sugar has been mentioned as an access bowl), it might look more like this:”
I think the Champs will rotate between the Sugar and Cotton equally (Cotton makes more money but Sugar is in SEC territory and has more tradition for them).
“1. Rose
2. Cotton
3. Orange
4/5/6. Fiesta/Sugar/Peach”
Based on recent history and all the current fan boys with no memory, it’s probably more like:
1. Champs
2. Rose
3. Sugar
4. Cotton
5. Fiesta (assuming it replaces the Rose when the Rose has a semi)
6. Orange
7. Other (Peach or Citrus or whatever)
“Combined with losing their double hosting, the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls look to be the biggest losers as far as BCS bowls go.”
I think that remains to be seen. We need to know the details before we can really judge the winners and losers.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“Why would Notre Dame do this? I think they would be a prime at-large selection for all the top bowls, so I don’t see why they would tie themselves (and their fanbase) down to one bowl.”
Because 9-3 doesn’t lock in a top 12 spot for them and this contract does. Maybe even 8-4 is enough, who knows? It also gives them good access to alumni in FL (so they don’t have to play Miami as much). It also assures them of a steady cash flow, and all schools like that.
“I am going to hate this new setup if all the top six bowls have tie ins. I think it should be a more open format so the committee can pair the best teams up in interesting matchups.”
I doubt the other 3 bowls get any tie-ins. Who wants to lock in the champs from the new BE or MWC or CUSA?
LikeLike
They won’t all have tie-ins. They’ve already said there will be 3 contract bowls (with tie-ins) and 3 access bowls (without tie-ins). Two of those games each year will be switched to semi-finals though and the two teams kicked out of a contract bowl will instead be granted access elsewhere for being kicked out.
LikeLike
Basically, there’s only really going to be 2 open slots it sounds like? At one of the non-contract bowls. The other two non-contract bowls will likely have a playoff game and one made-up contract game (the one that was replaced with a playoff game on New Year’s Day).
LikeLike
zeek,
“Basically, there’s only really going to be 2 open slots it sounds like? At one of the non-contract bowls. The other two non-contract bowls will likely have a playoff game and one made-up contract game (the one that was replaced with a playoff game on New Year’s Day).”
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. If you don’t count the top 4 spots as open, then there could be 2-5 openings in the other 4 bowls. If ND doesn’t qualify, that opens spot 3. If the Rose is a semi and the B10 runner up isn’t in the top 12, that opens another spot (same with P12 champ, obviously, or the Champs Bowl).
Worst Case
Top 4 = SEC, B12, B10 and P12 champs
ND = 9-3
Fiesta = semi = B10/P12
Cotton = semi = B12/SEC
Sugar = Champs = SEC #2/B12 #2
Rose = B10 #2/P12 #2
Orange = ACC/ND
Citrus = ???/???
That’s 2 open slots.
Worst case assuming there is 1 semi on NYD and 1 on NYE:
Top 4 = SEC, B12, B10 and P12 champs
ND = 9-3
Sugar = semi = SEC/B12
Fiesta = semi = B10/P12
Rose = B10 #2/P12 #2
Cotton = Champs = B12 #2/SEC #2
Orange = ACC/ND
Peach = ???/???
That’s 2 open slots.
Best case
Top 4 = B10, P12, MWC and MAC champs
ND = 6-6
B10 and P12 #2s are not top 12
Rose = semi = B10/P12
Peach = semi = MWC/MAC
Sugar = Champs = SEC/B12
Orange = ACC/???
Fiesta = ???/???
Cotton = ???/???
That’s 5 open slots.
LikeLike
What if the Champions Bowl actually partnered in a rotation with the Sugar and Cotton Bowls? Consider that if those two bowls never hosted a semifinal in the same year, in a year one was a semifinal the other would host Big12 vs SEC. If both hosted 4 semifinals, there would still be four years neither would host a semi – split those to host Champions two years each, and each is guaranteed only two years out of twelve they would have their matchup dictated by the selection committee.
LikeLike
JMann,
“What if the Champions Bowl actually partnered in a rotation with the Sugar and Cotton Bowls? ”
Many people believe that is the plan. That assures them of having a Champs game every year and uses the two most obvious locations for the game.
“Consider that if those two bowls never hosted a semifinal in the same year, in a year one was a semifinal the other would host Big12 vs SEC. If both hosted 4 semifinals, there would still be four years neither would host a semi – split those to host Champions two years each, and each is guaranteed only two years out of twelve they would have their matchup dictated by the selection committee.”
There have been hints the Champs may only take 2 semis (like the Rose might).
LikeLike
If the Rose and Champions host semi-finals less times than the other bowls, then there’s gonna be an issue with what games are on New Years Day. They are not gonna put 2 semi-finals on NYE, so between the Champions and Orange Bowl, somebody is gonna get bumped…unless the Champions Bowl semi-final turns go to the Orange bowl.
LikeLike
I was wondering about that too. I think this may turn out to be boon for the Orange Bowl though. If they are fixing times on New Years (and it sounds like they are) and want one semi-final on both, the spots the Rose and Sugar/Cotton might give up could well go to the Orange Bowl to preserve the days.
LikeLike
If the Champs/Rose each give up 2 semifinal dates, that would mean the Orange Bowl would get 8 semifinals, right? Do they really want the NYD schedule to be Semifinal –> Rose –> Champs 8 out of 12 years? Why would the other conferences allow the ACC to control the TV rights to a semifinal 8/12 years?
LikeLike
but under this scenario there would be no need to host a semi less often = there would still be a big six bowl for the conferences even when the other hosts a semi. plus they would rotate time slots with the semi being on new years eve and the bowl thta hosts the champ at 8pm on nYD
LikeLike
Big East isn’t the Big East anymore; it no longer has Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College or West Virginia… No conference can lose half (top half at that) and remain relevant.
LikeLike
texmex,
“If the Rose and Champions host semi-finals less times than the other bowls, then there’s gonna be an issue with what games are on New Years Day. They are not gonna put 2 semi-finals on NYE, so between the Champions and Orange Bowl, somebody is gonna get bumped…unless the Champions Bowl semi-final turns go to the Orange bowl.”
They could tell the Champs and Rose that if they host less, the price is losing their exclusive TV window or getting bumped to NYE that year.
LikeLike
I don’t see that happening. If the Rose and Sugar/Cotton host less, it’s because the Big Ten/PAC-12 and Big 12/SEC want them too. If they want them too and still want the time windows, I don’t see anyone with enough power to change it.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m with Eric; the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12 are in control of the situation with an assist from ACC and ND. I’m not sure why the rest would even be able to tell those 4 what to do at this point. They’re the ones driving this bus.
LikeLike
Agree with you two regarding who is driving the bus but for some reason I can’t get this image out of my head:
Seriously, given the center of power here and the willingness to take less money on TV rights from the conference controlled games by virtue of hosting less semifinal games, something else has to be going on here right?
Is the timeslot lock-in worth that much or is there a pretty big piece of the puzzle missing that explains why the Champs/Rose would disadvantage themselves financially?
LikeLike
Chicagomac:
Are you sure they are financially disadvantaging themselves? Bowl proponents may point to this as an example that a “playoff” as the be all and end all perception may actually be a misperception. The fact that the B12/SEC are trying to emulate the Rose, even to reduced hosting, suggests that B1G/PAC and Champs matchups are at least as valuable as a semi. If they were always conf champ matches they would be unbeatable. (sorry SEC, conference rematches don’t hold a candle)
LikeLike
That’s fair ChicagoMac.
It’s just that the Rose and Champs are willing to give up a semifinal or two for their favored matchup. That’s all it really comes down to…
Given the setup of this two day event with the 3 bowls controlled by the Big 5 + ND; it just makes it obvious that the Big East has been entirely kicked out of the power group and that the Big 5 is going to control the result.
Even if that means giving up a semifinal or two in the top two bowls. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Orange Bowl has the most semifinals of any of the bowls. That would bring it up to the stature of the other two… (and makes sense for balancing the days).
LikeLike
Eric,
“I don’t see that happening. If the Rose and Sugar/Cotton host less, it’s because the Big Ten/PAC-12 and Big 12/SEC want them too. If they want them too and still want the time windows, I don’t see anyone with enough power to change it.”
I just don’t buy that excuse. All the other I-A schools get paid based on how much the semis and finals get from a TV partner. They don’t need to take a lot less just so the Big 4 can have their preferred match-ups more often. Depending on who gets what deals, there’s no reason that the network with the semis can’t broadcast at the same time as the Rose or Champs. I doubt everybody got together and promised them exclusivity, especially when the alternative is playing a semi on NYE while millions are still at work.
LikeLike
zeek,
It’s not telling them what to do, it’s giving them a choice – lose exclusivity or move to a different time slot that year and keep exclusivity.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
I can’t believe the Rose/Champs bowls are worth nearly as much as a semifinal game. We’re talking about two second place teams playing one another in an otherwise meaningless game, we used to call this the Citrus Bowl. Nice enough, but when the conference champs are going to be matching up playing for the National Championship the night before or earlier in the day I have a hard time believing these games are worth what the semifinal is worth.
LikeLike
@zeek
I agree about the Orange being a likely host for more semifinal games, but that is why I think there is a missing piece here.
Maybe the Orange ends up signing deals with the other conferences for access to their #2 bowl picks which would answer the question who matches up with the ACC champ when ND doesn’t win 9 games, but it would also mean more guaranteed money for the most powerful conferences.
LikeLike
A semi-final is likely worth more than any other teams in the games, but the question for the Big Ten/PAC-12/SEC/Big 12 is, what is worth more
a) The “Champions” and Rose Bowls not being in the playoff and being outside of it. This would let them profit from both those names (to the extent the “champions” becomes a name) and the semi-finals spots, but would probably lower the prestige of the two bowls over time without any semi-finals.
b) Have the “Champions” and Rose Bowl always in the rotation. This benefits the conferences by keeping the games as the most valuable bowls, but also creates years many years where the bowls might not have a team in it (a Big Ten team in the Fiesta Bowl for instance is likely less valuable than a Big Ten team in the Rose Bowl).
c) Some combination of a and b.
From a bowl perspective, I think b is best. From a conference perspective, a is best over the short run, but b or c might be long term.
As for the dates, there were a lot of compromises to get to this point. I think the non-AQs were more than willing to give in on time slots in exchange for a selection committee getting to choose the at large spots for the “access bowls.”
LikeLike
That isn’t the only question Eric. The other question is why would those 4 conferences allow the ACC to control the TV rights to 4-8 semifinal games when those conferences would only control 2?
LikeLike
They might, but they initially said they were looking for a host for the first 5 games and I think they were looking for one city.
LikeLike
http://www.mrsec.com/2012/07/and-the-first-college-football-title-game-goes-to/
Mr. SEC believes there are 11 realistic candidates for the title game. Nashville has said they don’t think they have a chance:
Pasadena, Phoenix, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Tampa, Indianapolis, Detroit, Orlando. He knocks out San Antonio for not hosting a big bowl game, but they have hosted the final 4 in the Alamodome. However, their stadium doesn’t match the others is size and # of suites, so revenue generation wouldn’t be as good.
It will be interesting to see how much they try to spread it around as opposed to being in 1 of the 1st 6 cities who are likely to be the 6 bowl cities.
I know Houston and Atlanta have publically said they are interested. I’m pretty sure all of those 11 are.
LikeLike
He predicts Dallas will get the first one. I think they will go for a can’t miss city. Dallas weather can be iffy that time of year. My prediction for the 1st 3: 1) New Orleans; 2) Indianapolis; 3) Dallas.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC Blowhard’s logic is too simplistic in ruling out San Diego. Santa Clara (upcoming 49er’s stadium) may also have a shot. No way on Detroit unless politicians force it. If the B1G demands a midwest site, Indy is probably the 1 and done for the 12 year cycle.
LikeLike
Over a 12 year period, I’d have to guess that it will look like a 12 year geographic distribution of the Super Bowl.
1-2 in Miami, probably 2 in Dallas, 1 in Indianapolis, 1 or 2 in Atlanta and/or New Orleans, probably 2 or 3 in the Southwest in California and/or Phoenix.
It’ll mostly happen in the 6 bowl cities along with a couple of other locations (since those are the best cities for these events anyways).
LikeLike
I would like them to consider the Meadowlands and Fed Ex field in DC. Both outdoor stadiums but big markets on the East Coast. I also think they may consider the new stadium in Minneapolis once it is built.
LikeLike
I don’t see any reason to try to repeat the Ice Bowl in college football. We don’t need the linemen to get frostbite. Indy and Detroit are ok. Non-domes-no.
LikeLike
For the younger ones not from Wisconsin on here-the Ice Bowl was the Dallas/Green Bay NFL championship game in 1967. It was 15 below and some players literally did get frostbite.
LikeLike
When I lived in central Indiana, it hit 20 below one day with a 45 below chill factor, so those temperatures aren’t confined to Minnesota and Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Yeah, there have also been a few frosty games up at Lambeau the past few years in the NFC in mid-January.
I’m not sure anyone wants to put the college game through that. It’s one thing to have professional playoff games in Green Bay; quite another thing to have college games in a situation like that.
LikeLike
Minny will have a dome and I don’t think it gets that cold in NJ or DC.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Minny will have a dome and I don’t think it gets that cold in NJ or DC.”
Average temps on 1/10:
DC – 43/29
NYC – 38/27
The games will be played in prime time, so it’ll be closer to the low than the high and wind chill will make it colder. So expect it to be around freezing during the game with a wind chill of 20-30 degrees.
LikeLike
Detroit is good enough for the Super Bowl but not a college football game? What bringst you to that conclusion.
LikeLike
I think Indianapolis is going to be a better fit than many realize.
1. It just hosted a Super Bowl and got rave reviews.
2. NCAA HQs are there
3. It doesn’t have to host a bowl game 10 days prior
4. Centrally located – there are probably more FBS schools within a 12 hr drive of Indianapolis than any other location.
LikeLike
Re: bowl games hosting, that’s actually an interesting thing.
As I pointed out above, most of the cities in the mix here will be hosting one of the 6 top bowls (Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, Phoenix, LA), so adding a city like Indianapolis once or twice will provide geographic diversity in that respect.
LikeLike
zeek,
I expect they’ll prefer to avoid the major bowl cities. Those cities get semis all the time. Instead they can bring major CFB games to new cities. They originally said they want to get away from double hosting, and I think that sentiment will carry over. I’d expect the traditional cities to get a few chances (Pasadena, NO, Miami), and probably Dallas and Phoenix a little less often.
Look for northern domes (Indy, Detroit, MSP, StL), NW NFL cities (Seattle, SF), new warm weather cities (San Diego, Houston, Tampa) and cities that fail to get the 6th major bowl (Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando) to get a lot of chances. They’d love to play in DC, Philly, NYC and Boston to make those better CFB markets, but the weather just isn’t conducive. Maybe they’ll start having some big OOC games there instead.
I’d like to see a nice geographic rotation, with both semis and the NCG all in different regions. A simple north (Detroit, MSP, Indy, StL), west (Seattle, SF, SD, Pasadena/Phoenix), south (Houston, Dallas/Atlanta, NO) and Florida (Miami, Orlando, Tampa) rotation would hit everywhere and give all fan bases a chance to have a reasonable game to get to eventually. With a 12 year deal, give 3 games to each region and see how they go. Future sites can be based on that.
LikeLike
The assumption is that playing semi-finals on New Years Eve instead of New Years Day costs money. While it probably will cost a little, I think we are overplaying that to a large extent. People will watch New Years Day college football regardless if you give a lot of good games. On New Years Eve, if you put 1-2 semi-finals then, people will make an extra effort to watch, when they might otherwise have skipped the games. It will also be a big good intro to New Years Day.
LikeLike
I hate Super Bowl parties. You really don’t get much chance to watch the game. Its more of an excuse to have a party. People already have an excuse to have a party New Year’s Eve. I think its too much of a conflict for casual fans, especially if they have indifferent fans as significant others.
I think they will figure out real quick that 1 and 5 on December 31 don’t work well. Those games will get moved to the night of December 30 and January 2 when people aren’t working. They probably won’t go any later than 1/2 unless NYD is a Sunday.
LikeLike
CBS has televised the Sun Bowl during the afternoon of 12/31 for as long as I can remember. They definitely already have a good idea what impact the date/time will have on ratings.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“CBS has televised the Sun Bowl during the afternoon of 12/31 for as long as I can remember. They definitely already have a good idea what impact the date/time will have on ratings.”
Here are the average TV ratings for the bowls from 2002-2010 seasons:
Championship 16.35
Rose 12.41
Fiesta 8.74
Sugar 8.56
Orange 8.13
Capital One 6.27
Chick-fil-A Peach 4.66
Alamo 4.49
Holiday 4.40
Cotton 4.11
Outback 4.07
Gator 3.84
Liberty 3.33
Emerald 2.99
Champs Sports 2.96
Meineke Car Care 2.95
Music City 2.88
Sun 2.86
Independence 2.53
Las Vegas 2.47
The Super Bowl draws around a 40 on average, and the hope for the NCG is probably a 20-25 average (max was 20.71 over those 9 years for BCS NCG). That means the semis will be more like 15-20 on average. The question is whether a better match-up could increase the Sun’s ratings by a factor of 5-7, or is there a lower cap on the rating available at that time? Similarly, can an increase in importance increase the Peach’s ratings by a factor of 3-4 or will the number peak below that?
That’s a huge gamble to expect the TV boys to take for 12 years. With not a ton of applicable data, I’m guessing they tend to bid low out of caution.
LikeLike
Because of the long histroy of afternoon bowl games on CBS, I think they can probably model it out fairly well and that is really my point. They already know roughly what that timeslot would generate and they already know how much they would give up to force the game into that slot.
Hence, they are either comfortable with the revenue hit they are accepting or there is a work-around. I am betting there is a work-around.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Because of the long histroy of afternoon bowl games on CBS, I think they can probably model it out fairly well and that is really my point. They already know roughly what that timeslot would generate and they already know how much they would give up to force the game into that slot.”
How would data from the Sun Bowl accurately indicate viewers for a semifinal in that same slot? Lots more people would watch a semi than the Sun, we all know that. The question is what is the ceiling, and I don’t see how a third tier bowl game tells them that.
“Hence, they are either comfortable with the revenue hit they are accepting or there is a work-around. I am betting there is a work-around.”
TV hasn’t bid on it yet, so they aren’t taking any revenue hit.
LikeLike
@Brian,
The point is that they have plenty of data to run a regressions analysis and project what a national semifinal would do in various time slots.
You are acting like this is some big mystery and I’m telling you that it is somewhat unknown but it is no more unknown that what ratings a national semifinal would generate at 8pm 12/30 or 5pm 1/1. They have plenty of data to make a very good predictive model.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“The point is that they have plenty of data to run a regressions analysis and project what a national semifinal would do in various time slots.
You are acting like this is some big mystery and I’m telling you that it is somewhat unknown but it is no more unknown that what ratings a national semifinal would generate at 8pm 12/30 or 5pm 1/1. They have plenty of data to make a very good predictive model.”
They have a lot of unknowns combined here:
1. How popular will a semi be, since CFB has never had one? They have guesses for this that are probably fairly accurate, but you never know for sure until you play one.
2. How much impact does the time slot have for an important CFB game? This is what they have no data for. All the major bowls have been on 1/1 or in prime time later. How many people will skip work, leave early, watch online, or otherwise find a way to watch the game during work hours that don’t for the Sun Bowl? They have some data on the impact on regular programming, but they haven’t had an important sports event then for quite a while. Now they also have to spread that analysis to three different TV windows, only 1 of which is similar to the Sun Bowl.
I’ve seen guesses for what the NCG will do vary by at least 25%, and that’s a known game in a known time slot. You want me to believe they can accurately predict a 12/31 afternoon rating? I guess the question is what you mean by “very good predictive model.” What level of accuracy are you claiming?
LikeLike
Eric,
“The assumption is that playing semi-finals on New Years Eve instead of New Years Day costs money.”
Correct, and I think the TV guys will back us up on that.
“While it probably will cost a little, I think we are overplaying that to a large extent.”
Say it only leads to 10% fewer viewers, and that viewers directly correlate to value. Rough results:
Ideal time slots:
semis = $100M each
NCG = $150M
other bowls = $50M
Total = $400M
NYE
semis = $90M + 100M
NCG = $150M
other bowls = $45M (more NYE effects)
Total = $385M
Difference = $15M
I think $15M every year is enough to worry about, but I also expect a much bigger impact than 10%. If they have 2 semis on NYE, much of the audience will be at work for 1 of them. That’s a huge impact.
“People will watch New Years Day college football regardless if you give a lot of good games. On New Years Eve, if you put 1-2 semi-finals then, people will make an extra effort to watch, when they might otherwise have skipped the games. It will also be a big good intro to New Years Day.”
The key to making money on this is getting the casual CFB fan to watch. The casual fan isn’t skipping a NYE party to watch a game, and only paying a little attention during the party.
LikeLike
@ Brian – I generally agree with your line of thinking. In fact, I think 10% might be low. I think decrease could be as a high as 20-25%. Fans of the schools participating will find a way to watch the game come hell or high water on New Years Eve. It’s the non-footprint fans that get pulled away and won’t have the desire to make the effort or are just unable to because of their significant other.
New Years Day in my opinion should be the two semi-finals sandwiching the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
It seems to me that the best move for the ACC/Orange Bowl would be for the opponent to be the top at-large team outside of the playoff and Rose & Champions Bowls. Locking into Notre Dame or the Big Ten #2 or SEC #2 could easily yield a 9-3 or 8-4 team. For example, if “Big Ten #2” is the designated opponent, the actual team that goes to the OB could wind up being the conference’s fourth-best team. Let’s say a 13-0 Wisconsin and 11-1 Ohio State both made the playoff, while 11-2 Nebraska went to the Rose Bowl. The Orange Bowl could wind up with 8-4, #19 Michigan. If the ACC team was another sluggish 3-loss team, the game could be a dud. This scenario could play out repeatedly.
On the other hand, if the designation is “top at-large,” then the OB would get, at worst, one team ranked in the top nine. Worst case scenario, the playoff would get the top four teams, the Rose and Champions Bowl participants would be #’s 5-8. The #9 ranked team, by default, would have to be either the top at-large team or the ACC champion.
Now, maybe getting an ambiguous “at-large” is too cumbersome for some reason that I currently do not see. But I think ratings have shown that bowl games between highly-ranked teams do well regardless of the names of the teams. The Poinsettia and Fiesta Bowls between TCU and Boise State after the 2008 and 2009 seasons both had solid TV ratings despite featuring nothing resembling a traditional powerhouse.
My point is that the Orange Bowl would be wise to go with the best available team to face off against the ACC champion/runner-up rather than to tie itself down with a potentially mediocre, fourth-place B1G/SEC or lowly-ranked Notre Dame team. Besides, having an at-large team face the Big Eight champion was a formula that worked for decades during the Orange Bowl’s heyday: Nebraska vs. Clemson, Nebraska vs. Miami, Nebraska vs. FSU, OU vs. FSU, Colorado vs. Washington, Nebraska vs. LSU, etc. Those games all were possible because the Big Eight’s opponent wasn’t tied down to one league. Why not return to that type of formula?
LikeLike
I don’t think they can sign a deal for the top at large. They would just get one assigned by the committee like the access bowls.
LikeLike
I still think that would work better than committing to one program (Notre Dame) or even to one conference. Some years, the best opponent for the ACC could indeed be a #7 Cincinnati/Louisville/Boise State/, as opposed to a #12, 9-3 Penn State.
LikeLike
They probably would get better games, but there is intangible benefit in having a traditional match-up. The Rose is better than it should be based on just the rankings of the teams because it is the B10/P12 match-up. That resonates with fans. Always taking an at-large team loses that impact, and the difference between #7 and #17 isn’t all that big anyway. Besides, the ACC might like to up their odds of winning some of these games.
LikeLike
They probably would get better games, but there is intangible benefit in having a traditional match-up. The Rose is better than it should be based on just the rankings of the teams because it is the B10/P12 match-up. That resonates with fans. Always taking an at-large team loses that impact, and the difference between #7 and #17 isn’t all that big anyway. Besides, the ACC might like to up their odds of winning some of these games.
The ACC needs better street cred, and won’t get it if its champion beats up on the champ of a decimated Big East. Playing a top at-large team would give the ACC a genuine opportunity to improve its football brand, something the conference desperately needs. Brian, you’re viewing it through Rose Bowl eyes, when the old Big Eight Orange Bowl model is more applicable here. Not being locked into two teams would also aid the Orange Bowl, too.
LikeLike
“Brian, you’re viewing it through Rose Bowl eyes, when the old Big Eight Orange Bowl model is more applicable here. Not being locked into two teams would also aid the Orange Bowl, too.”
vp19,
I haven’t agreed with your despising of all things ACC, but I do agree with you on this point.
Brian, you have a good point about how the Rose Bowl model works so effectively, but the reasons the model is so effective are a number of factors. First, the Big Ten-Pac-8/10/12 matchup goes back around 65 years, which is as far back as the vast majority of fans have been alive. The mere longevity of that matchup feeds the popularity of the game. For generations of fans, January 1 has meant a grand tradition of Midwest-vs.-West Coast. Heck, if you ask certain alumni of those leagues, the game is a real source of pride where the two most academically and, in the minds of many traditionalists, morally upright conferences face each other. So the longstanding tradition itself is a huge part of the model that no bowl can duplicate.
Second, the matchup of two major conference champions (or, at least, the runners-up of those conferences if the champs are in top four) is something that can be duplicated by the Champions Bowl. The Orange Bowl cannot duplicate that. All five major conferences’ champions have been accounted for, so the Orange Bowl’s second team will have to one of the following: (1) one of the four independents (which could range from a top ten team to completely outside the top 25), (2) a top team from a non-major conference, including the Big East (which could range from a top ten Boise State team to an unranked UConn team), or (3) the best team from the Big Five who’s not in the playoff, Rose, or Champions matchup.
Furthermore, if the Orange Bowl were to commit to one option, it could have tremendous downside. If it were to go with option (3) and limit its choices to one conference, the chances of getting a top 12 program plummets. Last year, for example, if the OB had been committed to the top non-Champions, non-playoff SEC team, this would have been the selection process:
Playoff: SEC #1 LSU and SEC #2 Alabama.
Champions Bowl: SEC #3 Arkansas (ranked No. 6 nationally)
The opponent for ACC champion Clemson, then would have either been SEC #4 South Carolina (No. 9 nationally), which had just defeated Clemson six weeks earlier, or, if there was a stipulation to avoid rematches, SEC #5 Georgia, which finished No. 16 nationally.
But instead of attempting to copy the Rose Bowl matchup, as vp19 suggests, it should look to the old Big Eight/Orange Bowl model where anyone among the nation’s best independents as well as strong at-large programs from a variety of conferences could be in the game.
Last year, that model would have created a matchup between Clemson and either #4 Stanford, #7 Boise State, #9 South Carolina, or #12 Baylor. My guess is that Stanford and Boise would have been placed in a more geographically-friendly bowl game, and Baylor would have been the opponent.
Anyway, it would have been great for the ACC if its top bowl game was like the Rose Bowl model, where the ACC champ would have faced the Big 12 champ or the SEC champ, but it was odd man out. So, the next best thing, in my opinion, would be definitely be to use the Big Eight/Orange Bowl model (or, for that matter, SEC/Sugar Bowl model) that worked well for decades.
LikeLike
vp19,
“The ACC needs better street cred, and won’t get it if its champion beats up on the champ of a decimated Big East.”
That’s a wonderful straw man, but nobody suggested locking in the BE champ. The only suggestions were ND, or a #2 from the SEC or B10. I think the ACC would get some credit for beating any of them, although it’s hard to say since the ACC hasn’t beaten anyone but the BE in the BCS. What won’t get them credit is beating a non-AQ champ which could well be the top at large. What would really get the ACC some credit is making the playoff and beating somebody in it, and that has nothing to do with the Orange Bowl.
“Playing a top at-large team would give the ACC a genuine opportunity to improve its football brand, something the conference desperately needs.”
A top at large like the SEC #2 or B10 #2 or 10 win ND you mean? Now why didn’t we think of that?
“Brian, you’re viewing it through Rose Bowl eyes,”
No, I’m viewing it through my eyes and those of many fans.
“when the old Big Eight Orange Bowl model is more applicable here.”
Either is applicable. They could lock 1 or 2 spots. Both models have proven successful.
“Not being locked into two teams would also aid the Orange Bowl, too.”
Evidence? A supporting theory? The question is whether the Orange is better off knowing the other team will be a highly ranked SEC or B10 team with their large travelling fan bases, or if they do better pulling from the pool of at larges. Depending on the ACC champ, they may need the other team to carry the bowl in terms of ticket sales and viewers. It’s been proven that a highly ranked non-AQ or BE champ won’t do that for them.
After getting at larges like UL, KU, UC and Stanford in the past 6 years, how sure are you that the Orange benefits from that over getting a locked team?
Ranks are AP:
2006 – #5 11-1 UL vs #6 11-1 WI/#10 10-2 AU/#11 10-2 ND
2007 – #8 11-1 KU vs #13 9-3 IL/#4 10-2 UGA/at large
2008 – #12 11-2 UC vs #10 10-2 OSU/#16 9-3 UGA/at large
2009 – #10 10-2 IA vs #10 10-2 IA/#13 9-3 LSU/at large
2010 – #5 11-1 Stanford vs #7 11-1 MSU/#11 10-2 LSU/at large
2011 – #23 9-3 WV vs #12 10-3 MSU/#10 10-2 SC/at large
I fail to see how the Orange did better with the old system getting them an at large than they would with locking in ND (at least 9 wins req’d), B10 #2 or SEC #2. The at larges they got didn’t travel that well, didn’t bring viewers and often weren’t ranked much higher.
ND seems like an obvious lock in to me. They’re guaranteed to get your bowl hype and viewers and a sell out, but they won’t be good enough to make it so often that they get tired of coming. Getting #2 from the B10 or SEC would also work well.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Brian, you have a good point about how the Rose Bowl model works so effectively, but the reasons the model is so effective are a number of factors. First, the Big Ten-Pac-8/10/12 matchup goes back around 65 years, which is as far back as the vast majority of fans have been alive. The mere longevity of that matchup feeds the popularity of the game. For generations of fans, January 1 has meant a grand tradition of Midwest-vs.-West Coast. Heck, if you ask certain alumni of those leagues, the game is a real source of pride where the two most academically and, in the minds of many traditionalists, morally upright conferences face each other. So the longstanding tradition itself is a huge part of the model that no bowl can duplicate.”
You can start building a tradition. The SEC and B12 are about to do it.
“Second, the matchup of two major conference champions (or, at least, the runners-up of those conferences if the champs are in top four) is something that can be duplicated by the Champions Bowl. The Orange Bowl cannot duplicate that. All five major conferences’ champions have been accounted for, so the Orange Bowl’s second team will have to one of the following: (1) one of the four independents (which could range from a top ten team to completely outside the top 25), (2) a top team from a non-major conference, including the Big East (which could range from a top ten Boise State team to an unranked UConn team), or (3) the best team from the Big Five who’s not in the playoff, Rose, or Champions matchup.”
1. ND would come with a minimum wins requirement (probably 9), meaning they wouldn’t be unranked. Any ranked ND team is good business for the bowl. If ND isn’t good enough, it goes back to an at large spot so nothing is lost.
2. This is part of the at large option, since nobody is suggesting locking in any of those champs, and it’s the part that scares the Orange Bowl. Not all highly ranked teams are good for business.
3. These are the at larges they want. By picking a league and locking it in (B10 or SEC, presumably), they assure themselves of a large travelling fan base that will be excited to be there and will also bring viewers.
“Furthermore, if the Orange Bowl were to commit to one option, it could have tremendous downside.”
No, it really couldn’t. It could have a minor down side.
“If it were to go with option (3) and limit its choices to one conference, the chances of getting a top 12 program plummets.”
In the past 6 years, the Orange would have gotten 1 non-top 12 B10 team (#13), or two non-top 12 SEC teams (#13, #16) or no non-top 12 ND teams. I think they’d prefer that to getting saddled with teams like KU, UC, UL and Stanford despite their top-10 rankings.
“Last year, for example, if the OB had been committed to the top non-Champions, non-playoff SEC team, this would have been the selection process:
Playoff: SEC #1 LSU and SEC #2 Alabama.
Champions Bowl: SEC #3 Arkansas (ranked No. 6 nationally)
The opponent for ACC champion Clemson, then would have either been SEC #4 South Carolina (No. 9 nationally), which had just defeated Clemson six weeks earlier, or, if there was a stipulation to avoid rematches, SEC #5 Georgia, which finished No. 16 nationally.”
Oh, horrors. A #16 UGA team that would pack the stadium and draw viewers. They could also have been stuck with #12 MSU. Based on geography, their at large probably would have been MSU anyway (Boise is out west).
“But instead of attempting to copy the Rose Bowl matchup, as vp19 suggests, it should look to the old Big Eight/Orange Bowl model where anyone among the nation’s best independents as well as strong at-large programs from a variety of conferences could be in the game.”
But unlike the old days, they don’t get to choose which of those teams they get. That’s the factor you guys keep ignoring. They’ll never get Boise due to geography, so they’ll mostly see B10, SEC, ND, CUSA and eastern BE teams. They lose nothing by locking in ND with a 9 win minimum, because they’ll get variety in the years ND isn’t that good and will be a destination bowl for the most hyped team in the country.
“Last year, that model would have created a matchup between Clemson and either #4 Stanford, #7 Boise State, #9 South Carolina, or #12 Baylor. My guess is that Stanford and Boise would have been placed in a more geographically-friendly bowl game, and Baylor would have been the opponent.”
Wrong. Geography is a strong factor (no Boise), and you forgot to replace OR in the Rose with Stanford. You just argued against SC above, and Baylor is more likely to play in the central game. The Orange probably would have gotten MSU. In other words, the B10 #2 team they could have contracted for since the SEC #2 just played the ACC champ.
“Anyway, it would have been great for the ACC if its top bowl game was like the Rose Bowl model, where the ACC champ would have faced the Big 12 champ or the SEC champ, but it was odd man out. So, the next best thing, in my opinion, would be definitely be to use the Big Eight/Orange Bowl model (or, for that matter, SEC/Sugar Bowl model) that worked well for decades.”
That model doesn’t exist in this era where the committee picks which teams play where. That model required the ability to pick and choose highly ranked teams that would travel well and draw viewers, and it helped that there were no semifinals to take all the top teams.
LikeLike
I don’t think they can sign a deal for the top at large. They would just get one assigned by the committee like the access bowls.
I think they can get real close. If they sign an option agreement with ND and then each of the other 4 “power” conferences for their second best teams, then the ACC will basically be guaranteeing it gets a big name national opponent for the game.
Here is how the compromises work. Champ and Rose conferences agree to give up 2 of the higher paying semifinal dates to the Orange, giving the Orange 8 semifinal dates to take to market. Orange Bowl pays out as follows(after operating costs of course): 50% to ACC, then 10% each to ND,B1G,B12,PAC,SEC.
What does this net us:
* ACC now pretty much is locked into the most attractive (vs. Top) at-large each season which gives it its must-have marquee game.
* 12 semis on NYD: 8 of them at 1pm, 2 and 5pm and 2 at 8pm.
* 12 semis on NYE but access bowls probably rotate times such that whichever is hosting semi is played in primetime.
* In 8 seasons the Semifinal games will be Primetime on NYE and then then 1pm on NYD.
* Look for the Atlanta based access bowl to agree to host ACC game when it doesn’t have a semi which keeps the ACC champ in the ACC footprint and helps immensely with attendance. The Champs will do 8 in Dallas and 2 in New Orleans or vice versa. The Fiesta will back up the Rose Bowl.
* All the NYD money is controlled by the powerful entities and they have now taken back New Year’s Day. Thewse “contract bowls” end up generating a whole lot of guaranteed money to the entities that control NYD
* Meanwhile I think this effectively kills NYD for the Citrus, Outback, etc and we’ll see those games move to primetime during the week since nobody will want to compete with the 1pm semifinals for eyeballs. This is probably a net positive for the major conferences in terms of maximizing revenue as well.
* With only 2 at-large slots the selection committee’s only job after selecting the Top 4 is to identify the next two best teams not already commited to play on either NYE or NYD. The effectively becomes the landing spot for the top Big East team and more often than not they’ll be playing a 2nd or 3rd place team from one of the power conferences.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“I think they can get real close. If they sign an option agreement with ND and then each of the other 4 “power” conferences for their second best teams, then the ACC will basically be guaranteeing it gets a big name national opponent for the game.”
Why would the big 4 all agree to that? They will all willingly take a back seat to ND? I don’t think so. Besides, why would the P12 or B12 want to send their #2 across the country to Miami? That doesn’t make any sense. So now you’re down to the SEC and B10, and they won’t both agree to split a spot like that when they can make more money playing each other. On top of all that, you’re ignoring a top non-AQ or BE champ that could be ranked highly.
LikeLike
Why would the big 4 all agree to that? Guaranteed money. For these 4 conferences you are essentially giving the Orange the right to select a team that is currently going to the Citrus or Holiday bowls. With a semi-final in 8/12 years the Orange Bowl would be worth a lot of money on average and 10% of that “a lot” is probably pretty close to the current payment that the Citrus or Holiday Bowl offers AND in most years you’ll still have that pick headed to another bowl game.
They will all willingly take a back seat to ND? Who said they are taking a backseat to ND? I’m simply suggesting that the Orange would get the next pick from each of those conferences and ND in exchange for 10% of the money each that the game generates.
On top of all that, you’re ignoring a top non-AQ or BE champ that could be ranked highly.
I said you could get close to the top at-large and even pointed out that the most attractive at-large from a TV perspective might be different than the ‘top at-large’.
Besides, why would the P12 or B12 want to send their #2 across the country to Miami?
Its crazy for a conference where 50% of the members come from the old Big8 to want one of its teams in the Orange Bowl? Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl? Whodathunkit. The PAC12 already agreed to send its teams across the country to semifinal sites, I fail to see why this is any different.
I don’t have an inside scoop here but the suggestion I put forth fits with what we know today, fits the generally accepted motivations of the true power brokers here and answers a lot of questions about the TV issues for the National semifinals on NYE.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
Why would the big 4 all agree to that?
“Guaranteed money.”
They can get that from any bowl. How much more will the Orange give them to soothe their egos when their team isn’t picked? How much more will they make when their team is picked?
“For these 4 conferences you are essentially giving the Orange the right to select a team that is currently going to the Citrus or Holiday bowls.”
And the others are OK with this why?
“With a semi-final in 8/12 years the Orange Bowl would be worth a lot of money on average and 10% of that “a lot” is probably pretty close to the current payment that the Citrus or Holiday Bowl offers AND in most years you’ll still have that pick headed to another bowl game.”
And everyone else would agree to the Orange getting all these extra semis why?
They will all willingly take a back seat to ND?
“Who said they are taking a backseat to ND? I’m simply suggesting that the Orange would get the next pick from each of those conferences and ND in exchange for 10% of the money each that the game generates.”
ND gets the same 10% as the 14 member SEC. That’s taking a backseat. Besides, I thought you meant ND gets first shot and then the #2s if ND isn’t good enough which would also clearly be taking a backseat.
Besides, why would the P12 or B12 want to send their #2 across the country to Miami?
“Its crazy for a conference where 50% of the members come from the old Big8 to want one of its teams in the Orange Bowl? Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl? Whodathunkit.”
Yes, because ISU, KSU and KU are really important to the Orange Bowl discussion. WV would be happy, and OU and OkSU might be, but the others would certainly prefer something closer like Dallas.
“The PAC12 already agreed to send its teams across the country to semifinal sites, I fail to see why this is any different.”
Because their fans don’t want to travel 3000 miles for a bowl game. They don’t want to do it for a semi, either, but a semi has better odds of drawing the fans. More importantly, the Orange knows what sort of crowd and audience Stanford brought and I’m sure they’re thrilled at the prospect of getting WSU or OrSU too. It doesn’t make sense for either side.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources
The Freeh report could be out next week. It is expected to be tough on JoePa.
The report is expected to shed new light on administrators’ handling of the Sandusky allegations but also raise questions about Paterno’s leadership of Penn State’s vaunted football program, according to several people with knowledge of the inquiry’s scope.
“Much of the focus will be on the culture of the football program, with findings that go back more than a decade,” said a Penn State official briefed on the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s going to be very tough on Joe (Paterno).”
About those emails, the news is a mixed bag.
A spokesman for the Freeh Group had said that its investigation had discovered the emails and that they were provided to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. “These materials will be fully discussed in the report & and beyond that, Judge Freeh and the investigation team has no further comment.” A Penn State spokesman did not return messages.
…
A source who has reviewed all the early 2001 emails said the few that have been leaked “are definitely out of context. We think the one that was released was the worst one for everybody.”
LikeLike
I think that many people are using the wrong model to determine the distribution of the championship game. The championship game distribution is actually more likely to follow the distribution of the Final Four than the Super Bowl. Note that the weather in March usually isn’t exactly balmy in places like Detroit, Indy, St. Louis, the Twin Cities, NJ, Denver, KC, Philly, or even Seattle or Lexington or Albuquerque. Yet the Final Four has been hosted by these sites more often than warm-weather locales since 1980. In short, title game locale won’t be determined by whether you or your significant other can go from club to club in a party dress/muscle-T without need of a coat as it will be by how many conferences are close enough to the site and hitting all regions of the country (so long as you have a dome or warm-weather). Other than Detroit and Minneapolis, the last 17 Final Four sites have been in cities in a state that was shared by power conferences or adjacent to another cnference.
Thus, if each of the 6 BCS bowls get a championship game a piece (which would be the “fair” way to split it), LA and Phoenix may be the only 2 championship sites in Pac12 territory. New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, and both Atlanta and Tampa won’t have a problem getting 1 each. That leaves 5 more championship games. Houston will definitely get one. Indianapolis, Charlotte, & St. Louis all host NFL teams in domes/warm-weather-locales & can be easily reached by schools in at least 2 conferences. Orlando may get the last championship game, but I believe the Citrus Bowl isn’t on the same level as its counterparts in Tampa and Miami in terms of revenue-generation, and the rest of the country may be leery of FL getting a quarter of the championship games. That means FedEx Field may get a look. There are a ton of points in it’s favor: 1. Stadium 2. Only feasible option for the NE (which would otherwise be completely neglected) 3. Fits the criteria of being reachable by 2 conferences. Only drawback is the weather, but I believe DC doesn’t get cold enough to suffer frostbite in. Otherwise, there’s Detroit (well, it’s reachable by Pitt).
LikeLike
Richard,
A typical 1/10 day in DC would be in the mid to low 30s by kick off and near to below freezing late in the game. Add in the wind chill, and I think that’s more than TPTB are willing to accept.
I expect to see the NCG where the semis aren’t for the most part. It’s a great way to get more major CFB into some other parts of the country. I think cities like Seattle, SF, San Diego, Houston, St. Louis, Indy, Minneapolis (new stadium), Detroit and Tampa all have good chances, as do whichever cities miss out on getting one of the 6 host bowls (Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando). I’m sure they’ll hit Pasadena, Phoenix, Miami and New Orleans on occasion as well.
Maybe the trade off is that Pasadena and New Orleans/Dallas can get a NCG for every time they pass on a semi assuming they bid a certain amount (2 in Rose, 1 in Cotton 1 in Sugar if the Rose and Champs host 2 semis each).
LikeLike
Playing with that idea, say that the Champions Bowl is in Jerryworld, the 6th host bowl is Atlanta, & the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange get 6 semifinals each while the Rose, Jerryworld, and Atlanta get 2 semifinals each (Atlanta, as the new bowl, gets the short end of the stick, in a way). The Rose Bowl, JerryWorld, and Atlanta get 3 title games each. Is there a way for each conference to get at least 3 title games in its territory or a neighboring state? I believe there is, if 8 of the 9 title games are awarded to SF, Seattle, Houston, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Charlotte, and Tampa. Distribute them that way, and the only schools in the Big5 conferences who would not be at least adjacent to a state hosting a title game at least once would be Utah, Colorado, the MS schools, Minny, and a bunch of schools in the Northeast (WVU, PSU, and the ACC schools from UMD on north, mostly due to there being no suitable dome in the Northeast). If the 9th title game goes to Minny (instead of Orlando or San Antonio or San Diego), then you could strike them off the list. If the Fiesta or Sugar get a title game, then Utah or the MS schools could be struck off that list as well.
LikeLike
Thinking about the Rose and Champions preferring not to host the semis, and giving the Orange and others more hosting opportunities. Could it be possible that hosting the semis will be a lower financial payout? I’d have to guess that the title game and the semis will be packaged together for the networks, so I don’t see how the conference would retain the media rights when its a semi. The money from the title game and semis will likely include the money distributed amongst all eleven conferences, while the other games may be funneled to the controlling conferences.
This seems to be the only sensible explanation as to why the Rose/Champions want less semis.
LikeLike
If anyone gets less games, the rest will be distributed as equally as possible. It won’t all go to one bowl. And it certainly won’t all go to the southermost and easternmost bowl in the group.
I think the Champions Bowl just moves to a different site every 3rd year. And I suspect the Rose will stick with every 3rd year.
Greg has hit on the key point. Who gets the money? They’ll have to work through that.
LikeLike
“I’d have to guess that the title game and the semis will be packaged together for the networks, so I don’t see how the conference would retain the media rights when its a semi.”
Given that as far as we know, 1) nothing has been settled on the financial side of the playoff and 2) the big conferences/bowls appear to be locking into media deals in mass; at this point, it seems somewhat probable to me that the media rights will be retained by the conferences. If ESPN is paying for the rights to the Rose Bowl, if the Champions Bowl is retained by the SEC/Big XII, if the ACC has a deal to retain media rights for the Orange Bowl, etc. it seems like in all likelihood they’ll keep the rights if their respective bowl hold the semi-final.
If that isn’t the case… Then we have a giant mess on our hands.
LikeLike
I’m very excited about what has happened with the BCS, which will be probably known as the national championship series going forward.
[Emphasis mine]
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/New-leader-sees-league-in-power-formation-3684738.php#ixzz1zxisGrQ4
According to Bowlsby the BCS will soon be the NCS (probably)
LikeLike
Also interesting is that he again said that the schools had already signed the 13 GOR, despite having to publicly backtrack from that statement last week.
LikeLike
You’d think they could straighten that out by now, wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
Don’t care for NCS. I’d prefer Bowl remain part of the title as its still mostly a set of bowl games. It would be odd to label 4 bowls that will have nothing to do with the national title “National Championship Series.”
Maybe they could take in both parts (bowl and championship) and call it the The National Championship and Bowl Alliance (NCBA).
LikeLike
http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2012/07/07/paterno-brief.html
JoePa has been caught in at least one lie. He did use email on occasion, and 1 time he used it was to tell Spanier and Curley that he would punish the multiple (~ 24) players that got involved in an off-campus fight in 2007 once he felt he had all the facts.
This is based on emails obtained by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
LikeLike
If the Rose Bowl is prepared to host a semi-final less often than other bowls, then perhaps it should consider hosting a semi-final only when a B1G team and a Pac12 team qualify? Specifically, when a B1G and a Pac12 team are ranked 1/4, 1/3, 2/4 or 2/3, they play in the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, another bowl hosts the semi-final and the Rose Bowl hosts the best available B1G and Pac12 teams.
Using BCS rankings from 1998 to 2011, this would have put a semi-final in the Rose Bowl in 2002 (Ohio State vs USC) and 2005 (USC vs Ohio State). Moreover, if Nebraska were in the B1G in 2001, it could have played a semi-final in the Rose Bowl versus Oregon. That’s just three semi-finals in fourteen years for the Rose Bowl. But it might be worth it to keep the Rose Bowl exclusively for the B1G and Pac12.
LikeLike
The problem with that is they want the sites locked down in advance.
LikeLike
I don’t see the problem. Until the semi-final teams are selected in early December, nobody knows who is playing whom and where they are playing. It doesn’t really matter which of the New Years bowls are designated as semi-finals until the teams are selected. One month is plenty of time to promote a semi-final.
LikeLike
True but they’ve already decided to determine the semifinal bowls before the seasons.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“I don’t see the problem. Until the semi-final teams are selected in early December, nobody knows who is playing whom and where they are playing. It doesn’t really matter which of the New Years bowls are designated as semi-finals until the teams are selected. One month is plenty of time to promote a semi-final.”
Wrong. They want the sites locked down months before hand so they can deal with the logistics and start selling tickets to the public. That’s what locking down the sites in advance means. I’m guessing they’ll have the sites determined years in advance. If they don’t, then they wouldn’t know where not to host the NCG.
LikeLike
Again, I do not see the problem. The Rose Bowl will be a major event irrespective of whether it is a semi-final or not. The logistics of selling tickets will be the same, whether it is a semi-final or not. Ditto for the other New Years bowls.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between selling a Rose or Fiesta and selling a national semi-final. Not only would you be leaving substantial money on the table, you would have a lot more media to deal with.
LikeLike
The corporate side (suites, etc.) of the semis probably expects longer than a month lead time.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“Again, I do not see the problem.”
You’re being willfully blind. The people in charge said they won’t do it that way. End of discussion. We’ve been trying to explain their reasoning to you, but it really doesn’t matter. They’ve said no to your idea already.
“The Rose Bowl will be a major event irrespective of whether it is a semi-final or not.”
A Rose and a semi are not the same, and a semi in Pasadena and a semi in Miami are not the same.
“The logistics of selling tickets will be the same, whether it is a semi-final or not. Ditto for the other New Years bowls.”
Wrong. Ticket prices change, the number of seats reserved changes, the seating layout changes with venue, etc.
LikeLike
First of all Thankyou Brian for the comments on July 1. I would just like to respond to your questions. First of all a correction, I did mean the midwest where most college football fans including myself reside.
1. The bowls would stay in tact but also lose a lot of status as they become something less than quarterfinals.
The bowl games would not even be quaterfinals if the top four teams are taken away for a four-team playoff. Then the remaining bowl games would be now more then a losers bracket for teams that are not good enough to make it to the Championship.
2. It would extend the calendar and the presidents claim they don’t want to do that. At best you’re talking a NCG on MLK Day, and that’s with 3 postseason games in 3 weeks. That’s a lot of wear and tear on players
If the first two semi final games are played one week after the Jan 1 bowl games then you could have 10-14 days to play the National Championship Game on Martin Luther King day. The season is only being extended by one game(for 2 teams)over a four team playoff. Also the four team playoff will be played after Jan 1. Playing it on Jan 1 takes away from bowl games.
3. You expect fans to travel to 3 games in 3 weeks on short notice.
A NCG semi-final game will sell itself like a NCG game. Team loyalist don’t need to travel to each arena to fill in the seats. College football fans alone will fill those seats.
4. The bowls may add clarity, but more likely they muddy the waters making the choice of 4 teams even more controversial.
Controversial would be the committe having to choose among 120 team vying for a spot in the semis. If the candiditates are narrowed down to the teams that won one of the top 6 bowl games then there would be less controversity.
The Orange Bowl has chose the ACC champ as its auto tie-in, this gives more juice of my theory of the final four choosen after the bowl game. Strength of Schedule is a relative observence. An ACC strength of schedule is not comparable to a SEC SOS, but the ACC champ is the better team in comparison to other ACC teams and has earned a chance at a bowl bid for a NCG.
There will be a Texas Championship bowl game. Texas is the only major college football state without one.(July 1st reply)
LikeLike
A problem with the current BCS games is that the bowl games often have to choose among a lesser candidate then they originally wanted because the better team has been sent to the BCS. Doubling the teams that bowl games loose access to just makes no sense to me.
LikeLike
Interesting article/book about the hellish process Michigan State had to go through to gain entrance into the B1G …..when its competitor PITT, looked like a shoe-in.
Sadly, once again, Michigan plays the Snidley Whiplash role, but thanks to Minnesota and, yes, Notre Dame, MSU prevailed.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20120708/COLUMNISTS11/307080103/MSU-s-Big-Ten-entry-detailed-new-book?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
LikeLike
So what exactly were Michigan’s reasons for opposing MSU’s entry into the Big Ten? The article mentions Ralph Aiger gaining oversight over what he considered a dirty program, i.e., Michigan State.
Also why did Notre Dame support MSU into the Big Ten? Was it out of spite because UM had blocked ND earlier in the century and this was some sort of retaliation by Notre Dame? Just imagine what the Big Ten would look like now if Pittsburgh, Nebraska, Marquette or Iowa State had been Chicago’s replacement instead of MSU.
LikeLike
MSU wasn’t too far removed from being Michigan State College of Agriculture, not to mention Michigan likely didn’t want in-state competition in its conference. Only the Indiana & Illinois schools had that at the time. This move imo likely moved MSU up higher than it would’ve been otherwise..
Realize the B10 at the time was as much a collection of strong academic, research universities as much as an athletic conference. That still holds true today.
LikeLike
Great Lake State,
I don’t think it’s fair to cast UM in that light based on the article (didn’t read the book). Every major school wants to have exclusivity in the state as far as conference membership goes. UF, UGA, UK and SC all feel the same way. It’s just good business.
In addition, I could see UM fighting it on academic grounds anyway. They’re pretty snobbish on that front and would fight against many schools. I’d have to think Pitt made more business sense for the B10, too, not that people worried about that back then. Certainly it made sense for OSU to favor Pitt.
I’d be curious to know why IA was strongly anti-MSU.
What it makes me do is think of how different the B10 and all of CFB could have been:
1. NE tried to get in twice and was turned down
2. ND tried to get in and was rebuffed
3. Pitt almost had MSU’s spot
Imagine a Big 12 forming in the 1910s with OSU, MI, ND, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, NW, Chicago, IN and PU. Then when UC phased out FB, Pitt or MSU joined.
Would other leagues have felt pressure to expand earlier? The Big 8 would have been smaller and missing a king, so perhaps the merger with the SWC happens earlier. The SEC wouldn’t have liked to be smaller. As soon as the SEC CCG started, the B10 might have joined them.
Whither PSU? Would the BE have realized their mistake and taken PSU? Would PSU have joined the ACC instead?
And what about the team the B10 didn’t add, MSU or Pitt? Would Pitt join PSU in the BE or even ACC? Would MSU go independent or become an outlier in an eastern league?
LikeLike
I would assume Iowa would’ve been anti-MSU as they would’ve seen it as a precedent for eventually allowing Iowa State in. They wouldn’t want that for the same reasons Michigan didn’t want Michigan State in.
LikeLike
That’s an obvious reason, yes. I didn’t know if there was some bad blood or political machinations going on as well. Did UM and IA have a gentlemen’s agreement to keep the States out?
LikeLike
Michigan keeps getting put in the Snidely Whiplash role in the history books because they are the bad guys historically speaking.
LikeLike
Yost was a bigot. Get over it. The Catholic Church and any affiliated institutions aren’t really in a place to look down on others.
LikeLike
Careful, *your* bigotry’s showing. =)
This story is after Yost. I’m also think I remember reading that Michigan got tossed out of the Big Ten for rule violations before the Great War. If you’re a “heel” the best thing to do is embrace the persona, a la Miami. =D
I’ll have to check the local library for the new book.
LikeLike
It isn’t bigotry to point out that the Catholic Church has lost any claim to the moral high ground (and it’s questionable if they ever had a legitimate claim to it). It’s bigotry to dislike Catholics just for being Catholics. Disliking ND fans for holding grudges long past when the offender is dead isn’t bigotry either.
LikeLike
ND and the ACC had some kind of meeting.
Speculation has centered on their Orange Bowl arrangement.
LikeLike
Supposedly all the ACC presidents met with Notre Dame. Would a secret in-person meeting be required if it was just to discuss the Orange Bowl? I’m not sure.
Some have speculated that it could be related to ND joining the ACC in some capacity (i.e. full member immediately, full member after 2015 when NBC contract expires, or partial membership excluding football).
If ND did agree to join as a full member, would the ACC bring someone like Rutgers or UConn in as the 16th member, or could they make a conference work at just 15 members? I assume 3 pods of 5 would be the ideal set-up, and annual games featuring ND, FSU, and Miami would be the most lucrative from a TV revenue perspective.
Thoughts on these pods?
Pod 1:
ND
FSU
Miami
GTech
Clemson
Pod 2:
UNC
NC State
Duke
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pod 3:
Virginia Tech
Maryland
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College
It is a little clunky, but the ACC needs more premier games on an annual basis to squeeze out the most TV revenue it can to appease the football-focused schools, and the games in Pod 1 would certainly maximize it.
LikeLike
Why would ND wait until ACC is assuredly the #5 conference to join it? I still think there is zero chance that ND joins a conference in football. None.
LikeLike
Especially if they can sign a deal guaranteeing them the Orange Bowl if they hit a certain record and/or ranking.
There’s no incentive anymore for Notre Dame to join a conference. They may get the best deal in college football in this next contract in terms of access…
LikeLike
Access to what, exactly?
If we’re talking about the bowls games outside the six scheduled for New Year’s Eve (NYE) and New Year’s Day (NYD), then Notre Dame is still going to probably need to work with a conference to get access to them. It might be different if those bowls opted to have one year agreements with the major conferences, but I really doubt that will happen. That would be one good reason to talk to the ACC because the bowl tie ins with the Big East are pretty poor right now.
If it’s access to the national championship game, then relative to other schools, Notre Dame’s chances haven’t changed much at all. If the committee is tasked with favoring conference champions, it might be problematic for ND (although the odds of an undefeated 12-0 Notre Dame team not getting into the national championship playoff are very, very small). In addition, by not playing a conference championship game/13th regular season game, Notre Dame might have a bit of a competitive disadvantage when their final season record is 11-1 or 10-2.
If it’s access to the four other NYE/NYD bowls, how is it different than the old BCS system? If ND is the fifth thru 12th team in the country, then they’ll likely get into one of those bowls. Is that a giant step up from the old BCS system with the possible exception that there are now two more “BCS type” bowls wrapped up into the playoffs?
The other major reason why Notre Dame could be talking to the ACC is football scheduling. The Big Ten only plays ND in September (although Northwestern did opt to play ND during a bye week in November on one of their future schedules) and is soon to be tied into a scheduling agreement with the Pac 12. The Pac 12 has nine conference games on the schedule plus the Big Ten agreement getting implemented along with a conference agreement that has those teams playing their non-conference games prior to Pac 12 play with two exceptions–USC and Stanford playing ND. The SEC hasn’t played ND during the regular season in a half dozen years and if they go to a nine-conference schedule, will have even less appetite to do so–especially in October and November. The Big XII has been talking about some sort of arrangement with ND, but a team from that conference hasn’t appeared on the Notre Dame regular season schedule in awhile. Oklahoma and Texas have six games with ND on future schedules, with five of them in the month of September (three are openers with UT).
I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that if this really was happening, then ND was getting into some sort of associate membership with the ACC with a guarantee to play four games a season with teams from that 14-member conference in the latter two months of the season to keep up their strength of schedule (no more games with Western Michigan or Tulsa or Army or MWC teams filling out the schedule) and to keep NBC happy. Add in some sort of tie-in negotiated with the ACC’s bowl games to help out with the non NYE/NYD bowls. All the sports that ND has in the Big East move into the ACC and get added to their schedules as if they were full conference members. In short, the ACC plays the role that the Big East does right now.
The Big East was happy to play this role for years. I suspect it was with the thought that Notre Dame might eventually join that conference. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACC opts to do much the same with that being one of the reasons why.
LikeLike
Agree, I can’t see ND joining a conference in football. Not the B10, ACC, Big XII or Pac 12.
LikeLike
I assume they’d bring in another member to get to sixteen teams in order to balance out a two-division organization. That would mean seven games in division, two with teams in the opposite division and three non-conference games being the likely set up.
If the ACC were really willing to go with pods and to keep teams within their respective regions, then I’d see the pods going on a roughly north-south axis:
Pod 1: Miami-FL, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson
Pod 2; Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest
Pod 3: Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers (RU is #16 for this example)
Pod 4: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
ND would play three annual games with Pitt, SU and BC and two games apiece with teams from the other three pods in that case. That means playing one of Miami or Florida State each season and rotating through the rest of the pods accordingly.
I understand the ACC has insisted on full membership in the past, but they might also be willing to take on the role the Big East did in the past–a small handful of football games each year, all other sports participate in the conference and Notre Dame gets access to the ACC bowls (besides the Orange Bowl) in one form or another.
Notre Dame gets to keep its football independence this way, pretty much keeps its current scheduling arrangement with the ACC for football (ND usually plays a handful of ACC teams per year–that will probably grow to at least 3 or 4 a year with Syracuse and Pittsburgh now part of the conference), and has a more steady home for its non-football teams over the Big East. The ACC can hope (like the BE did for years) that ND will join them as a full member by extending them this associate membership.
LikeLike
The only way ND in a 16-team ACC works (and your pods are sensible, BTW) would be a 7-game schedule of rotating pods. (Traditional rivalries that aren’t scheduled — think of UVa-UNC or NCSU-Clemson in the “Textile Bowl” — could be played as non-conference games.) I can’t see ND accepting playing more than seven conference games a season, and even that would be a long shot.
LikeLike
In an associate member set-up, how would ND’s ACC schedule be established? Would ND get their choice of which teams to play? Obviously they would want many games against traditional powers like FSU and Miami, as well as more access to historical rivals Pitt, BC, and Georgia Tech than teams like Wake Forest or NC State.
Maybe an annual slate of games set-up this way:
1 game annually against the Southern football powers of the ACC:
– FSU
– Miami
– Clemson
1 game annually against old ND historical rivals:
– BC
– Pitt
– Georgia Tech
2 games annually against the remaining members of the ACC based on ND’s preference and each school’s scheduling flexibility.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“Supposedly all the ACC presidents met with Notre Dame. Would a secret in-person meeting be required if it was just to discuss the Orange Bowl? I’m not sure.
Some have speculated that it could be related to ND joining the ACC in some capacity (i.e. full member immediately, full member after 2015 when NBC contract expires, or partial membership excluding football).
If ND did agree to join as a full member, would the ACC bring someone like Rutgers or UConn in as the 16th member, or could they make a conference work at just 15 members? I assume 3 pods of 5 would be the ideal set-up, and annual games featuring ND, FSU, and Miami would be the most lucrative from a TV revenue perspective.
Thoughts on these pods?”
3 pods of 5 makes little sense. They have to have 2 divisions of equal size (or as close as possible) that play a round robin schedule in order to play a CCG. Are you suggesting they’ll make more money not playing a CCG? It could possibly be a sacrifice necessary to get ND to join (ND isn’t joining), but then how many games do you play? Most of the schools want 9 games because the bodybag games cost too much. ND will want the fewest possible.
What’s the plan? 4 pod games and 4 rotating rivals (2 from each pod) for 8 total games? You’d play everyone at least 40% of the time. I think you’d have to lock VT/UVA at least, and probably ND/BC. I don’t know if everyone needs 1 locked rival, though.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t get pods of 5. Might as well add one of UConn or Rutgers.
Isn’t that a tough choice for the ACC? Uconn gives hoops, but would chafe BC a little bit. Rutgers has terrible hoops and has only recently become OK in football. Not sure which delivers the NYC market any better, although both do well in their respective states. As a Syracuse guy, I’d like to see UConn. Syracuse needs the NJ market to excel. And UConn has outstanding basketball.
Yet put me in the camp of those who think ND does not have to make any more. For now, ND has more value to the ACC playing 4 to 5 games a year AND being a possible Orange Bowl participant. If ND was a full or partial ACC member, you couldn’t have a ND/ACC matchup. Of course, the problem with playing 4-5 games a year is the potential for a rematch. But ND holds the cards and does not need to join the ACC.
Given that this is several years off (at best), I wonder if there is time for Temple to make a push. How wlll UConn do without Calhoun? Will Rutgers sustain its football mediocrity post-Schiano? Prob not, but who knows?
LikeLike
Karl Benson and the Sun Belt.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/sun-belt-commissioner-karl-benson-tried-sun-belt-182750892–ncaaf.html
On April 1, Benson emailed a powerpoint presentation to Sun Belt presidents/chancellors and athletic directors, laying out the league’s various realignment options.
One slide listed 21 schools to be considered as “possible additions/replacements” — including Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Texas State, Utah State, UT-San Antonio, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Jacksonville State, James Madison, Liberty, Charlotte, Old Dominion, Belmont, College of Charleston, Florida Gulf Coast, North Florida, St. Louis and Texas-Arlington.
“That was just to demonstrate that the Sun Belt had many options,” Benson said. “We needed to think out of the box, but it was just an exercise in showing that the Sun Belt is in a good spot.”
The same presentation included several maps of potential conference mergers — one of which was titled “Makes Too Much Sense” and proposed a 33-school superconference combining the Sun Belt, C-USA, WAC and Mountain West Conference.
“I had very quiet inquiries with (Mountain West commissioner) Craig Thompson and (C-USA commissioner) Britton Banowsky to see if, ‘Hey, would you be interested?'” Benson said. “But that was dismissed quickly. No interest.”
LikeLike
More here.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/D4/20120708/BLUERAIDERS01/307080044/SBC-commissioner-Benson-explored-membership-options-league
Raid C-USA
Once Benson’s merger attempt was squashed, he tried to snag some current C-USA members that might appreciate the Sun Belt’s tightly-knit geographic footprint in the southeast.
Benson contacted UAB, Southern Miss, East Carolina and Marshall in hopes of pulling them away. He pitched his 10 reasons for “southern-based universities (to join) … a new southeastern focused athletic conference.”
Renaming and rebranding the Sun Belt (which was No. 1 on the list) hinted at the branding study that the Sun Belt will soon undergo, which will examine its conference name, logo and reputation on a national scale.
Nevertheless, the four schools decided to stay in C-USA.
SBC vs. C-USA
Before media reports identified some schools targeted by C-USA, Benson said he was already hot on the trail. But his tactic was very aggressive in trying to beat C-USA to potential suitors.
Benson put a 48-hour deadline on Louisiana Tech and UT-San Antonio to join the Sun Belt, or else the offer might be rescinded.
“Were we bluffing? Perhaps. But we were trying to force the issue,” Benson said. “They passed on it. But we were trying to stay ahead of Conference USA.”
Benson said Charlotte’s decision came faster than the rest. C-USA representatives first visited campus, and then he followed alongside MTSU President Sidney McPhee and Western Kentucky President Gary Ransdell on April 17 to make the Sun Belt’s pitch.
Benson and C-USA representatives visited UT-San Antonio on the same day. “But we never actually crossed paths,” Benson said.
‘Third choice’
Despite his best efforts, Benson could not persuade C-USA’s programs to depart their home base or prospective C-USA schools to pick the Sun Belt over its more established mid-major rival.
So he seized other schools that he thought would be targets for other conferences in the near future. The Sun Belt announced in April it would add Georgia State in 2013. Soon after, Texas State and UT-Arlington (non-football) were also added.
“If someone wanted to say we got our third choice, then they don’t understand how lucky the Sun Belt ended up in this,” Benson said. “The Sun Belt had alternatives to pursue that didn’t materialize. But what we ended up with was a huge accomplishment.
“We have three schools that already have a lot to offer, but all three also have the potential to deliver results very soon that others might not have. I don’t look at it as getting the short end of the deal.”
LikeLike
“I don’t look at it as getting the short end of the deal.”
Instead, he looks at it as putting the lipstick on the pig.
LikeLike
ACC and Notre Dame Discussions Heating Up?
http://clemson.infusionsports.com/2012/07/09/acc-notre-dame-discussions-heat-up/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
Of more interest to me is that several schools are supposedly still pushing to drop the ninth FB game. Is it really the schools, as in president/AD, or just the coaches? Will playing 9 a few times calm their nerves or make more schools upset?
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-notre-dame-confirms-acc-orange-bowl-discussions-20120709,0,2235779.story
Both sides say it’s about the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8135797/college-football-programs-minus-winningest-coach
ESPN.com ran several pieces about coaches making programs or vice versa. The link goes to a table showing the record for every school overall, for their winningest coach and without their winningest coach.
LikeLike
Interesting piece.
Bear Bryant was winningest coach at 2 different schools. RC beat him out at A&M.
BYU stands out in that list.
LikeLike
Here’e the top 10 of coaches that made a difference in W%:
1. Bobby Bowden, Florida State
2. Lavell Edwards, BYU
3. Dan McGugin, Vanderbilt
4. Chris Ault, Nevada
5. Bill Snyder, Kansas State
6. John Vaught, Ole Miss
7. Joe Paterno, Penn State
8. Wallace Wade, Duke
T9. Fisher DeBerry, Air Force
T9. Trevor Rees, Kent State
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1200957.html
Bold predictions for the B10 West this year. MSU fans, do yourselves a favor and don’t read it.
LikeLike
http://predictionmachine.com/college-football-homefield-advantage
A ranking of homefield advantage based on actual results versus computer simulations. As they guy explains:
“However, it’s not necessarily a good thing to top this list. In fact, the best teams should be closer to the bottom than the top because they should be more consistent, dominate regularly and not be subject to the large swings in performance that is seen in other teams (making them more like professional teams – Alabama is 106th). While traditionally elite FBS teams should not fare well in this exercise, the same can be said (and noted in the chart) about teams that are traditionally really bad. Where homefield means most is with the next tier of teams behind the absolute elite – mostly BCS conference teams that can usually compete for conference titles, but who do not have four star recruits filling the two-deep and are not always legitimate BCS Championship contenders. That’s when the raw value of homefield matters most; when the talent is strong but not elite and players are more susceptible to the impact of crowd noise, tradition and atmosphere.”
Here’s the Top 25:
1 Oklahoma
2 Wisconsin
3 UCLA
4 Missouri
5 Nevada
6 Arkansas State
7 Houston
8 Hawaii
9 California
10 Troy
11 Clemson
12 Michigan State
13 Texas A&M
14 Kansas
15 Arizona State
16 Marshall
17 Oklahoma State
18 Cincinnati
19 Colorado
20 UTEP
21 Toledo
22 Michigan
23 Oregon
24 Texas Tech
25 Iowa State
I wonder with OU if having the RRR at a neutral site is a major factor in their ranking. Their biggest rival and often the highest ranked team they play all year is never at home.
LikeLike
Interesting that old Big 12 has 8 of the top 25. Only Texas, Nebraska, KSU and Baylor are not on the list.
LikeLike
The ACC really needs the Orange Bowl tie-in to get any access, per ESPN.com ( http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8135884/big-east-interim-commissioner-joe-bailey-shrugs-lack-tie-game)
“The Big East champion has finished in the top 12 of the final BCS standings five times in the last seven years. The ACC, in contrast, has had two only conference champions finish in the top 12 of the final BCS standings over the same time period.”
Also, the chances that teams 5-12 all get into the access bowls is slim to none. After the semis there will be 4 bowls; rose has two spots locked down not determined by rankings, Champions the same; Orange has 1, maybe 2 with ND in some years). That leaves onll 2-3 at large slots for the selection committee to fill each year. Guarantee every year there will be Top 12 teams who don’t get in for conference tie-ins ranked lower.
LikeLike
Yeah, the notion that this new deal opens up access is kind of ridiculous. Yes, it opens up access to the 4 team playoff but at the cost of access to the BCS bowls (assuming 6 in the new deal) as a whole.
In years where the Rose or Champions is a host, we’re assuming that the guaranteed matchup will appear in another bowl on the other day as well. Not sure what the ACC’s status is in years where the Orange Bowl hosts.
That basically means that you’re looking at situations with at least 8 or 9 slots always locked in for the 4 playoff teams and the Big 5 conferences.
If ND gets a sweetheart deal, that could take away another slot in a few of the years.
It’s basically just going to be 1 bowl open with 2 slots on the other day that is going to get at large teams. And most likely those teams are going to be ranked 5-9.
LikeLike
I don’t know. The bottom line is that there is a system in place for a #3, 12-0 Big East or C-USA team, to at least have a chance at a national championship. The non-BCS schools always bemoaned the lack of access to the national championship. Unfortunately, it has come at the expense of $$$.
I still think that is a win for college football. If Louisville goes undefeated, they will get to prove on the field whether they were the best team. Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State did not get that opportunity a few years ago (granted, one of them would STILL be excluded in a 4-team playoff). I think there would be a ton of pressure to allow even an undefeated Mac team to crack the top 4.
So… when the ball is first placed on the tee this August/September… all D-1A teams at least have a chance at winning it all. That makes all games more interesting.
LikeLike
The chances of all 5-12 isn’t great, but the top 10 will almost always be in. Most the teams in the bowls automatically will be top 12 teams anyway. I suspect that it’s rare for a top 10 team (according to the committee) to be left out and think the 11th team will be close to 50% of the time (it’s out if 2 tie-in teams are below 12).
LikeLike
With DirectTV dropping 26 Viacom channels over a fee dispute, all the certainty about the value of conference networks may be displaced. The cable business is changing. This article talks about untouchable channels getting dropped.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118055395
LikeLike
This is why it’s so hard to judge who’s going to come out on top in 20 or 30 years.
Just looking at the 3 models in existence; Texas went fully in on rights fees, the Big Ten went with roughly a half in rights fees and a half in profit, and the Pac-12 has gone fully in on the wholly owned profit model.
Texas is obviously the safest, but the Big Ten has a lot of its payments guaranteed as well, so there’s not that much risk even though the Big Ten did cross 50M this past year.
The Pac-12’s networks may have more upside if things go the right way, but they probably face the most risk in terms of changes to the cable business.
LikeLike
50M subscribers that should be in the 3rd paragraph.
LikeLike
P12N supposedly guaranteed profitable in first year through sub fees and in 40 m homes at startup. Additional subs likely plus ad revenue. I fail to see the risk. PAC can realize similar income/sub while charging half what the BTN does to comcast, cox, etc.
LikeLike
Startup costs millions in equipment and other first time charges. If anybody ever tries to sell you part of a business that will be guaranteed cash flow positive the first year, you should run. Now that’s different than “profitable,” but profits don’t mean cash distributions.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Two points.
First, I agree about startup costs. That is why it seems remarkable that the schools don’t seem to be having to come up with additional revenue. Are we expecting a collapse because of these costs, or after they are gone?
Second, I recall Scott saying that while money is important it wasn’t the primary purpose of the P12N. Exposure for the conference and promotion of it’s member schools was. 15 mil per school from a network very few can see is worth less in the long run than one paying half that but granting exposure in 40-60 mil homes. I’m pretty sure presidents would opt for exposure and long term promotion.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean by “fail to see the risk”.
I just mean that Texas’ payments are riskless in the sense that they’re all guaranteed without any consideration of performance.
BTN is about a half like that and a half based on profitability, and the Pac-12 Networks are fully owned and fully based on profitability.
I’m not making a judgment call, just stating the fact that Texas took guaranteed payments and gave up control entirely, the Big Ten went 50-50, and the Pac-12 went 100% ownership.
LikeLike
@cc
The ownership doesn’t have a lot to do with exposure, although it does give you control. Actually, the Pac 12 model can be riskier for exposure long term as they don’t have a Fox or ESPN with other content to push carriage.
As for Texas, they would have been satisfied with getting next to nothing and wide exposure. With ESPN it looked like the best of both worlds. That remains to be seen (and for many the LHN as well!). A&M turned down a joint network because A&M was afraid it wouldn’t make money while Texas was willing to take that risk.
LikeLike
What I mean by not seeing the risk is that the p12 is not dependent on a commercial, profit margin driven entity. Once startup is covered they only “need” to cover production costs. Will they take more? Absolutely. But they need to charge only half (aprox) to realize similar income to tha BTN. Also they are not a tier 3 network, retained tier 1 and 2 content. They aren’t offering just the worst games, although those will be available also.
Equating a profit driven fight over E-tainment programing to the value of live sports events seems contrary to what we seemed to have concluded over the last few years. Apples and oranges. Has the market for live sports suddenly gone south in the last few months? And again, it was stated that profit isn’t the primary focus of the P12N, while it is for the partners of BTN and LHN.
LikeLike
What has changed is this:
1) Consumers are getting price resistant to cable charges. Penetration has dropped.
2) Internet alternatives are becoming more viable, meaning the model might change.
These disputes between cable/satellite companies and providers are becoming much more common. They can’t just pass increased costs to their customers. Which means anyone wanting higher carriage fees is going to find that more difficult. The DirectTV president also said they would try to cut costs by reducing lower rated channels. Niche sports channels could be part of that. For most of us, there are only a very limited number of cable channels we actually watch.
LikeLike
The BTN claims it’s in 80 million homes
and CBS claims they are in 73: ‘The BTN is available in 73 million homes, which compares favorably to CBS College Sports (89 million).’
LikeLike
Bullet:
1: I was price resistant (pissed, actually) when my cable bill jumped from $18/mo to $28. Now paying $90. I said I’d stop driving when gas crossed $1/gal. Paid $4.30 last month (although I did buy a Prius).
2: You don’t think the PAC, with multiple silicone valley giants started and owned by PAC alums is aware of, and probably anticipating (creating?) the future of Internet participation in organized content distribution?
LikeLike
Now I don’t subscribe to the 5 year theory, but the point is that there are some trends that have to be scary for cable TV execs:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-02/news/30466538_1_hulu-number-of-tv-subscribers-phone-service
LikeLike
And cable TV penetration is down around 60% which is the lowest since the 80s. Although that doesn’t count satellite which has been growing.
LikeLike
And we are still in recovery from the biggest economic crisis since the ’30s. I’d suggest this has the greatest impact, not individual programming choices.
LikeLike
I could see this coming when the WSJ interviewed a cable company exec who laughed at the notion they would offer the PAC network and its myriad of channels. He said they would be lucky get one in wide distribution. Hopefully, by the B1G being the first in its category, with a five year head start, it can hold on.
LikeLike
Wasn’t that the same satellite exec who now in this article talking about going dark on 27 channels? Rate the odds of 27 channel reduction improving their subscription numbers. He is negotiating in the press, nothing more. As to the P12N I don’t think anybody expects more than 1 channel to be on satellite if/when agreement is reached. Wasn’t it at least a year after launch before Direct TV picked up the BTN?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52799/the-big-tens-2012-13-bowl-schedule
The B10’s 2012-3 bowl schedule:
Little Caesars Pizza Bowl: Dec. 26, 7:30 p.m. ET, ESPN, Big Ten vs. Mid-American Conference
Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas: Dec. 28, 9 p.m. ET, ESPN, Big Ten vs. Big 12
Valley of the Sun Bowl (formerly Insight): Dec. 29, 10:15 p.m. ET, ESPN, Big Ten vs. Big 12
TicketCity: Jan. 1, noon ET, ESPNU, Big Ten vs. Conference USA
TaxSlayer.com Gator Bowl: Jan. 1, noon ET, ESPN2, Big Ten vs. SEC
Capital One Bowl: Jan. 1, 1 p.m. ET, TV plans TBA, Big Ten vs. SEC
Outback Bowl: Jan. 1, 1 p.m. ET, TV plans TBA, Big Ten vs. SEC
Rose Bowl Game presented by VIZO: Jan. 1, 4 p.m. ET, ESPN, BCS vs. BCS (most likely Big Ten vs. Pac-12)
So, not only do we have the stupidity of 4 games overlapping on 1/1, we also have a 9pm ET start on Friday night and a 10:15pm ET start on Saturday night. I’m sure those will draw great ratings from those in the eastern time zone.
LikeLike
One of the recent claims about the new post season setup that’s made me laugh is the one about college football “reclaiming” New Year’s Day (NYD) and having a major presence on New Year’s Eve (NYE). If you look at last season there were eleven bowl games on those NYE and 2 January since NYD was on a Sunday:
NYE
Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas – Northwestern v. Texas A&M
Hyundai Sun Bowl – Utah v. Georgia Tech
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl – Illinois v. UCLA
Autozone Liberty Bowl – Cincinnati v. Vanderbilt
Chick Fil-A Bowl – Virginia v. Auburn
2 January
Ticket City Bowl – Houston v. Penn State
Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl – Ohio State v. Florida
Outback Bowl – Michigan State v. Georgia
Capital One Bowl – Nebraska v. South Carolina
Rose Bowl – Wisconsin v. Oregon
Fiesta Bowl – Stanford v. Oklahoma State
Two of the bowls listed above will be among the six to be played on NYE or NYD starting in 2014 with a possible third (Chick Fil-A) joining those two. But I’m hard pressed to think that CFB has to reclaim NYE or NYD given the number of bowl games scheduled on those two dates.
Now if what they mean is that there will be two playoff games and four bowls on those dates and that means taking back NYE & NYD, then all the hype is just marketing.
LikeLike
I think the “reclaming” the NYD part was just ensuring that there’s at least one game that day with national title implications. With the new format though, I’m curious what happens to the Capital One and Outback Bowl. I think ratings actually benefit when you have overlapping games giving viewers multiple options to choose from. I remember reading when ABC started showing primetime games every week back in 2006, it actually helped ratings for the ESPN primetime telecasts. Viewers had another Tier I quality matchup to choose from and would make watching college football a priority. This is a key point for casual viewers who are not likely to watch a full game unless their team is participating.
LikeLike
cutter,
I think taking back NYD meant no more BCS games on 1/3, 1/4, etc. They wanted to focus the top games on NYD (and NYE for no discernible reason). The only competition CFB faced on NYE or NYD was Dick Clark.
LikeLike
http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/
The Freeh report will be released at the above site at 9am on Thursday. Any chance we can get a new post by then Frank? Over 1000 comments loads kind of slowly.
LikeLike
Wilner uses a term on the Pac 12 network distribution often used for realignment-its fluid. Much will be subscription service and it isn’t clear how broad the availability will be at this time. DirectTV and Dish network aren’t signed up yet.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/07/03/pac-12-tv-network-much-confusion-a-few-answers-faqs-and-customer-support/
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it all be subscription based, ie comcast, cox, etc subscription required? They aren’t going to carry it for free, and the PAC isn’t going to offer it for free.
LikeLike
I think the most common assumption was that at least the main network would be mostly on the primary tiers like ESPN and the cable companies would pay for the right to carry it. The Pac 12 would get carriage fees as well as advertising $. Pac 12 doesn’t want it on the sports tier where only those paying a subscription fee will see it.
LikeLike
Bullet:
From what I’ve read it is (come mid August) on basic within the footprint, some 40M homes with Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, and Brighthouse. What is not clear yet is if that TV channel is the national, or the regional (AZ, WA, So Cal, etc), with the other on a sports tier. Or if all seven are available (unlikely). However it looks like that if you have a provider subscription you have authentication to access everything from all channels over the Internet in real time.
You were kidding earlier, about UT willing to not make money in exchange for exposure, weren’t you? If true, didn’t they give away control to a comercial entity in exchange for something the didn’t really need? I applaud their getting paid that well, but the price (exposure, or lack thereof) seems high.
LikeLike
No, Dodds said all along they were going to do it whether they made money or not. Fox and ESPN got in a bidding war and Texas got a big payday. You would expect partnering with ESPN would get you a better chance of exposure than any other way (and that may be true-it could just be normal startup issues, it could be the economy, it could be the cable market as I discussed above, it could be the single entity network is just hard to market).
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel revisits his Kings/Barons/Knights/Peasants.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag/index.html
LikeLike
And Spartan heads start to explode in 3…2…1…
LikeLike
Kings – I still say 14 is too many Kings, 8-12 is a max
YES
Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Southern Cal
MAYBE
Penn State, only here because future is uncertain, but yes for last 50 years
Tennessee, down right now, but with 100,000 + seat stadium, not out
LSU, more history than Florida moves the Tigers over Gators
NO
Florida, Muschamp has still not turned the corner and SeC is brutal
Florida State, This is not Bobby’s FSU and no longer IND in weak ACC
Miami, A rocket like Wooden at UCLA, but do they have long term fuel?
LikeLike
duffman,
“Kings – I still say 14 is too many Kings, 8-12 is a max”
As long as I-A keeps growing, the number of kings will also grow a little.
“YES
Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Southern Cal”
Agreed. Those are all clear cut.
“MAYBE
Penn State, only here because future is uncertain, but yes for last 50 years
Tennessee, down right now, but with 100,000 + seat stadium, not out
LSU, more history than Florida moves the Tigers over Gators”
PSU has to move up. They are the east coast team. Don’t let keeping a legendary coach too long and having a scandal skew your view. I’d bump LSU up because this is a short attention span world and LSU has won several titles lately and contends almost every year. As for TN, they’ve been down for a while and aren’t making progress. I’d slide them down to baron as others in the SEC have passed them by and aren’t looking back. Realistically, we need an extra tier for nouveau kings and old kings falling.
“NO
Florida, Muschamp has still not turned the corner and SeC is brutal
Florida State, This is not Bobby’s FSU and no longer IND in weak ACC
Miami, A rocket like Wooden at UCLA, but do they have long term fuel?”
I’m inclined to bump FL up for the multiple titles, but they should really be on that intermediate tier with LSU. FSU and Miami are resting on their laurels and that gets old after a while. I’d drop them down.
LikeLike
Brian, I was not trying to say Penn State moves up as they are already there. It is more of a possibility that Penn State will move down. Like Florida State they have the uncertainty of the legend replacement, and that is tough enough all by itself. The bigger issue is how will the Sandusky thing affect Penn State say 10, 20, or 30 years from now. I think the general public is more forgiving of cheating in sports than they will be for child abuse. That is really the greater unknown.
I think Florida – the state – is the bigger overall issue there. Florida had a monopoly, then Florida State got in, and Miami entered the mix during the drug boom in south Florida. That means 3 schools are competing for in state talent instead of say Ohio State having Ohio all to itself. Long term the the new kids like USF and UCF will pick off in state kids for their programs further diluting the Florida recruiting. They remind me of the state of Georgia splitting Georgia, Georgia Tech, and surrounding ACC and SEC schools. Imagine if Georgia Tech was the sole pipeline for high school kids in Georgia!
Even with Tennessee having to recruit out of state, they are still the primary in their state with no Florida State or Miami in their borders to take the spotlight off of the folks in Knoxville. Kentucky to the north and Vanderbilt to the west provide no threat and Atlanta is close enough to draw high school kids out of Georgia. I think the demise of the Green Wave has put LSU in a similar position in the state of Louisiana. The epicenter of such a sole state school having an edge is probably Nebraska with no real competition from other colleges or pro teams.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Brian, I was not trying to say Penn State moves up as they are already there. It is more of a possibility that Penn State will move down.”
I agree they are on the edge, I just think they should be listed as YES but trending down. If BOB doesn’t improve them in the next 4 years, then I’d move them to MAYBE.
“Like Florida State they have the uncertainty of the legend replacement, and that is tough enough all by itself. The bigger issue is how will the Sandusky thing affect Penn State say 10, 20, or 30 years from now. I think the general public is more forgiving of cheating in sports than they will be for child abuse. That is really the greater unknown.”
Unfortunately, many fans will forgive anything. Look at the NFL and the crimes players commit and still get cheers afterwards. I don’t think the Sandusky scandal has a major impact on the field long term. It will be more about structural changes in the adminstration and such.
PSU does have the big advantage of owning the whole NE, which helps a lot. FSU doesn’t have that.
“Long term the the new kids like USF and UCF will pick off in state kids for their programs further diluting the Florida recruiting.”
I think it will be a long time before those guys steal too many big names form the big 3.
As for OSU, it has to share talent with MI and ND and PSU and the rest of the B10. It’s not like OSU could take all the players anyway, but they have always had to fight MI and ND especially.
“Even with Tennessee having to recruit out of state, they are still the primary in their state with no Florida State or Miami in their borders to take the spotlight off of the folks in Knoxville. Kentucky to the north and Vanderbilt to the west provide no threat and Atlanta is close enough to draw high school kids out of Georgia.”
Proximity works both ways. UGA is close enough to steal talent from the state, and AL takes a lot from western TN. TN has clearly dropped to a lesser tier in the SEC than AL/LSU/UF and has been down for a little while. They haven’t won more than 7 games in 4 straight years while the rest of their conference has won NCs. To be a king you have to be in the limelight, and TN isn’t anymore.
By comparison, PSU had 4 bad years out of 5 from 2000-2004 (26-33) but recovered in the last 7 years (67-23) to solidify their standing. FSU also had a bad run but has rebounded with 2 solid years. The next few years will show whether they gain or lose status.
LikeLike
The Vols are dead. Long live the Tigers. All hail LSU as the newest king!
Seriously though, I still view Tennessee as a king, a downtrodden king along with Miami, Notre Dame, and Penn State, but still a king. For a king to lose its status, think Minnesota and Army, it should at least be more than 14 years removed from a national championship. Tennessee won the first BCS NC. In the BCS era, kings Michigan, Penn State, and Notre Dame haven’t taken home a crystal ball.
I generally agree with Mandel’s assessment, especially LSU as a King, I’d move three schools up: Arkansas and Michigan State to Baron status, and North Carolina to Knight status.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can bump AR up until someone other than Petrino has some serious success there. They need to win a conference title at least.
I’m sure MSU fans are apoplectic right now, but they need an outright conference title and some BCS games to justify moving up. They are close, though.
LikeLike
Ever heard of Frank Broyles, Lou Holtz and Ken Hatfield? Arkansas was 3rd in winning % in the 60s and won a share of the 1964 title. Lou Holtz would have added some more if he could have beaten Texas. They do have 3 SEC west titles. Arkansas is ahead of virtually every school in the Knight list and arguably as many as 5 on the Baron list.
I don’t think TN or LSU belong in the kings. They are at the top of the Barons. TN may have been a king in the 60s, but they had a long dry spell until 1998 and are really struggling now. LSU had an ugly spell about the same time frame. LSU and Tennessee may have recognizable helmets, but how many people tune in nationally if they are 7-4? They just don’t have the panache of the top 12.
LikeLike
Personally, I would have 12 kings and a much smaller baron list-maybe 6-LSU, Tennesse, Auburn, UGA, Virginia Tech, UCLA. Schools like WI, WVU, Clemson, Arkansas, Colorado, UW could be fuedal lords in a tier above the knights.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Ever heard of Frank Broyles, Lou Holtz and Ken Hatfield?”
Yes, but I’m talking recently. AR is under 0.500 in conference play in the SEC. That doesn’t sound like a baron to me. But if John L.’s replacement can come close to replicating Petrino’s success then they can make a better case.
“Arkansas was 3rd in winning % in the 60s and won a share of the 1964 title. Lou Holtz would have added some more if he could have beaten Texas. They do have 3 SEC west titles. Arkansas is ahead of virtually every school in the Knight list and arguably as many as 5 on the Baron list.”
AR is way behind AU, UGA and TN in SEC W% since the league grew to 12. The closest school to them by SEC W% is SC by far, and SC is clearly a knight. It’s not like AR can trumpet a lot of SEC titles or BCS wins to bolster their case, either.
“I don’t think TN or LSU belong in the kings. They are at the top of the Barons.”
I think that’s all perspective. Mandel was more inclusive, and you and duffman are more restrictive. It’s why I said we really need an intermediate level for declining kings and rising barons. Let’s call it princes. We agree on which teams should be there, I think.
“LSU had an ugly spell about the same time frame. LSU and Tennessee may have recognizable helmets, but how many people tune in nationally if they are 7-4? They just don’t have the panache of the top 12.”
The only reason I bump up LSU is the recent titles. They carry a lot of weight with the modern fan.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Personally, I would have 12 kings and a much smaller baron list-maybe 6-LSU, Tennesse, Auburn, UGA, Virginia Tech, UCLA. Schools like WI, WVU, Clemson, Arkansas, Colorado, UW could be fuedal lords in a tier above the knights.”
That’s the problem for any tiered system. Everyone wants to add more tiers to make it more accurate, but then it loses its effectiveness.
I think you have to choose a number of tiers and stick to it (Mandel chose 4), but then people can vary in how many should be in each level. Do you prefer a bell curve, or quartiles or something in between?
For me:
Kings
Established Kings
OSU, MI, PSU, NE, ND, USC, OU, TX, AL
Reasoning – multiple NC, lots of major bowls, tons of wins
New Kings
LSU, FL
Reasoning – lots of recent success can trump the past
Barons
Former Kings
TN, FSU, Miami
Reasoning – FSU and Miami had short reigns and then got replaced by UF and LSU, TN had a lot of success until recently
New Barons
WI, OR, GA, VT, WV, AU
Reasoning – a lot of success but few if any NC, not quite nationally elite
Knights
MSU, IA, Utah, UCLA, Stanford, UW, TCU, OkSU, AR, MO, TAMU, GT, Clemson, Boise
Reasoning – great recent success but questionable competition (Utah, TCU, Boise), or decent success but not much nationally, or only very recent success
Peasants
PU, NW, IL, MN, IN
WSU, OrSU, Cal, AZ, ASU, CO
ISU, KSU, KU, TT, Baylor
MS, MS St, UK, Vandy, SC
UNC, Duke, WF, NCSU, UVA, MD, BC
Everyone else not in the big 5
LikeLike
@Brian
I look at it like a gap system. There are very few who disagree with the top 9. I view UF, FSU and Miami as new kings. They don’t have the history of the other 9, but with their success over the last 25 years (noone has as many top 5 finishes as those 3 and noone has ever matched FSU’s 15 year run), people know them.
I see a gap after those 12. And then there is a gap after the next group of 6. UCLA hasn’t done well the last decade, but has had a long history of success previously. VT doesn’t have history, but has consistently been near the top over the last 15-20 years and no longer is a minor indie or Southern Conference team. And the 4 SEC (LSU, TN, AU, UGA) schools have good history, recent success, and, except for UGA, multiple national titles. I don’t see a gap between his barons and Arkansas, UW and CU (and probably MSU), but I do see a gap between them and the rest of the Knights.
Now someone who’s 22 might have a different perception, particularly with schools that haven’t done well the last 10 years.
LikeLike
A lot of status is how high you have been more than how consistent. Before the last couple of years (with TCU, Ok. St. in top 3 and Auburn winning MNC), the 16 national champs (excluding Georgia Tech) in 25 years (1986-2010) had 68 of the 75 top 3 finishes. The others were Georgia-2, Auburn, Utah, Virginia Tech, Oregon and Georgia Tech each 1. They also had 102 of the 125 top 5 finishes, each having at least 3. Noone else had more than 2.
It was-top 5 finishes 1986-2010
FSU-13
Miami-11
Florida-10
OU-8
OSU-8
USC-7
NE-6
TX-5
PSU-5
TN-5
UM-5
ND-4
AL-4
LSU-4
CO-4
WA-3
LikeLike
bullet,
I can see having FSU and Miami as new kings, I just have recently dropped them down. They don’t have the history of success, so they need fewer down years to drop. This why we all agree an extra tier in there (princes, dukes, whatever) would really help.
Miami hasn’t been elite since joining the ACC in 2004. They haven’t won the conference or their division even once in 8 years (7 years for divisions). They haven’t played in a January bowl game either. It’s a huge negative to me when a team stops being successful when they upgrade their conference. FSU had a similar problem once the ACC expanded to add the BE teams. Their tremendous run ended as soon as their conference schedule included a few more quality teams.
LikeLike
@Brian,
That drop-off in FSU’s success had far less to do with the ACC’s additions than it did with other factors such as:
(1) terrific offensive coordinator Mark Richt leaving for Georgia after the 2000 season, which also happened to be FSU’s last top-five finish
(2) Richt being replaced by unproven Jeff Bowden, who oversaw a perennial top ten (often number one) offense drop into the 70’s or below, and who was very difficult to force out due to the fact that he was the head coach’s son
(3) Bobby Bowden being slow to add programs such as the nutritional and academic support initiatives implemented by Coach Fisher, all while his competitors got ahead of him
(4) Mickey Andrews taking his foot off the gas in recruiting towards the end of his long, successful tenure as defensive coordinator (top five- to ten-rated defenses dropped down to the 90’s or worse by 2009)
(5) Bobby Bowden simply getting old (it’s just a lot easier for 18-year-olds to say “yes” to playing for a coach in his early 40’s to early 60’s than it is for a coach in his 70’s)
Granted, Virginia Tech has made it a more difficult conference, and Miami has handed FSU its fair share of conference losses, but they haven’t been a reason for FSU’s decline.
Despite all this, I think that FSU’s decline is a bit overstated. The Noles haven’t had a losing season since 1976, which is the longest streak in the nation. There have been no truly ugly seasons like Alabama had in the early to mid-2000’s, or Oklahoma in the 90’s, or LSU in the 80’s and 90’s, or USC in the late 90’s, or Nebraska under Callahan, and so on. Chances are pretty strong that, given their relatively winnable conference, their location in recruit rich Florida and proximity to Alabama and Georgia, along with their recent track record of recruiting success, they’ll be back as a top five-to-ten regular as soon as any “king” or “baron.”
I’m biased, sure, but most neutral observers would give a more favorable outlook to the Noles than they would, say, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Notre Dame, or Nebraska. (They could turn out to be wrong, but I’m just saying most would predict more success for FSU over the next five years than those teams.)
As for what defines a king, Mandel’s definition is kind of vague, but keep in mind that all-time winning percentages, number of national titles, etc. are only part of the picture. Other things matter, such as TV ratings, and FSU draws as well as anyone, especially when they’re playing a marquee opponent.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“That drop-off in FSU’s success had far less to do with the ACC’s additions than it did with other factors such as:”
I agree that much of it was coincidental timing. Still, it says something to a neutral fan when FSU can’t regain their winning ways in a league that has been far from elite for years. If nobody else in your conference can win a BCS game, then you should be winning your conference a lot if you’re a king.
“(1) terrific offensive coordinator Mark Richt leaving for Georgia after the 2000 season, which also happened to be FSU’s last top-five finish”
Every top team loses quality coaches. They are supposed to be able to hire them as well. It’s been freaking 11 years.
“(2) Richt being replaced by unproven Jeff Bowden, who oversaw a perennial top ten (often number one) offense drop into the 70′s or below, and who was very difficult to force out due to the fact that he was the head coach’s son”
That seems like a continuation of the previous point.
“(3) Bobby Bowden being slow to add programs such as the nutritional and academic support initiatives implemented by Coach Fisher, all while his competitors got ahead of him”
Isn’t it amazing how every new HC hires a new S&C guy that is head and shoulders better than his predecessor? Every school says that when they hire a new coach (I mean everybody – OSU included). Why does everyone keep all the previous coaches who apparently suck at their jobs? And why doesn’t anyone notice they suck at their jobs until they get replaced?
FSU won just fine for a long time under the old system. Keeping the same coach doesn’t explain falling off a cliff in terms of success.
“(4) Mickey Andrews taking his foot off the gas in recruiting towards the end of his long, successful tenure as defensive coordinator (top five- to ten-rated defenses dropped down to the 90′s or worse by 2009)”
FSU still had a ton of players drafted (by NFL draft year):
1997 7
1998 9
1999 4
2000 7
2001 9
2002 3
2003 6
2004 5
2005 9
2006 8
2007 5
2008 3
2009 1
2010 3
2011 3
2012 4
The past 5 years weren’t as good as before, but that’s true on offense too. How many teams had more players drafted than that? And why didn’t they win more in 2002-6 with that much talent?
And yes, 2009 was a bad defense. But 2008 was top 15. Did he forget how to coach in the off-season, or was something else at work?
“(5) Bobby Bowden simply getting old (it’s just a lot easier for 18-year-olds to say “yes” to playing for a coach in his early 40′s to early 60′s than it is for a coach in his 70′s)”
He was doing just fine as an old coach before that, why would it suddenly change?
“Granted, Virginia Tech has made it a more difficult conference, and Miami has handed FSU its fair share of conference losses, but they haven’t been a reason for FSU’s decline.”
They’ve been a reason. I agree they aren’t the only reason.
FSU’s ACC W%:
1991-2003 (before Miami and VT) = 0.938 (90-6) best
2004-2011 (BC joined in 2005) = 0.591 (39-27) 3rd best (VT, GT)
“Despite all this, I think that FSU’s decline is a bit overstated. The Noles haven’t had a losing season since 1976, which is the longest streak in the nation.”
The NCAA says FSU was 0-6 in 2007 and 2-6 in 2006. They needed a bowl win to avoid a 0.500 season in 2009, too (bowl loss = losing season). But quibbling aside, we’re talking about king status.
FSU went from the best run of all time (probably) to this: 8-4, 9-5, 10-3, 9-3, 8-5, 7-6, 7-6, 9-4, 7-6, 10-4, 9-4. That’s not terrible (nobody said it was), but it’s barely top 30 in W%. FSU was #1 by a sizable margin from 1987-2000. That’s a drop from 88.7% to 61.8%, or a 30% loss of success. That’s a pretty big drop, and it’s cushioned by a relatively weak ACC.
Their bowls went from 13 BCS level bowls in 14 years to 3 BCS bowls in 11 years and 1 or 2 of those by virtue of AQ status only.
“There have been no truly ugly seasons like Alabama had in the early to mid-2000′s, or Oklahoma in the 90′s, or LSU in the 80′s and 90′s, or USC in the late 90′s, or Nebraska under Callahan, and so on.”
I think 6-6 in the ACC is pretty ugly for a king. I agree with your point that everybody has down periods, and I think FSU will pull out of this one, but they need to show it because they haven’t excelled since the ACC expanded or without Bowden. Worse than having 2-3 terrible years, like the examples you gave, is falling back to above average as your new plateau. Fans hate that. They’ll tolerate a couple of down years to clean house and get back to the top, though.
“Chances are pretty strong that, given their relatively winnable conference, their location in recruit rich Florida and proximity to Alabama and Georgia, along with their recent track record of recruiting success, they’ll be back as a top five-to-ten regular as soon as any “king” or “baron.””
You’d think that, but that’s been true all along.
“I’m biased, sure, but most neutral observers would give a more favorable outlook to the Noles than they would, say, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Notre Dame, or Nebraska. (They could turn out to be wrong, but I’m just saying most would predict more success for FSU over the next five years than those teams.)”
I’ll give you Miami due to looming sanctions, ND because they never win that much (but they don’t need to to stay a king) and Nebraska due to their location. I doubt most neutral observers would pick FSU over UF due to SEC > ACC in both success and money. PSU has the whole NE to themselves and a great history but are just starting their transition from a legend. They are coming from winning a lot more games the past 5 years than FSU has, though. Unless the Sandusky scandal brings them down (it hasn’t hurt recruiting this year), PSU seems to be on steady ground. BOB has the benefit of not having lost a game yet, too.
“As for what defines a king, Mandel’s definition is kind of vague,”
Intentionally so in my opinion, and everyone’s definition is a little different.
“but keep in mind that all-time winning percentages, number of national titles, etc. are only part of the picture. Other things matter, such as TV ratings, and FSU draws as well as anyone, especially when they’re playing a marquee opponent.”
Those other things are what lead to high TV ratings. Unfortunately, I don’t know a good source for historical TV ratings info. Has the number of FSU primetime games dropped? Does FSU/Duke pull the same numbers as OSU/IN or PSU/Temple? I don’t know the answer to those questions.
LikeLike
What has Michigan State done to earn a step up? They have a good 5 year run. 22nd in win ptg in that time. Over the decade, 52nd. And their best bowl in that time was Cap One (twice), while going 1-5 in bowls. They haven’t come near earning a bump.
Iowa has a better track record in the past decade (16th in win ptg, 1-1 in BCS bowls, 6-3 in bowls) and I wouldn’t argue for them to bump either. Though I do think there needs to be a 5th tier. Big jump between Barons and Knights.
LikeLike
greg – I think Sparty, Arky, and North Carolina were slotted too low five years ago. I agree that Sparty hasn’t done anything in the last five years to justify moving up, other than beating up their big brother. In my mind with 3 NCs , they were already a baron.
LikeLike
If MSU is a baron due to NT, then Minnesota has to be one. 🙂
LikeLike
greg,
Your point is exactly why I go more conservative in who is in the inner sanctum. Sparty and the Gophers have history, but they need a better present. If either knocks down a MNC they are in a better spot than say Boise State if they win their first. I truly believe Michigan State and Minnesota have the stronger foundations to build on.
Alan,
I think long term Arkansas and Missouri are the two not to discount. Wal Mart money is strong and deep so they really only need to build and hold the staff. Other schools need multiple donors just to get near what these 2 schools can do with a single check when it comes to facilities. I agree with you on Sparty as being undervalued in the original list. Like Auburn to Alabama, the biggest issue with MSU is having the in state big brother in the same conference. FL, GA, SC, and now TX spit their power schools across multiple conferences.
LikeLike
MSU has 6 mythical NCs.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Seriously though, I still view Tennessee as a king, a downtrodden king along with Miami, Notre Dame, and Penn State, but still a king. For a king to lose its status, think Minnesota and Army, it should at least be more than 14 years removed from a national championship. Tennessee won the first BCS NC. In the BCS era, kings Michigan, Penn State, and Notre Dame haven’t taken home a crystal ball.”
MI – 1997, PSU – 1994 (1986 officially), ND – 1988
TN – 1998
There’s not a huge difference there. I agree with your basic point, but there is more to it than just winning a NC. More importantly, TN has been eclipsed in their own conference and don’t own a geographic region like PSU does.
W% since 1998 (conference W%):
MI – #17 0.680 (#18 0.670)
TN – #20 0.655 (#30 0.603)
PSU – #22 0.644 (#34 0.580)
ND – #38 0.541
BCS Bowls since 1998:
MI – 5
PSU – 2
ND – 3
TN – 2
I think we all know ND doesn’t deserve king status, but they have it. PSU is on the path to losing it, but they are still the team in the NE and east coast. Even with the RichRod years, MI has outdistanced TN in the BCS era.
LikeLike
My top tier based on my opinion of their “drawing power” (the ability to sell tickets on road games and generate TV ratings)
Alabama, Florida, FSU, LSU, Michigan, Nebraska, ND, Ohio St., Oklahoma, PSU, Texas and USC.
(I’d put Miami in a sub-tier above the Auburns and Georgias of the world but below the true alpha dogs.)
LikeLike
If you want to look at it statistically here is the best programs since WWII (through 2010)
LikeLike
For what Mandel is doing, I think ESPN’s prestige rankings are probably more appropriate. They are horribly flawed, don’t get me wrong, but I think it better measures what he’s talking about than statistical performance. These were also done in 2009, so some things would have changed.
1-30 in groups of 5 to save numbering:
OU 1968
USC 1897
OSU 1655
ND 1579
NE 1553
AL 1534
TX 1494
MI 1332
FSU 1110
Miami 1109
PSU 1088
TN 1072
LSU 926
GA 888
FL 834
UCLA 738
UW 634
GT 610
AR 604
TAMU 584
AU 579
Clemson 486
CO 486
MS 477
BYU 476
MSU 454
Pitt 444
ASU 408
Syracuse 407
IA 368
31-119: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3842161
There’s a clear break between the top 8 and the new kings. I jump PSU up because they are the only power in an entire region. LSU and TN are closer to equal now with LSU rising and TN falling, and clearly FL’s success is undervalued here.
LikeLike
Worth noting that 18 of the top 20 are the same in both lists (ESPN has U-Dub and TAMU while CFR has Auburn and Sparty).
At the very top Alabama, Michigan, ND, NU, Ohio St, Oklahoma, PSU Texas and USC are in the top 11 in both lists, with FSU, LSU, and Tennessee and are in the top 13 of both.
Anyways, looking at both lists it pretty clear who the top 9 teams are and who probably deserves to be mentioned along side them when discussing “King” status.
(Note that the ESPN list goes back to ’36 while the CFR list “only” goes back to ’46 and includes the 2010 season it slightly favors teams with more recent success)
LikeLike
Make that the 2009 and 2010 seasons.
LikeLike
Fun video but they should have gotten all the teams involved
Sparty, Gophers, and Big Red got the best of this video
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8154799/mwc-commissioner-craig-thompson-predicts-college-football-playoffs-expand-eight-teams
This is why we can’t have nice things. The MWC commish doesn’t even want to wait for the 12 year contract to end before expanding the playoff to 8. This is why they agreed to such a long deal in first place. To prevent this.
He also complains about non-AQ champs not being guaranteed spots in the 6 host bowls. But he wanted QA status eliminated and he got it. The result is the bowls signed deals with the AQ conferences because that’s how they can make money. Did he seriously expect all 6 bowls would just feature the top 12 in rank order (1/4, 2/3, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10, 11/12)? What ranking would he trust to do that and not just bump non-AQs to #13 or lower?
Then he says in his 8 team playoff, he’d lock 5 spots for the big 5 champs. Didn’t he want to get rid of AQ status?
On a more relevant note, he’s on the revenue distribution committee and he says he thinks there will be an academic component as well considering past performance and current participation.
LikeLike
I think AQ should go away forever. If they did go to 8, you should have 5 (or 6) champs, but they should be the best champs, not the champs of the best leagues. If you had 6, it would almost always be the Big 5 + 1 other champ. With 5, the Big 5 would get all 5 slots the vast majority of the time. So they would have their slots, but it would be because they earned them.
LikeLike
It just seemed to me like a very odd argument for him to make. He went through the fight to eliminate AQ from the BCS and now he wants to add it back to a playoff. Then in 5 years when his champ gets skipped he’ll be fighting to remove AQ status again.
LikeLike
I read the article and what he’s proposing essentially mimics what I’ve written for awhile now. Eight team playoff with the top five conference champions getting autobids as long as those champions are in the top 12 of the rating system used. Three at large teams round out the field with additional at large teams joining it if there are not five conference champions in that top 12.
While the BCS rankings aren’t perfect, we would have seen LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Stanford and Wisconsin in the eight team field last year if they were used. ACC champion Clemson wouldn’t be included because they weren’t in the top 12.
I agree with him that there’s very little chance this current arrangement will last 12 years. Either conference realignment will essentially impose a new system or TPTB are going to look at the money involved with an eight-team playoff and go that route or the idea of having a committee picking the top four teams will be so ridiculous to the college football media and fans that they’ll have to change it. The MWC commissioner isn’t the only one who thinks we’re going to see an eight-team playoff before long.
Why are you bashing him on the AQ thing? He’s just putting forward a playoff system that is like many others–a combination of conference champions and at large bids provide two avenues towards getting into the national championship game. He’s also recognizing that there are five power conferences in CFB–that’s not exactly a revolutionary thought.
FWIW, UM Athletic Director David Brandon thinks there’s another round of conference realignment ahead. See http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-ad-dave-brandon-big-ten-not-looking-to-expand-right-now-but-keeping-options-open/ If he’s right, we could be redoing the whole post season again.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I agree with him that there’s very little chance this current arrangement will last 12 years. Either conference realignment will essentially impose a new system or TPTB are going to look at the money involved with an eight-team playoff and go that route or the idea of having a committee picking the top four teams will be so ridiculous to the college football media and fans that they’ll have to change it.”
There will be a lot of push back from the B10 and P12 and some others about expanding to 8. Getting a long term contract was part of the requirement to get them on board. Many presidents will sympathize with them, too. It’ll take more time with the system to build up enough anger to replace it.
“Why are you bashing him on the AQ thing?”
Because he whined and bitched about how evil it was, and then turned around and proposed to reinstate it. That level of hypocrisy deserves bashing. He could have said the top 5 champs get in with 3 wild cards, but he specifically gave AQ status instead.
“FWIW, UM Athletic Director David Brandon thinks there’s another round of conference realignment ahead. … If he’s right, we could be redoing the whole post season again.”
There’s always realignment ahead, but with so many long term TV deals in place or about to be signed and sever GOR signed, I don’t see a lot of near term shake up for the big boys. The B12 and B10 schools are locked in. ND is happy and someone will take their other sports if the BE dies. The most likely scenario would be the ACC losing 2 teams to the SEC over TV money and then maybe the B10 raiding them as well.
Even if realignment does happen again, there’s no reason to change the postseason. The top 4 are still the top 4, right? You still have to leave room for someone from outside the power conferences, correct? So why would anything need to change?
Even if I-A splits into the haves and have-nots, a final four still works. The CCGs essentially become the first round of an 8 team playoff.
There is no reason why the contract shouldn’t run its course.
LikeLike
Also, when was the last time a BCS contract got blown up like that?
Even this current one is being fulfilled and then replaced with the new system after…
The same thing will happen with this next one. It’s really hard to see how you could get every conference to agree to a uniform set of changes without renegotiating the entire thing.
LikeLike
Two interesting thoughts on filling out the 12 team field re: the Big 10 if in effect the last two years. Been looking at the APTop 25 versus BCS (think it better represents what a selection committee factoring in head to head and SOS) will come up with.
In 2011, #13 Michigan and #12 Michigan State would have been in line for the last at-large. i think a committee would have given it to State based on head to head win and not punishing State for losing a close championship game (SOS argument, i.e., good loss as forced to play another highly ranked team).
In 2010, with Wisconsin safely in a Semifinal. Rose has a choice of replacements of #6 Ohio State or #7 Michigan State (both 11-1 and did not play head-to-head). Who would Rose select? or maybe would Big ten go back to the old school rule of sending the team who has not gone to Rose in longest time – putting Michigan State in the Rose.
LikeLike
Pretty certain there is no 2-team limit in the BCS level bowls anymore, that is why the B10 and SEC wanted more BCS level bowls (7 instead of 5)… Both expect to get 3 teams in the top 12..
LikeLike
JMann,
I agree that a committee would have probably taken MSU over MI, but in part that’s because I don’t think they would have been #12 and #13.
In 2010, the current tiebreakers say OSU goes because they are ranked higher in the BCS. I don’t see the old rule coming back. They could very well let the Rose choose the replacement team (I don’t think they’re obligated to take the official runner up), and that would also have been OSU I think.
LikeLike
OSU would not have been the runner up – they were tied – both were 7-1 in conference and did not play head-to-head. Current tiebreaker is irrelevant as we are talking about a new system and the BCS would not have existed. I kinda see going back to the old rule a good idea – the Rose would have taken MSU to get another team to Pasadena instead of OSU or Wisconsin every year – and OSU would still have been guaranteed a spot in one of the other top six bowls based on their overall ranking
LikeLike
JMann,
“OSU would not have been the runner up – they were tied – both were 7-1 in conference and did not play head-to-head.”
I didn’t say OSU was the runner up. I said they’d win the current tiebreakers to be named the representative. I also said I didn’t think the Rose was obligated to take the official runner up in filling a vacant slot.
“Current tiebreaker is irrelevant as we are talking about a new system and the BCS would not have existed.”
There’s no reason to assume the B10 will change their procedures from the BCS days. I used the tiebreakers they established to name a representative if the actual winner was in the NCG. It’s reasonable to think they’d extend that system to the 4 team playoff.
“I kinda see going back to the old rule a good idea – the Rose would have taken MSU to get another team to Pasadena instead of OSU or Wisconsin every year – and OSU would still have been guaranteed a spot in one of the other top six bowls based on their overall ranking”
I have a soft spot for the old rule too, but those days are gone. It’s all about money now, and that’s why I don’t see that rule returning.
And you say OSU went every year, but that’s far from the truth. OSU played in many more NCGs (2002, 2006, 2007) than Rose Bowls (2009) in the BCS period. They also played in 3 Fiesta Bowls and 2 Sugar Bowls, so lots of BCS games, but only 1 Rose. The Rose would be thrilled to get OSU more.
OSU’s Rose years:
2009, 1996, 1984, 1979, 1972-5, 1970, 1968, 1957, 1954, 1949, 1920
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/8156262/what-recruits-looking-school
A look at what some top recruits say they are looking for in a college. You can smell the BS in some of their answers (94% said academics trumped football tradition and facilities – that must be why Vandy out-recruits AL), but some might be true. 56% said location doesn’t matter, but I notice that southerners seem to prefer the south and such.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8157347/penn-state-nittany-lions-ncaa-says-mark-emmert-questions-school
The NCAA and B10 will weigh in on PSU’s scandal “at the appropriate time.” In other words, after reading Freeh’s report and seeing how much dirt turns up.
LikeLike
I haven’t read the 267 page report, but the reports on his report are indicating it is extremely critical of Penn St. and the culture.
I’m curious how many of his conclusions are deductions and how many are based on what people actually told him, especially with regard to motivation. Did Spanier tell someone he wanted to avoid bad publicity? There’s a wierd comment in USA Today that the report said PSU exposed the 2001 victim to more harm by alerting Sandusky to what McQueary saw when Sandusky was the only one who knew the victim’s identity. I’m not sure what the alternative was (if you don’t know the kid even the police can’t protect him and if the police question him he finds out) and I thought Sandusky already knew McQueary at least suspected something. I just hope this is a thorough report to really understand why this was allowed to go on and clean up the problems and not just a lynch job.
The sad part is people like Sandusky seek out these charities & churches that are there to help kids.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1169808.html
CFN’s preseason bowl predictions. Good news Spartan fans, you’ll finally make the BCS. The bad news is you won’t make the Rose Bowl. The other good news is that USC will make the Rose, and USC always crushes their B10 opponent anyway so MSU is better off in the Fiesta with a chance to win.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/stewart_mandel/?sct=cf_t11_a1
Stewart Mandel has a Mike Slive interview on his podcast. Slive explains the Champs Bowl a little bit more, and says they’ll finalize the details now that the playoff is settled. Andy Staples is also on the podcast.
Also, Mandel answers my 2 main questions about the bowls:
1. If the Rose hosts a semi and the B10 or P12 champ makes the playoff, a replacement team is not guaranteed a spot, although it is likely to get in. If the champ is top 4, it’s rare that the runner up isn’t also top 10-12.
2. When the Rose hosts a semi, the B10/P12 match-up won’t generally be preserved in another bowl, but both teams are guaranteed a spot. Apparently it’s because of contract bowls versus access bowls or some such, but that doesn’t make sense to me. The Champs Bowl will be full, and the Orange at least half full, if the Rose has a semi. Why wouldn’t 1 of the 3 access bowls pair the B10 and P12 champs, especially the Fiesta which we know won’t have a semi the years as the Rose? Wouldn’t that make more money for everyone than splitting them up? Is to protect Boise from having to travel to TX/LA instead of AZ?
LikeLike
Didn’t listen to the podcast, but the whole issue is getting more confusing by the day, especially the media rights issues when a contract bowl is hosting a playoff game as oppose to not hosting one in a given year. Also, who owns the gate revenues and all sponsorship money? I almost get the feeling we could see a scenario where one semi-final on NYE is televised on ESPN, with another semi-final on NYD televised on FOX.
LikeLike
Practically one of the access bowls might usually host Big Ten vs. PAC-12 if neither team is in the semi-finals and the Rose Bowl hosts. The committee will have its choice on where to put teams and it will likely consider the traditional pairing. I think they wanted to avoid secondary contracts in order to keep the bowls as “access bowls.”
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2012/07/12344/12-0-is-a-possibility-chatting-with-phil-steele
An interview with Phil Steele. It’s OSU centric, but talks a lot about his process and the B10 in general. His darkhorse B10 team to win a division – IA.
LikeLike
Actual realignment news
http://blogs.hattiesburgamerican.com/southernmisssports/2012/07/11/hammond-c-usa-looking-to-expand/
Southern Miss athletic director Jeff Hammond said today that Conference USA is still pursuing expansion opportunities after recently bolstering its membership to 14.
“The opportunity for continued expansion for the conference remains active and alive,” Hammond said. “I know the commissioner (Britton Banowsky) is spending a lot of time on that. We don’t want to limit ourselves to set a number on membership. There’s no line that’s been drawn saying that this is a limit on teams.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Hammond admitted that the window is closing on potential expansion with movement a possibility in the next year or two.”
Good to see someone in the know acknowledge that.
“Texas-San Antonio, Charlotte, North Texas, Louisiana Tech, Florida International and Old Dominion will join C-USA in 2013 after the departure of Houston, SMU, Memphis and Central Florida.”
I left that in as a reminder to most of us who have forgotten who exactly will be in CUSA.
“Middle Tennessee State is widely considered the top candidate to join C-USA if the league decides to add more teams.”
I did not know that. Who would be #16?
LikeLike
ULL would probably have the most potential, but they might go for FAU to partner with FIU.
LikeLike
@Brian – Honestly I don’t know who would be #16. I can’t even make a good case for why MTSU is leading for #15. They’re pattern so far this year has been schools in markets (i.e. Charlotte, ODU, FIU) I would expect them to look in Florida (FAU), Texas, Georgia (GSU) or Maryland/Virginia for additional members. IMHO, it would be nice if they would throw New Mexico St a life line. However, being nice isn’t a part of these decisions.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/07/12/penn-state-freeh-report-sandusky-paterno.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
Ugh. I’ll give Freeh credit for being thorough and not favoring his client. Some excerpts from the AP story (I haven’t read all 267 pages of the report yet):
Freeh called the officials’ disregard for child victims “callous and shocking.”
“In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university – Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse,” the report said. Paterno “was an integral part of this active decision to conceal,” Freeh said at a news conference.
…
Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.
The May 1998 complaint by a woman whose son came home with wet hair after showering with Sandusky didn’t result in charges at the time. The report says Schultz was worried the matter could be opening “Pandora’s box.”
Then, in 2001, after a member of Paterno’s staff saw Sandusky in a campus shower with a boy, officials did bar him from bringing children to campus and decided not to report him to child welfare authorities.
“There’s more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time,” Freeh said.
So they all knew about the 1998 incident and covered it up, and then covered up the 2001 incident as well. JoePa knew about both and contributed to the lack of action.
With the report now complete, the NCAA said Penn State now must address four key questions concerning “institutional control and ethics policies,” as outlined in a letter sent to the school last fall.
“Penn State’s response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action,” said Bob Williams, the NCAA’s vice president of communications. “We expect Penn State’s continued cooperation in our examination of these issues.”
The U.S. Department of Education is examining whether the school violated the Clery Act, which requires reporting of certain crimes on campus, including ones of a sexual nature. The report said Penn State’s “awareness and interest” in Clery Act compliance was “significantly lacking.”
Only one form used to report such crimes was completed on campus from 2007 through 2011, according to the Freeh findings. And no record exists of Paterno, Curley or assistant coach Mike McQueary reporting that McQueary saw Sandusky in a shower with a boy in 2001, as they would be obligated to do under the Clery Act.
As of last November, Penn State’s policies for Clery compliance were still in draft form and had not been implemented, the report found.
U.S. Department of Education said it was still examining whether Penn State violated the Clery Act, but declined to comment on Freeh’s report.
It’s never good when the Feds are looking into your business.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1201716.html
Here’s Freeh’s press release about the report.
“As you will read in our report, Penn State failed to implement the provisions of the Clery Act, a 1990 federal law that requires the collecting and reporting of the crimes such as Sandusky committed on campus in 2001. Indeed, on the day Sandusky was arrested, Penn State’s Clery Act implementation plan was still in draft form. Mr. Spanier said that he and the Board never even had a discussion about the Clery Act until November 2011.”
That’s not good.
“As promised, we immediately turned over any relevant evidence we found to these authorities, such as the critical February 27, 2001 emails between Messrs. Spanier, Schultz and Curley. The complete emails are now available on our website.
Unfortunately, portions of these emails have been leaked to the media. We strongly condemn and deplore those leaks.”
For those who were wondering and wanted to see context for the emails.
“Some individuals declined to be interviewed. For example, on the advice of counsel, both Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz declined to be interviewed. Also, the Pennsylvania Attorney General requested that we not interview certain potential witnesses. We honored those requests. Mr. Paterno passed away before we had the opportunity to speak with him, although we did speak with some of his representatives. We believe that he was willing to speak with us and would have done so, but for his serious, deteriorating health. We were able to review and evaluate his grand jury testimony, his public statements, and notes and papers from his files that were provided to us by his attorney.”
No shock that they didn’t interview everyone.
I’m quoting the findings in their entirety to preserve context:
II. Findings
Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.
In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities. Their failure to protect the February 9, 2001 child victim, or make attempts to identify him, created a dangerous situation for other unknown, unsuspecting young boys who were lured to the Penn State campus and football games by Sandusky and victimized repeatedly by him.
The stated reasons by Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley for not taking action to identify the victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the police or Child Welfare are:
(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the “humane” thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.
(2) Mr. Paterno said that “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”
(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only “horsing around.” He further stated that he never asked what “horsing around” by Sandusky entailed.
Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims.
Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, about what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.
The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno’s. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.
Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.
We never had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Paterno, but he did say what he told McQueary on February 10, 2011 when McQueary reported what he saw Sandusky doing in the shower the night before: “You did what you had to do. It is my job now to figure out what we want to do.” Why would anyone have to figure out what had to be done in these circumstances? We also know that he delayed reporting Sandusky’s sexual conduct because Mr. Paterno did not “want to interfere” with people’s weekend. To his credit, Mr. Paterno stated on November 9, 2011, “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”
Their callous and shocking disregard for child victims was underscored by the Grand Jury, which noted in its November 4, 2011 presentment that there was no “attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2 or to protect that child or others from similar conduct, except as related to preventing its reoccurrence on University property.”
None of these four men took any responsible action after February 2001 other than Mr. Curley informing the Second Mile that Mr. Sandusky had showered with a boy. Even though they all knew about the 1998 incident, the best they could muster to protect Sandusky’s victims was to ask Sandusky not to bring his “guests” into the Penn State facilities.
Although we found no evidence that the Penn State Board of Trustees was aware of the allegations regarding Sandusky in 1998 and 2001, that does not shield the Board from criticism. In this matter, the Board – despite its duties of care and oversight of the University and its Officers – failed to create an environment which held the University’s most senior leaders accountable to it. Mr. Spanier resisted the Board’s attempt to have more transparency. In fact, around the time that Mr. Sandusky, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz were arrested, Mr. Spanier was unwilling to give the Board any more information about what was going on than what he was providing to the public.
After a media report on March 31, 2011, the Board was put on notice about serious allegations that Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The Board failed in its duty to make reasonable inquiry into these serious matters and to demand action by the President.
The President, a Senior Vice President, and General Counsel did not perform their duty to make timely, thorough and forthright reports of these 1998 and 2001 allegations to the Board. This was a failure of governance for which the Board must also bear responsibility.
We also found that:
? The Board did not have regular reporting procedures or committee structures to ensure disclosure of major risks to the University;
? Some Trustees felt their meetings were a “rubber stamp” process for Mr. Spanier’s actions;
? The Board did not independently ask for more information or assess the underreporting by Spanier about the Sandusky investigation after May 2011 and thereby failed to oversee properly his executive management of the worst crisis in Penn State’s history;
? The Board was over-confident in Spanier’s abilities to handle crises and was unprepared to deal with:
– the filing of criminal charges against senior University leaders and a prominent former football coach in November, 2011; and,
– the firing of Coach Paterno.
From 1998–2011, Penn State’s “Tone at the Top” for transparency, compliance, police reporting and child protection was completely wrong, as shown by the inaction and concealment on the part of its most senior leaders, and followed by those at the bottom of the University’s pyramid of power. This is best reflected by the janitors’ decision not to report Sandusky’s horrific 2000 sexual assault of a young boy in the Lasch Building shower. The janitors were afraid of being fired for reporting a powerful football coach.
That last bit may be the most damning thing.
LikeLike
Actually the most damning thing, and the one thing I have never seen anyone comment on, is why did it take 17 days to decide what to do (February 10-27)?
LikeLike
I’d say they decided subconsciously on day 1 what to do, it just took time for them to acknowledge it. The minute the cops weren’t called, they’d made their decision.
LikeLike
On 1998, the police knew about it and didn’t indict. Their failure to do anything then (assuming his retirement had nothing to do with it) I can’t really condemn as insensitive since the police decided there wasn’t a crime. It was just stupid. They shouldn’t have exposed the university if it was even a potential issue.
LikeLike
The ’98 Incident. (formatting mine)
http://deadspin.com/5925453/in-1998-jerry-sandusky-told-state-officials-and-university-police-that-he-had-done-this-with-other-children-in-the-past
Sandusky and the boy went to a coaches’ locker room, where the two wrestled and Sandusky tried to “pin” the boy. After wrestling, the boy changed into clothes that Sandusky provided and followed him to work out on exercise machines. When they finished exercising, Sandusky kissed the boy’s head and said, “I love you.” Sandusky and the boy then went to a coaches’ locker room where Sandusky turned on the showers and asked the boy if he wanted to shower. The boy agreed and began to turn on a shower several feet from Sandusky. Sandusky directed him to a shower head closer to Sandusky, saying it took some time for the water to warm up.
While in the shower, Sandusky wrapped his hands around the boy’s chest and said, “Iʹm gonna squeeze your guts out.” The boy then washed his body and hair. Sandusky lifted the boy to “get the soap out of” the boy’s hair, bringing the boy’s feet “up pretty high” near Sandusky’s waist. The boy’s back was touching Sandusky’s chest and his feet touched Sandusky’s thigh. The boy felt “weird” and “uncomfortable” during the time in the shower.
Word of the incident reached police, but no thanks to university officials. The boy’s mother called University police the next morning to report it. He was quickly interviewed by Detective Ron Schreffler, but told the detective that he did not want Sandusky to get in any trouble.
The boy did not want anyone to talk to Sandusky because he might not invite him to any more games.
[Psychologist Alycia] Chambers made a report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line and also consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that “the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving,’ ‘special’ relationship.”
[snip]
The case was evaluated for DPW by psychologist John Seasock, who found no evidence of abuse and “had never heard of a 52‐year‐old man ‘becoming a pedophile.'” The district attorney eventually declined to prosecute, and sources would later say the case against Sandusky was “severely hampered” by Seasock’s report. Seasock would go on to serve as an independent contractor for Penn State from 2000-2006.
The following emails were exchanged after the district attorney decided against pursuing criminal charges.
Harmon, to Schultz:
The DPW investigator and our officer met discreetly with Jerry this morning. his account of the matter was essentially the same as the child’s. He also indicated that he had done this with other children in the past. He was advised since there was no criminal behavior established that the matter was closed as an investigation. He was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child.
Schultz, to Curley, Spanier and Harmon:
They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded there was no criminal behavior and the matter was closed as an investigation. he was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child. I think the matter has been appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between having enough info to prosecute and having enough info to keep someone away from kids. More importantly, Paterno denied ever hearing about the 1998 incident. It’s hard to say you didn’t understand what was being talked about 3 years later when you’ve already dealt with an earlier allegation of the same thing.
LikeLike
That entirely depends on Freeh’s interpretation of certain emails. References To “coach” being anxious or interested in the matter from Curly to Schultz are assumed (by Freeh) to be referring to Paterno keeping tabs on the allegations/investigation. However, Sandusky was also “coach” at Penn State at the time and carried his own obvious motivations for being anxious and interested in how the investigation was proceeding. The flavor changes significantly if you read them as Sandusky inquiring about how his own behavior was being investigated.
Maybe Curly or Schultz would be able to shed light on that, but they’re lawyered up and Paterno of course is dead. So folks are left with whichever narrative confirms their own bias; Paterno remains either a coldly complicit bureaucrat or an unfairly maligned media-target depending on your persuasion.
LikeLike
I saw one report where there was more to what Paterno said to the Grand Jury. Don’t remember the link, but it was something to the effect of “maybe I heard something about it from somewhere but I’m not sure” after that denial that gets quoted in every article. Kind of like the e-mail quotes. People/media are editing to support their slants (if that report is correct you can interpret that as misleading, but it is absolutely not perjury as a bunch of “experts” are claiming).
I remember in my freshman English class when we were asked why we chose our profession. The girl in journalism said, “I selected journalism so I can manipulate people’s opinions.” Its not just posters on message boards that you have to be skeptical of.
LikeLike
We’ll probably never get Curley and Schultz’s explanation of what happened. Even after going to jail, they will probably face lawsuits indefinitely.
LikeLike
Well, they’ll presumably file bankruptcy pretty soon as the civil judgements quickly pile up. They’re bigger concern is probably more criminal charges. Maybe one or both writes a memoir telling their side to be released posthumously.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52941/b1g-to-study-freeh-report-continue-review
A source tells ESPN.com that the Big Ten’s own investigation of Penn State, launched by the league’s presidents and chancellors in December, will last at least until the end of the summer. The Big Ten asked both Penn State and the NCAA for its own legal counsel to participate in investigations and reviews of the school. The league’s presidents and chancellors said in a statement that they “reserve the right to impose sanctions, corrective or other disciplinary measures in the event that adverse findings are made in the areas of institutional control, ethical conduct and/or other conference related matters.”
LikeLike
Damn I hate Delaney. And university presidents and administrators are the most pompous aholes alive.
Just what is needed………….an “independent” investigation…….because, well, there just aren’t enough investigations, trials, and lawsuits as it is.
This thing is already a full-scale disaster for PennStt., and everybody knows it. This is just a chance for them to do a little politically correct piling on.
LikeLike
Don’t get too upset. I’m guessing the B10’s investigation will consist of reading the Freeh report and anything new the NCAA generates. They already sat in on some of the interviews and such.
LikeLike
“One great risk in this situation is a replaying of events from the last 15 years or so in a way that makes it look obvious what everyone must have known and should have done. The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn’t fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events.”
The Paternos continue to avoid reality. The report shows that multiple theoretically sane, responsible adults did in fact cover up for a child predator.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/52993/notes-from-louis-freeh-news-conference
Former players are still drinking the Kool Aid:
Brian Masella, who played for Paterno at Penn State from 1971 to 1975, believes Paterno didn’t purposefully withhold information about Sandusky.
“As a player, if we did anything wrong, he came down very, very hard on us,” Masella said. “Obviously, this is a little bit different of a situation. [Freeh] made it sound like Joe was in charge of everything. He wasn’t. He did not make a lot of the decisions on campus, like everybody thinks.”
Larry Leise, who represents the group Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, places the blame with the trustees and said the only mistake Paterno might have made was following policy of how to report allegations.
“Maybe he should not have,” Leise said. “As a football fan, a lot of times Joe Paterno was a little too strict on his playbook. You could always predict what he was going to do. He was very rigid. What he did was perfectly legal, what he thought in his heart was right. He just wanted to do what the law was and what the policies were. For that, I blame Penn State, I don’t blame Joe Paterno.
“He’s basically the good soldier following orders.”
Really? Joe wasn’t in charge at PSU? He was just a soldier following orders? Even if true, which it isn’t, that defense never works for immoral acts.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/lavar-arrington-joe-paterno-didn-t-know-person-014135658–ncaaf.html
Lavar Arrington isn’t.
LikeLike
Good for him for being willing to change his mind after the evidence came out.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53029/video-may-appalled-by-penn-states-actions
Stuff like this is what annoys me so much about ESPN. Why do you get a former Pitt player to talk about the PSU scandal? Why do they think anyone would consider Mark May a neutral voice on this?
LikeLike
I skipped right over that one on espn.com when i saw the headline. Assume May exposes why thsi would have never happened at his beloved Pitt.
LikeLike
I don’t think he mentioned Pitt, but he was full of righteous indignation as always. You’d think with all the CFB they have on staff they would choose someone that didn’t play for PSU’s arch rival. Maybe they viewed it as a balance to having Matt Millen on.
LikeLike
Matt Millen should be on the moon.
LikeLike
http://tracking.si.com/2012/07/12/freeh-sandusky-football-camp-retirement/
As part of his retirement package, “Jerry Sandusky wanted to run a middle school youth football camp tied into Penn State football.”
“The Freeh Report also includes a handwritten note, apparently written by former head coach Joe Paterno, that states: “Volunteer Position Director – Positive Action for Youth.”
Sandusky was also granted an emeritus title from Penn State. Though his titles were not eligible for emeritus rank, he was granted the title anyway upon the apparent request of then-vice president Gary Schultz’s office.
The emeritus title grants those with it special privileges, including access to Penn State recreational facilities.”
So, he gets a title he isn’t eligible for, plus a lump sum ($168k) and an annuity ($20k annually), and he wants extra access to PSU facilities and young kids. That seems like an obvious package to give a guy under investigation for molestation.
LikeLike
I thought the middle school youth camp was among the more disturbing things in the report.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/12/penn-state-free-report-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0
“Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.
— Penn State athletic director Tim Curley’s e-mail to vice president Gary Schultz at 2:21 p.m. on May 13, 1998.”
For anyone who wanted the direct evidence of JoePa lying.
LikeLike
Brian,
I know you will take me to task. I am no Penn State fan. Quite the opposite. And I think the Freeh report is pretty damning. But I also think that the death penalty is inappropriate.
What are your thoughts?
Anthony
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“I know you will take me to task. I am no Penn State fan. Quite the opposite. And I think the Freeh report is pretty damning. But I also think that the death penalty is inappropriate.
What are your thoughts?”
I’m not in favor of the death penalty here either, but that’s because it just isn’t a fit punishment. The NCAA DP is for repeatedly breaking NCAA rules, especially the same one after being caught before.
I think the punishment hierarchy goes like this:
1. Criminal charges – Sandusky got his, Curley and Schultz are next with Spanier also vulnerable now. Obviously Paterno and PSU are safe from this.
2. Civil suits – PSU and all 4 men (or their estates) will be hammered by all the victims. I expect the living ones to be sued into bankruptcy and PSU to pay out something like $100M or more.
3. Feds – Clery Act violations are a serious problem, and PSU could potentially lose all federal funding (they won’t, but they will be fined or something).
4. Accreditation – If the FB coach told the president and VP what to do, they could be in trouble. I doubt anything more than probation happens, though.
5. PSU – Between firings, losing pensions and possibly losing tenure, there are several things they can do even if only symbolic. Taking down Paterno’s statue might be appropriate.
6. B10 – Do they have rules that PSU broke? I expect a sternly worded public rebuke and nothing more (maybe probation). I’d love to see a “fine” in making PSU put several million a year of FB profits into a fund to support child abuse charities/victim treatment for the indefinite future.
7. NCAA – Is this really an athletics issue? In part, because the desire to protect the FB program was a cause of the cover up, and also because the FB coach had too much power. But much the same thing might have happened if a professor emeritus did these things and TPTB didn’t want PSU embarrassed. Since it wasn’t a current coach being protected, there’s no proof that Paterno overruled the administration about reporting (they all seemed to go along with it just fine), and it wasn’t about NCAA violations I’m not sure the NCAA can or will do much. This all happened long before the new, tougher NCAA policies were enacted.
I’m intrigued by the concept of vacating all PSU’s wins since the 1998 incident, or even since 2001, as that would drop Paterno from his #1 status and drop PSU from the 800 W club. I think a long probation might be appropriate to make sure LOIC isn’t a future issue. I don’t see bowl bans or the death penalty as useful.
LikeLike
I’d thought the references to the Clery Act referred to the laws requiring certain people to report suspected abuses of minors and wasn’t sure if that would apply to university employees. However, it is the act requiring reporting of crimes on university campuses and was inspired by a rape of an 18 year old at nearby Lehigh when there had been dozens of rapes in the area in the preceding 3 years. Its just hard to believe they would be so incompetent as to not implement it.
LikeLike
@bullet [bu2 isn’t fooling anyone 🙂 ] – According to this it does:
http://deadspin.com/5925546/penn-state-failed-to-comply-with-federal-law-for-two-decades
As CSAs [Campus Security Authorities], Paterno and Curley were compelled by federal law to report the 2001 Sandusky incident to the university police department so that it could be included in the school’s Clery Act annual report. Too bad the university never got around to explaining that responsibility to them at any point during the last 20 years.
LikeLike
There are laws that require social workers, teachers and others to report suspected child abuse even if they haven’t witnessed anything. That is separate from the Clery Act.
LikeLike
@Brian
If the NCAA finds fault it’s going to be very hard to punish Penn St. appropriately. Everyone who committed the offences is gone. The death penalty would punish a bunch of student athletes who didn’t do anything wrong (as opposed to SMU). Vacating wins is a nice symbolic gesture, but doesn’t really do anything. If they use Baylor case as precedent, then maybe they will not allow PSU to play non-conference games.
LikeLike
I am in favor of STRONG penalties short of the death penalty whose length really sends a message about the severity of the coverup:
-A 3 year bowl ban
-a 5 year ban on home or neutral site OOC games (this replaces the now defunct TV ban. It would cost the school a ton of money but not affect the B10 conference race)
– a 10 scholarship reduction in their total limit (make it 75 instead of 85) for 14 years. The 10 for the number of Sandusky victims and 14 years to match the length of the coverup.
Don’t let things be back to normal in 3-4 years.
LikeLike
Baylor was a repeat offender, the basketball team was directly involved and it involved murder.
FAMU was also LOIC and involved murder with everyone up to the president fully aware and some even encouraging the beating of both males and females. But it was the band, not sports. The band, with outside pressure, did get shut down. But it took months (until yesterday) for the president to resign. And he didn’t get fired.
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/ammons-out-at-famu-1476579.html
LikeLike
I’m hoping the NCAA doesn’t get involved. Penn State and several officials are going to be under criminal and civil penalties. This is terribly bad, but it’s still only loosely related to the NCAA’s job and I don’t think I want it pushing its authority with this.
LikeLike
It was said that the death penalty would never be repeated after SMU in part, because the NCAA underestimated how much it would hurt other conference members. SMU didn’t kill the SWC, but they definitely hastened the end.
LikeLike
Dr Saturday:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/department-education-could-bigger-threat-penn-state-ncaa-203019718–ncaaf.html
Lack of institutional control — whether the DOE or the NCAA declares it — would devastate Penn State. According to Infante, the DOE has never prohibited a school from receiving financial aid and the largest fine a school has ever received from the DOE is $350,000.
The NCAA has only issued the death penalty once — to SMU in 1986 — and it damaged the SMU football program for more than 20 years. SMU wasn’t allowed to play football in 1987 and all of its home games in 1988 were cancelled. No bowl games until 1989 and it lost 55 scholarships over a four-year period. Only now is SMU starting to have winning seasons, play in bowl games and recruit high-level talent.
So while the release of the Freeh report might have signaled the end of Penn State’s internal investigation, it might be the beginning of the end for Penn State football and the university
LikeLike
I don’t think PSU will get the death penalty, but I don’t the NCAA using the SMU example to never use it again is a cop-out.
SMU was the smallest school in the SWC, a private school, had only 9 winning seasons in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s and was drawing crowds around 30M before the cheating era. They were devastated by the death penalty, but not being included in the B12 is what killed them.
A school like Penn State is a huge state flagship school that STILL has a big fan base and winning tradition and would exit the death penalty as a member of one of the most powerful conferences.
The death penalty would set them back on the field but would by no means kill them.
LikeLike
SMU was terrible when they came back. The sudden loss of a game with short notice and SMU being terrible hurt all the SWC schools financially. The cheating and the focus put on it by SMU’s death penalty hurt all the SWC schools in recruiting.
SMU got what they deserved. Texas, Texas Tech, Rice, Baylor, Arkansas, TCU and Houston shouldn’t have been punished as well just because SMU cheated.
LikeLike
bullet,
To be fair, most of the SWC was cheating too, just not as boldly as SMU and they didn’t all get caught. The money was flying around back then from all sides.
LikeLike
Again, I hope that PSU will self-impose the death penalty on their football program rather than wait for the NCAA. Also, the Big Ten needs to get in front of this process — today they look weak and feckless. How will they punish one of their “kings” who committed the most egregious and systematic assaults on the integrity of the conference in its history? Financial fines are simply not adequate. If you ask any fanbase of any top school that is on probation or is often on probation (e.g. Alabama, OSU, Miami, USC, Auburn, and so on/) would you pay 5 million a year as a “fine” to ensure that the football program is not hurt, I have no doubt that 95% of these groups would say “pay the ticket.” The underlying reason for the reign of terror that PSU nurtured and supported was that: the reputation of the football program could not be sullied. Thus, this is precisely what should be hurt. A fine — 5 million, 10 million — does not place into appropriate context the evil conducted over the past 14 years. If PSU will not impose the death penalty on itself, then the NCAA should (and the Big Ten must endorse this action — not stand mute in the corner — today is the day to show that “Leader” is not a PR fabrication).
LikeLike
Mike,
“The NCAA has only issued the death penalty once — to SMU in 1986 — ”
Dr. Saturday is wrong. The NCAA has used the DP 5 times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_%28NCAA%29
1. The University of Kentucky basketball program for the 1952–53 season.[1]
2. The basketball program at the University of Southwestern Louisiana (now the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) for the 1973–74 and 1974–75 seasons.
3. The Southern Methodist University football program for the 1987 and 1988 seasons.
4. The Division II men’s soccer program at Morehouse College for the 2004 and 2005 seasons.
5. The Division III men’s tennis program at MacMurray College for the 2005–06 and 2006–07 seasons.
LikeLike
Definition of LOIC-Morehouse not even knowing they had a soccer team!
Some of the HBCUs are really loose. A few years back Texas Southern football was playing people who weren’t even in school. TSU and FAMU both have had a tradition of having band members who weren’t in school.
LikeLike
Was U San Fran basketball headed for death penalty when they fell on their own sword?
LikeLike
Rather than lack of institutional control, at PSU the problem is lack of instutional action. The President made a conscious decision not to report the possible crime.
UNC seems more like a lack of institutional control. To give credit for classes that don’t even exist? This is something that the NCAA should deal with. PSU is not directly related to athletics and the courts will deal with PSU very harshly, not just Spanier, Curley and Schultz.
LikeLike
Are any of this technically under the jurisdiction of the NCAA though?
LikeLike
UNC’s bogus classes were primarily, but not exclusively, composed of athletes if that’s what you are referring to.
Some other people have tried to address the PSU issue and the NCAA believes it has some sort of jurisdiction.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53060/more-reaction-to-freeh-report
A great summary of ESPN opinions without having to read the whole articles. The link contains links to each full article.
“Mark Schlabach: If the Freeh report didn’t prove once and for all that Penn State displayed the dreaded “lack of institutional control” in its cover-up of allegations that former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky molested young boys, what in the world constitutes a major violation in the eyes of the NCAA?
Gene Wojciechowski: Joe Paterno, who for so many decades represented all that was good and honorable in college athletics, lied. It’s that simple and heartbreaking.
Don Van Natta Jr.: Joe Paterno did much for Penn State, its student-athletes and its reputation. But the Freeh Group’s crushing report ensures that he will now be remembered more for what he didn’t do about Jerry Sandusky.”
LikeLike
Cal tech cited for lack of institutional control
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/june/california+institute+of+technology+cited+for+lack+of+institutional+control
LikeLike
I thought it would be something like this, but this may be a case of Rose Bowl loss of instiutional control. 1961, 1984, they are overdue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rose_Bowl_Hoax
LikeLike
Not surprisingly, there’s a drool cup shortage thanks to all the Big Ten haters using this tragedy as an excuse to condemn the entire conference or even the entire Penn State University.
Clearly everyone who knew about Sandusky and didn’t act has to be fired, etc. 10, 20, 50 or 100 people if necessary. And yes, they should strip Paterno’s name from anything involving PSU. But any talk of ‘death penalty’ or even suspending the football program is premature. A University that significant should not be destroyed because of the actions of a dozen people. The evil bastard guilty for this will never see the light of day again and Paterno and Co. will be judged accordingly.
LikeLike
I tend to think it’s like bullet said.
This is a case for the legal system and the courts. I’m not really sure what the NCAA should be doing about cases like these. As mentioned many times before, if they get involved here, why shouldn’t they be involved in all sorts of other “primarily legal” issues.
Since when did the NCAA bylaws include enforcing laws…
LikeLike
I’d say Penn State had a pretty significant competitive advantage from 1998 to 2010 when it failed to report that it had employed a pedofile for 30 years.
How many parents send their kids to Penn State football camp, where they were groomed, not to be his victims, but to be future Penn State football players? How many of those kids would have NOT gone to Penn State football camps if their parents knew that Penn State employed a pedofile for 30 years? And where else might those players have gone with their talents if they never went to Penn State camp? Let’s not pretend those camps are altruism. They are a way to ensure the future pipeline.
I know it is a slippery slope if the NCAA considers this issue, but if the NCAA does not consider this issue, it needs to go away forever. They suspended Billy Edelin from Syracuse for 8 games for playing 8 games in a YMCA league. If someone gets free sneakers or a coach sends a text message at the wrong time, it is a major violation.
I don’t think the death penalty is necessary. But there needs to be NCAA involvement. Any college can have football in its proper place with NO football team. Figure out a way to make Penn State have football in its proper place WITH a football team.
LikeLike
Did any of them ever become PSU football players? I think the self interest is in creating PSU fans, not in creating PSU football players, who would be a very tiny%.
The NCAA will do something because it will feel public pressure to do something. There will at a minimum be a reprimand, some sort of probation and required reporting of procedures to prevent any type of recurrence. There may be significantly more. But I just don’t think punishing this sort of problem is its role. In fact, getting into these sorts of things could undermine the NCAA in its relationships with the institutions, overburden the NCAA with compliance issues and interfere with the courts’ efforts to seek justice. And I’m not convinced (I haven’t read the report) that this wasn’t more about protecting the university as a whole more than protecting the football program, as well as a misguided effort to help the person with the problem instead of helping the nameless, faceless victims. What gets hurt more by finding out there was a pedophile loose on campus using campus facilities, the recruitment of football players or the recruitment of non-athlete students? I think its overwhelmingly the latter. It would be interesting to see the stats on admissions for Penn St. in 2011 vs. 2012 and also for next year to see if there is an impact.
LikeLike
‘Overburden the NCAA with compliance issues”???
It’s amusing when people use this reasoning as a justification for the NCAA to avoid acting, as if setting a precedent in the Penn St case means they are going to be faced with handling numerous decade long coverups of violent crime by university administrations.
Punishing PSU doesn’t mean the NCAA has to get involved in every criminal issue at a university that plays sports. It just means that they need to get involved in any criminal issue that approaches or exceeds the scope of the Penn State scandal. I’m pretty confident that is going to be an extremely infrequent occurrence.
LikeLike
NCAA can’t handle what it already deals with. This would be getting into extraneous issues.
Those leaked e-mails were selected to make Paterno look worse, clearly by someone who thought the football program should pay for the problems. They actually had not ruled out contacting the authorities at that point. (Schulz-“we can play it by ear” on informing Department of Public Welfare; Spanier-“but that can be assessed down the road”) But they did no followup. They took 3 weeks to notify 2nd mile who decided not to do anything. They didn’t followup like Spanier & Schulz suggested in the e-mails, but just let it drop. They told Sandusky not to come back with children, but he did and they didn’t enforce it. He assulted at least one other on PSU property after they told him not to bring children. Now they should have notified DPW right away, but they had an idea of how to make sure it didn’t happen again and didn’t follow through.
LikeLike
How about the NCAA agrees to take on every program that has a 10+ year coverup of violent crime like the rape of children, and we free up some of their time by saying schools are allowed to provide BOTH bagels and muffins to recruits, and even pay for bereavement fights home when scholarship athletes lose an immediate family member?
Get some perspective bullet.
LikeLike
There are appropriate forums for dealing with these crimes. And they will.
While its a reasonable assumption that this was primarily to protect the football program, I don’t agree and believe there were bigger things than football threatened that drove the decisions as I have said. I do have perspective. It was a series of horrible crimes and horrible decisions, but it wasn’t necessarily all about sports. The executive summary of the report suggests it was about avoiding bad publicity, but, at least in that part of the report, never says it was about bad publicity for the football program.
LikeLike
Bullet,
The NCAA will do something, but not because of public pressure. Rather, because the whole Sandusky mess is leading to the conclusion that there was inadequate institutional control over Joe Paterno and PSU football activities. Paterno built tremendous power at PSU…Sandusky was able to exploit his associations with PSU football to recruit and victimize boys without timely scrutiny. According to the Freeh inquiry, this was a ‘cover-up’ for at least 14 years.
PSU has done something admirable by having an independent and transparent investigation of a horrific scandal. PSU has a lot of recommendations to consider. PSU and its football program need to rebuild their reputation.
The NCAA has a role in this issue. The growing influence of college football in the overall well being of some universities means that the checks-and-balances provided by independent entities -such as the NCAA- needs to change. It would be great if the NCAA gains perspective from the PSU mess.
LikeLike
I think some university presidents need to get some perspective and some guts. Gordon Gee’s comment about Tressel was inexcusable. Frank Shiver (chairman of the board) forced Darrell K Royal to retire at Texas. He was a whole lot bigger legend than Tressel. The coaches don’t have as much power as Gee implied. The presidents need to simply call the coaches in and stop some of the abuses, liking telling a player after he moved in you decided to give his scholarship to someone else or oversigning or forcing players into medical redshirts. There are ethical coaches. And the rest can be made to be ethical. At most universities, most of the alumni don’t want to have their degree tarnished by a football coach or players.
I don’t know what Spanier was thinking. But if he was intimidated (and I’m not certain that was the reason for his inaction) he had no business being in that position.
LikeLike
Spanier does seem to have been intimidated. A sociologist with specialization in familial and sexual matters should have perfect knowledge on the dangers of pedophiles.
I’m also fascinated with how passion for college football was abused by someone like Sandusky. With hindsight it is easier to explain the human failings of Paterno. Being humane in handling of Sandusky seems to have been one flaw (interesting how this parallels Cardinal Bevilaqua’s actions…or lack there of…in addressing allegations and sex abuse by Philly priests). In order to have a successful football program, Paterno created the environment and culture that enabled Sandusky.
LikeLike
As this story shows (involving Catholic priests-there’s a ND connection, but that’s irrelevant), there’s a reluctance to accept these things. And sometimes a failure to hold people accountable as with the Boston bishop getting an appointment in the Vatican.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_04_Fosmoe_VictimsTale.htm
LikeLike
Wow. *EIGHT* year old news story…where the guy first went public in approximately 25yrs before that. The abuse was in the 70s, and the Church took that creep out of the pulpit soon after the victim went public. Hindsight is 20/20, but we as a society had a lot more hindsight in 2001 or even ’98 than in the late 80s.
Really reaching there, dude.
LikeLike
Leaders left unchecked can cause great damage. I sent a dozen of my students to work for Lehman Brothers. Their careers and families were shattered and they “did nothing wrong” — except work for a company that did a lot wrong. PSU does not have a privileged status, nor do their current athletes or students.
The NCAA should not be involved in a legal issue if a history major robs a bank. The NCAA should not have been involved in the Petrino affair.
However, I will stipulate that in the future, if a university embarks on a 14 year cover-up in which the AD and head coach of a NCAA sport collude with the President of the University to allow and even support and nurture a situation as described in the Sandusky report to continue on campus, using the facilities of the NCAA sport, yes, I believe that the NCAA has an obligation to punish the university and the sport when the cover-up comes to light.
The logic that I have listened to on XM from a few people and on this board is: that the PSU situation is “too important and too serious” for the NCAA to get involved. Makes no sense to me.
It was the AD and the head coach of a NCAA program that was nurturing and supporting this crime for 14 years — and this coverup was done while representing PSU — this was not something they did as private citizens.
You don’t believe that the NCAA should have anything to do with institutional ethics of its members as it relates to the operations of its programs? And the Big 10 does not need to equivocate — our bylaws definitely refer to the ethics of our members.
LikeLike
This is not a too big to fail argument but an argument of jurisdiction. Penn Sate is a criminal matter not a football or university matter, so not a NCAA matter. Just cause the individuals are associated with the football team doesn’t mean it is a football matter. No NCAA bylaws were broken. You can cite institutional control but if the NCAA wades into those waters for Penn State in regards to criminal matters, it then will have too for all criminal matters. Should Florida get sanctions because there were 42 arrests during Meyers years there? I know Penn State’s case is way worst then some DUI’s but you can see where this could go.
As an alumni, I am angry and ashamed of what these men did. I hope that these men all get the special kind of prison justice reserved for child offenders. The death penalty for the football program does nothing but hurt people not involved in this case. Not just the football players on the current team, but the other athletes in women soccer and softball the football money funds. Also all the small businesses that survive like shore towns based on the money made during football season. Should we wipe out an entire town because of four men? For those saying the NCAA should make an example of the PSU absolute power of the football program and how it should be lessened, I ask did the death penalty to SMU stop the paying of athletes? Anyone thinks this case lessens the power of Nick Saban at Alabama? We all want blood right now because of how horrific the crimes were, but the death penalty is not how to get it. The courts is the only way to justice for the crimes that were committed.
LikeLike
I had hoped that our society had reached a consensus about the dangers of a “too big to fail” ethos. PSU is not too big to have one of its sports program go on hiatus for a year or two. All of the other positive aspects of PSU would still continue. PSU showed what it would do for 14 years to support its football program. It was the tail wagging the dog. Want to change the culture — then change it.
LikeLike
Should the NCAA penalize Notre Dame for allowing one of its students to die because the football coach wanted someone up in the crane in a heavy wind? That was a direct sports benefit that resulted in a death because of a reckless disregard of safety. Or is Notre Dame too big to penalize? There’s a lot more of a direct connection and an even worse result with Notre Dame. There was the same pressure to get with the program. The student was afraid to go up but more afraid to refuse to go.
There’s absolutely no consistency in saying PSU should be penalized by the NCAA, but Notre Dame should be free of sanctions.
LikeLike
@bullet
lay off the haterade.
LikeLike
I’m just pointing out Rich’s inconsistency (he’s the one who’s in full hate mode against PSU) by making his same arguments against his school. And Notre Dame did cause a death of a student by gross negligence in a direct benefit to the football program without ANY NCAA repercussions. There have been serious allegations of Notre Dame covering up rapes (which led to a suicide in 2010 and another death connected to the ND football program). No NCAA repercussions. Notre Dame had a pedophile on faculty abusing at least one student in the 70s (although ND wasn’t aware of it and their magazine had the courage to print an article by the victim). These are just facts. These first two situations are more closely related to the NCAA’s mission than the PSU problems.
Now if Rich was a Montana fan, I’d point out their issues and ask why he wasn’t calling for the death penalty for Montana.
LikeLike
@bullet
That wasn’t a rape in that deal in 2010. It was a grabbed boob, and I think I remember hearing over the shirt. Bad? You bet…but not rape bad.
Rectors aren’t technically faculty, not that I’d expect you to know that since Big Ten schools don’t have rectors, AFAIK.
If the NCAA wanted to penalize ND for what happened to Declan, I don’t know too many Domers who’d be too against that. Declan is one of us, after all.
As for the PSU issues, all of this happened to protect the football program. Joe Paterno was given a de facto death sentence for covering it up. Everyone else is looking at prison. Why should the program get away scot free?
I mean, that *is* exactly what the bad guys wanted.
I read here that the Big Ten has rules against playing teams with racially insensitive mascots. But they don’t feel it necessary to get involved here?
Don’t even talk about the kids. We know the NCAA will let them all transfer out.
@rich2
Do I even want to know why you care so much? Big Ten hypocrisy is not news.
LikeLike
Football makes people crazy.
LikeLike
No, people are crazy. Football is an excuse to express their craziness.
LikeLike
Big Ten Pac-12 scheduling agreement shelved.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53126/big-ten-pac-12-pact-dissolves-fans-lose
LikeLike
That’s terrible.
LikeLike
Not to me. I’d rather play 9 B10 games than get stuck playing OrSU, WSU, etc.
It means more rivalry games (WI/IA) and more top match-ups (OSU/NE, MI/PSU, OSU/MSU, PSU/MSU, MI/WI, NE/WI, OSU/IA, PSU/IA). It also means everyone’s schedule is more equivalent as you only miss 2 teams. The extra game reduces the advantage WI and MSU have now with their locked rivals.
It also mean more diversity in OOC opponents rather than always playing a P12 team. That’s a bonus to me.
I will renew my push for 9 games and locking WI/IA (others don’t need 2 locked rivals).
LikeLike
I think 9 games is a given before the new contract. That 9th game will only improve the valuations on the new deal in 2017, especially with Delany and the TV networks wanting quality games in weeks 1-4. If they want to move conference games into the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks, then it’s going to have to be through a 9 game schedule.
LikeLike
One size doesn’t fit all. It simply didn’t work well for all 12 members of both conferences.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian–I’m glad this agreement didn’t come to fruition. Michigan has its annual game with Notre Dame each year, which means the Pac 12 opponent wasn’t likely going to be one of the top tier teams, i.e. USC, Oregon, Stanford or Washington. It would have been something like Notre Dame-Washington State or ND-Arizona instead.
Michigan does have a home-and-home with Utah in 2014/5 and there have been announced pay for play games with Oregon State (2015) and Colorado (2016) with no return dates. The UM-ND series will have a two-year hiatus in 2018/19, so Michigan will have to find an opponent to replace the Irish those two years.
I do hope the Big Ten does go to nine conference games. If that happens, I’d like to see Michigan play either Wisconsin or Penn State from the Leaders Division each year along with one of Illinois, Indiana or Purdue. Ohio State, not surprisingly, is the protected rivalry game.
That leaves Michigan to schedule three non-conference games with at least one opponent in a home-and-home series. Obviously, UM and the other B10 schools will have to coordinate their schedules so that they get the number of home games they want each season–in Michigan’s case, it’s probably seven a year. This may put the whole Michigan-Notre Dame series at risk again depending on how the conference schedule shakes out.
If the series is cancelled, I’d love to see Michigan do what Ohio State has done in the past with home-and-home games against teams like Texas. UM has never played LSU, for example–that would be one hell of a contest.
LikeLike
In his release, I wish Delaney would have stated something to the effect “while we have found an annual full 12 game schedule to be difficult to implement, both conferences will encourage inter-scheduling going forward.” I don’t see the need for it to be all or nothing. Both conferences have OOC slots to fill.
LikeLike
“At least four Pac-12 schools ultimately decided they would not accept mandatory scheduling, ESPN.com has learned. One proposal called for eight matchups per year, featuring the willing Pac-12 schools, but the Big Ten wanted a complete collaboration or none at all.”
I’m with you. I said before I would exempt everyone with a locked OOC rival anyway. But if the others don’t want it, try to arrange a 3 or 4 game series each year. Play them all on the same Saturday and get a lot of coverage without burdening anyone too much.
LikeLike
Just saw this as well. Hopefully, B1G goes forward with 9-game conference schedule. I would rather have that then a mandatory game against a P12 school I don’t care about.
LikeLike
gobux, while I’d love to see more conference games, I understand the home/away thing being a big problem with the 9 game schedule. I’d love to see Iowa/Wisky became annual or near-annual.
LikeLike
Yeah, I understand the problems as well regarding home/away games. As a Buckeye fan, I was afraid some years OSU would be stuck with not to stellar ooc games if B1G/P12 alliance came to fruition. Does this mean the whole alliance is being cancelled? I don’t see why they can’t play in other sports.
LikeLike
gobux,
“Does this mean the whole alliance is being cancelled?”
No, it’s still happening in all the other sports. FB was the only one that presented insurmountable scheduling problems due to the limited number of games and the P12 playing 9 games already.
LikeLike
gobux,
I take that back. I’ve seen some sources say all but FB will continue, but others say the whole thing is off. Maybe without FB the travel costs can’t be justified.
LikeLike
greg,
“gobux, while I’d love to see more conference games, I understand the home/away thing being a big problem with the 9 game schedule. I’d love to see Iowa/Wisky became annual or near-annual.”
The problem is way overplayed by coaches because they don’t look at the math beyond 4 and 5..
Look at it from an OSU POV (2012):
OSU
Locked – @PSU, @WI, @IN, PU, IL, MI
Rotating – @MSU, NE
WI
Locked – @PSU, @PU, @IN, OSU, IL, MN
Rotating – @NE, MSU
Those schedules balance out except for OSU playing MI while WI plays MN. Now add a 9th game. OSU already has NE, MI and MSU, so they have 33% odds each of getting IA, NW or MN. WI has 33% odds for MI, IA and NW.
Roughly equivalent games: IA vs @NW, NW vs @MN
Odds:
Both add equivalent games = 17%
OSU adds a harder game (@IA to vs NW for WI) = 8%
WI adds a harder game = 75%
I’d rather have 4 home games and 5 road games but have equivalent schedules than play 4 and 4 but have harder teams. This is what coaches don’t factor in. 9 games actually makes it more fair for winning the conference. The imbalance that really matters is the 2/3 split in division anyway, and that isn’t going away.
LikeLike
Another one of Larry Scott’s grand schemes collapses under its own weight. I personally think the PAC is going to regret this in the long run. Their decision to pass on the Oklahoma schools last summer effectively boxed them meaning their only real hope for future expansion was a quasi-merger with the Big Ten and this looked like a logical first step.
LikeLike
I’m confused. Are you ridiculing Scott for a plan that you seem to think was in their, and the B1G’s best interest? Wonder if the same schools skuttled the OU deal.
LikeLike
I think a lot of people pointed out that so many of their schools were going to have issues.
The main school with issues was probably USC if I had to point at one.
USC already has the 9 conference games and Notre Dame. Adding a Big Ten team would have ended their flexibility.
Stanford probably wasn’t opposed simply because they had already signed Northwestern for 6 games over the coming years, so it probably wasn’t that big an issue for them.
Utah may have been another opposed, but the word was that the BYU-Utah game was already coming to an end, so I’m not sure about that.
Other schools like Washington State may have had reservations on whether they could have gotten good opponents…
LikeLike
Oregon was probably another one that wanted more flexibility.
LikeLike
If WSU could play ANY B1G school yearly they’d love it. Probably move the game to Seattle Seahawks stadium like they have begun doing for several games a year already. Far more alums in Seattle area than on the Palouse. Can’t see Phil Knight, err UO missing an opportunity to display more new uniforms to a B1G audience. Stanford you might think, but like you said. UCLA? The Az schools? CU? USC…uh yea.
In a broader view I have a bit of a concern that this may reflect a belief (or certainty?) that SOS may not be as important as some have felt it would be regarding BCS 2.0.
LikeLike
I don’t know, but judging by past experience with Mike Leach, my guess WSU is one of the teams that didn’t want to play. Leach (at Tech anyway) hasn’t been one to challenge is teams out of conference.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was just more or less saying, look at the schools that hadn’t jumped on board and signed deals to play Big Ten schools since the announcement was made.
Schools like USC had held out on it, not wanting to tie themselves into this. That’s a part of why Scott tried to back it up and make it 8 v 8 instead of all 12 v 12.
LikeLike
Utah has a home-and-home scheduled with Michigan in 2015/6 and is slated to play Brigham Young in 2013 and 2016. No games are scheduled between the two schools after the 2016 season. See http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/utes/54463741-89/football-game-suspended-rivalry.html.csp
So it sounds like Utah was willing to give up the annual game with BYU to play Big Ten teams on an annual basis starting in 2017. Now that the agreement has been cancelled, Utah is free to restart the series with BYU or play another major team either from the B10 or outside it.
LikeLike
@zeek
I actually you have Stanford and WSU backwards. The fact Stanford signed such a long deal with Northwestern is evidence that they wanted to play Northwestern specifically, not just a generic Big 10 team. After all, ND signed a 6 game contract but no one thinks that is evidence that they have any interest in forming a scheduling agreement with the Big XII.
As for Wazzu, I think they would be the most excited about this arrangement. They don’t have the budget to stock up on guarantee games and have been having so much trouble getting decent teams to play them on a home and home basis they have resorted to selling home games. Even a bad Big 10 team is still better than whatever they could without the alliance.
LikeLike
I disagree on USC having less flexibility than the others. ND is not a locked rival that they can’t choose to replace. It would be one of two ooc like, had the deal stood, everyone else in the conference had. They are in the enviable position of being able to schedule ND yearly, and complain it would be a hardship? Don’t schedule them, others would be more than willing to take on the hardship.
LikeLike
I was just ridiculing Scott for overestimating his leverage again, He seems to have go ideas but he is too far ahead of his bosses.
LikeLike
Definitely seems like we’ll head to a 9 game conference schedule before the 2017 TV agreements get fully in place.
Would increase the TV value for that agreement, which was supposed to come out of this Pac-12 arrangement.
LikeLike
Zeek, I hope your right. I liked the idea of B10 playing 9 game conference schedule.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure. The coaches whined about 9 before and so did some ADs. They used the P12 deal as an excuse to stay at 8 and now I think they want to quietly just stay put. Maybe they replace the P12 deal with a mandate to play at least 1 AQ team OOC every year as part of a home and home series (so the B10 controls half the TV rights – neutral sites don’t help the BTN at all). That gives schools the freedom to play anybody but imposes some quality standard.
LikeLike
While I doubt it’s formal, I think this is essentially what happens. The conference will convince everyone to schedule at least one big ooc game a piece, but will avoid going back to 9 😦
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8163297/pac-12-big-ten-conferences-call-football-partnership
One throwaway line at the end was intriguing to me:
“The Big Ten also could consider exploring a scheduling agreement with another conference.”
ACC games anyone? B12? A rotation between the 2? Half and half every year?
LikeLike
I thought about that, but it seems unlikely because the Big 10 insisted on an “all or nothing” alliance and neither of those conferences has 12 members.
LikeLike
True, but the ACC has 12+ which would give the whole B10 an opponent. Also, if you play 6 against the ACC and 6 against the B12 it’s not an issue.
My problem with being all or nothing is that MI, MSU, IA and PU already have a locked rivalry. Why not play 8 on 8 versus the P12? I assume the real problem is that USC wanted no part of it, and without them there is no value.
I’d actually prefer a bunch of 3 games series versus various conferences with all 3 games played on 1 Saturday. That doesn’t constrain people too much, but provides a little extra juice to a September weekend. They could play 2 each year (B10/ACC week 2, B10/P12 week 3 for example). The real problem is that the ACC and P12 and B12 play 9 games already and may not want a 10th AQ.
LikeLike
Your assumption about USC is pretty much why…
For the Big Ten to get value out of this, USC has to be a part of the football system. That’s the one school whose value as a TV draw you can count on historically, so without it, there’s nothing guaranteed.
LikeLike
I kind of hope they change this into a one week event and make it 5 games. They could take volunteers at that size, but encourage everyone to be involved over time. The night game would be a neutral game where both commissioners are present and the winning conference is given a trophy.
LikeLike
Not sure whether to keep posting this guy or not, but have to hand it to him for being specific.
“The Dude of WV” tweeting FSU to B12 as #11, press conference scheduled for this Tuesday.
The Dude of WV @ theDudeofWV @ hihoze @ JSi07 Its back on again. B12 agreed to add FSU as 11 on Tuesday July 17th at 4:00 p.m.
LikeLike
At this point nothing would surprise me.
But I’d find it hard to see anyone bolt the ACC after they just raised the stature of the Orange Bowl and had discussions with ND over joining the Orange Bowl arrangement…
Really, if anything, the playoff proposal has really dampened the need for ND, FSU, and Clemson to change anything.
If the Orange Bowl deal ends up working out, that will likely shut the door on this round of expansion…
LikeLike
That’s an inside joke on the WV Scout Board. Not sure how it started, but they joke that everything always happens Tuesday at 4pm. The “insiders” are saying its heating up, but as to when, that’s a different story.
LikeLike
The Dude, when he’s not doing inside jokes, is saying on the board (about 15 minutes ago) there is no timetable, only that FSU is working on moving, expects to move and that the Big 12 is unanimous on inviting them.
LikeLike
That last part is why I’d think he’s full of it.
http://wvgazette.com/Sports/201206300077
That was Bowlsby’s interview 2 weeks ago when WVU was formally introduced.
“Gazette-Mail – Are there any active negotiations with any other schools concerning Big 12 membership?
Bowlsby – No.
Gazette-Mail – We’ve heard reports about the 13-year, $2.6 billion television deal with ESPN and Fox. When will the official announcement be made?
Bowlsby – Generally speaking, we’ve already come to terms. [The announcement] will be made in the coming weeks or months.”
Why would they be finalizing a TV deal if they were planning on opening negotiations with FSU less than 2 weeks later?
It may yet happen but the new playoff scenario seems to have thrown a big wrench into the expansion movement by solidifying the ACC’s status and presumably solidifying ND’s status as an independent through their tie-ins to the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
This article provides a good outline of many of the legal penalties and damages that PSU will face. I agree with the author — a self-imposed one-year discontinuation of the football program is one of the few “cards” that PSU can play.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–penn-state-civil-suits-sandusky-victims-cost-joe-paterno-freeh-report.html
To see how this analysis will play out in the court of public opinion:
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8162972/joe-paterno-true-legacy
It would have been so much more effective had the Big 10 been proactive rather than standing mute.
LikeLike
With the B10/P12 deal cancelled, I wonder what this does for OSU.
The proposed 9 game schedule cost OSU a series with TN in 2018-9, and then after the P12 deal was announced OSU and UGA couldn’t agree to a deal to play in 2020-1. I hope OSU calls UGA back and restores that series.
I’d like to play TN too, but their recent drop off makes that less interesting to me and probably Gene Smith as well. I’m not sure TN wants it either right now.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8166643/joe-paterno-statue-remain-penn-state-sources-say
Paterno’s statue will stay up (for now, at least). While they say it’s to take time and not make an emotional decision, some trustees say they have other motivations.
1. They don’t want to lose their BoT spots by angering the alumni more.
Some alumni groups have continued to call for resignations of trustees, and one trustee said this about the statute: “We don’t want to further upset the alumni.”
2. They hope the push to take it down will blow over.
The trustees “are hoping they can have more time pass and people will forget about it and then it won’t come down,” one trustee said.
3. They don’t want to be told what to do by others.
“They don’t get to tell us,” the source said about members of the public clamoring for its removal. “This is a Penn State community decision.”
4. They want it to stay up.
“If I had my way, (the statue) will always be there. People can take from it what they want.”
One gets the felling that the BoT really hasn’t entirely learned their lesson.
LikeLike
I think they are hoping for #2 because of #1. Personally, I think the BoT needs to be ousted either way because (by their own admission) they fail in their responsibilities. They were not keeping a close enough eye what was happening at the school.
LikeLike
frug,
“I think they are hoping for #2 because of #1.”
I’d say #3 and #4 probably apply to an unfortunate number of them.
“Personally, I think the BoT needs to be ousted either way because (by their own admission) they fail in their responsibilities.”
I agree. This is one of those times where maintaining institutional memory isn’t helpful. You want people with no attachment to the old systems and practices that proved so ineffective. maybe with fresh eyes they can better implement Freeh’s recommendations.
LikeLike
Stalling worked for “Legends” and “Leaders”…………….
LikeLike
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=142842
The nation is well and truly split on JoePa.
LikeLike
Interesting contrarian piece. Its written by a Paterno fan but not apologist pointing out facts about the evidence Freeh uses for his conclusions. The argument is that all of Freeh’s key evidence about Paterno’s involvement is based on cryptical e-mails that could have been interpreted very differently, and may not have been related to the criminal acts at all. And of course, Freeh talked to 430 people, but none of those 430 were Sandusky, Schultz, Curley, Outside counsel Courtney, PSU Dept. Public Safety head Harmon, McQueary, the janitor who saw acts in 2000 or Paterno. In other words, he talked to Spanier and 429 people who didn’t really know what actually happened.
http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=219
LikeLike
bullet,
“In other words, he talked to Spanier and 429 people who didn’t really know what actually happened.”
I don’t think the characterization is fair. He talked to people to find out if there were rumors about Sandusky swirling around. He talked to people to find out about who really had power at PSU. He talked to the secretary whose email Joe used to respond to the administrators. He talked to the Trustees to find out what they were told and when. Those are all people who know what happened in regards to themselves and could provide relevant information.
As for the guy not being an apologist:
I now think that it is “probable” that Paterno deserves some level of condemnation for how he handled the Sandusky situation.
It’s only probable that he deserves some level of condemnation, and that’s only after the report came out?
I’ll also note that in his attack on the emails that implicate Paterno, he is missing several things:
1. Freeh has more context for interpreting the emails than we do.
2. In all of the emails in the report, everyone was careful to avoid key words that could be used in a FOIA request. They always leave out names or specific titles. That tells you something about their mindset.
3. Everyone at PSU knows who “Coach” is. Who is he kidding trying to kid by claim that’s an ambiguous reference?
4. The email subject line is Jerry, but the email refers to “Coach” and we’re supposed to believe that means Sandusky?
5. He seems to use an anti-Occam approach. Rather than taking the simplest interpretation, he strings together a series of less likely interpretations of multiple things and claims that makes a plausible case.
I’ll also note that when it comes to something a Paterno defender wants to believe (Sandusky’s retirement was not related to child abuse), suddenly he finds the report more convincing.
Later he even considers Joe’s own recollection of a conversation, combined with McQueary’s, to be weak evidence. If both parties to a conversation essentially agree on what was said, why is that bad evidence?
He even goes so far as to call the report malpractice.
LikeLike
He wants to give Paterno the benefit of a doubt and he’s factual about his comments, but as he says at the end, its possible that there are very bad interpretations. That’s why I say he’s not an apologist. And I had the same thoughts as you about “Coach” when reading. But we have all these people piling on with the worst possible interpretations of every single thing, so it was interesting reading.
LikeLike
On the lighter side, this is the new winner for worst field ever:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19577824/naia-lindenwood-university-no-apologies-for-unusual-turf
LikeLike
On that we can agree. Boise’s field is terribly bad, but that…is somehow worse.
LikeLike
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/at-paterno-statue-support-and-shock/?ref=ncaafootball
This article is full of examples of what is so wrong with the PSU football culture. No form of punishment is going to fix this. Only time can (I’m not sure it will).
John Burgan had not read the results of Louis J. Freeh’s report, and he did not care what it said.
It was just after noon Thursday when Burgan, wearing a navy blue Penn State polo shirt, told his two children they would return to visit the 7-foot statue of Joe Paterno that stands outside Beaver Stadium later, when there weren’t so many TV cameras around.
Handing the bouquet of flowers they planned to leave at the statue’s base to his son, Burgan ushered the children to the car. It had been a long day; they had driven from Atlanta for an annual arts festival, but it was the first time Burgan, a 1985 graduate, had been back since Paterno died in January.
Calls to remove the statue had come after the release of the Freeh report, which said Paterno and other university officials failed for more than a decade to protect children from sexual abuse at the hands of Jerry Sandusky, a former football assistant. Still, Burgan said, the flowers were “out of respect for Joe.”
Burgan said he felt Paterno committed “no wrongdoing in the Sandusky situation.” The Freeh report’s assertion that Paterno had been aware of accusations of Sandusky in 1998 did not change Burgan’s mind.
…
By 4 p.m., with Burgan’s yellow flowers at the statue’s feet, Bill Zammarrelli posed for a photo with the statue. He graduated last December, and though he did not smile, he wanted to post a picture to Facebook to show his support for Paterno.
He hoped it would not be his last picture with the statue.
“If it is, I’ll definitely cut ties with Penn State,” he said. “I love Penn State, but if they do that, that would be the last straw for me.”
LikeLike
You don’t do these sorts of things or name things after people while they are alive for precisely this reason. And you don’t do it for at least a year after they die so the emotion doesn’t make the decision. For example, Houston named an airport terminal after US Rep Mickey Leland who died in a plane crash on a humanitarian mission in Africa almost immediately after his death in violation of such a policy. Leland never did anything for the airport and the last thing I want to think about when flying is someone who died in a plane crash.
IMO they should decide to wait a year before deciding whether to leave it or move it. That will get the emotion out, both from his death for those in favor of keeping and from the crimes for those opposed to keeping, and perhaps to get more facts to get a fuller understanding. But long run, with those quotes, I don’t see how they keep it.
LikeLike
I agree with waiting a while to make a decision. I just wish they did it for the right reasons. I also hope it leads to a formal policy on when people can be honored.
LikeLike
Generally agree on waiting till after death or they have been gone awhile. The Post Office actually used to have a policy that no living person would be on a stamp (it was a big commotion during World War II, when people practically demanded the famous Iwo Jima picture be put on one). With that said, I’m not sure I’d want that as a full policy. Jim Tressel is gone from Ohio State and I’d love to see a statue within the next few years rather than having to wait (hopefully a long time) for his death.
My guess is that after the emotion dies down, it stays around.
LikeLike
This is a balanced story about the NCAA punishing PSU. It looks at both sides and explains the predicament of the NCAA is a neutral way.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-07-14/joe-paterno-mural-halo-painted-over/56228106/1
The statue may stay, but one artist made his opinion clear.
LikeLike
I think PSU needs to play football this year to get past the inevitable circus that will surround the team the next time they play, whether this year or next. That will be the only way to put this thing behind them. The longer they wait to play, the more crazy it will be and more devastating financially to the surrounding community. If they were smart, PSU were give themselves a two year bowl and national television ban. It would keep the team out of the public eye. It would make the BIG happy as all their games could then be televised on the big ten network. And the NCAA can save face by doing something. The libtard columnists that hate college football having more influence than the English department will scream and moan, but they will forget once they don’t see them on tv for a couple of years and find some new case to hold their nose at.
LikeLike
Pretty much, at this point, the only threat is that the NCAA will jump in blindly and swing its hammer around to show everyone that it’s doing something as misguided as that may be.
The risk of that drops dramatically after this season actually plays out, and to virtually nil after next season.
LikeLike
I can’t believe all the flamers out in sports land that think Penn State Football should be shut down for a year or two. Bob Costas now joining the ranks. I just don’t see that happening whatsoever. Then what are they left with? Bowl Bans? Scholarship reductions? Seems ridiculous for the NCAA to then even weigh in. Since PSU has never had any violations I see them going on a very long-term probationary period.
The admins can get Show Cause penalties if they feel it’s necessary. I think the only penalty that’s suits the crimes will be handled by the legal system and not the NCAA.
LikeLike
The one argument that annoys me is the “The result is so much worse than what Miami or SMU did and so the NCAA must punish PSU worse.” Well Notre Dame killed a student in order to film their football practice. That’s a worse result than what SMU did. Should the Notre Dame football team get the death penalty like the student? Of course not. Texas A&M had a total lack of institutional control and promoted a highly dangerous activity in building a bonfire for their football game with Texas that resulted in 12 students dying in 1998. There was no NCAA investigation of that. FAMU’s band which creates a lot of the football revenue with its halftime shows has, with knowledge at the presidential level, had a decades long practice of beating other band members in hazing. They beat one of their band members to death on a bus. There was no NCAA investigation of that. All of these results are worse than what happened at SMU or Miami. All were related in some way to football. That doesn’t mean their football team should get the death penalty.
LikeLike
Agreed completely. The severity of the problem alone tells us little about whether the NCAA should be involved. The more direct an event is related to athletic competition, the more direct the NCAA is involved. Now there is some debate there about how close this was, but simply being a terrible thing does not imply the NCAA has any business getting involved. It was not created to be the justice system over whole schools; it’s just a regulatory body for making sure athletic competitions are done fairly and organized.
LikeLike
Agree with your points guys.
There’s a saying that “tough cases make bad law”. I believe that applies to this situation.
The NCAA cannot competently perform the task assigned to it…ie…create fair competition…..it should refrain from expanding its jurisdiction when it does not have a clear mandate to do so. It’s like the federal govt getting into health care when it can’t even police the borders of the country.
Although I am not a proponent of the Big 10 sticking it’s nose in this mess either, at least that would make some sense…………….given that PSU chooses to be a BIG member, whereas the NCAA is the only game in town……….
I would like to see PSU take some action on it’s own that would get the BIG and the NCAA off the hook here….Perhaps they could do it in conjunction with the BIG and NCAA for purposes of window dressing………
LikeLike
PSU willingly, deliberately, and unapologetically aided and abetted a serial child rapist for the better part of a generation. Any comparison to any previous scandal is ludicrous.
For years Sandusky was allowed to use the football program and its prestige to help fulfill his twisted, demented desires and destroy children’s lives. A clean break from this is warranted; its unseemly to continue with football ‘business as usual’ until this matter is fully resolved.
LikeLike
John A.,
I had not read the board in a week or so. I am glad you posted. You provide an excellent summary: PSU engaged in a systematic and comprehensive 14 year plan to nurture and support Sandusky’s activities. Argument by analogy is ok as long as the analogies are properly constructed. Declan Sullivan at ND, the Texas A&M Bonfire incident and other examples are appropriate if the analogy includes the following: once the incident occurred, the President, AD and Head Coach developed, implemented and executed a plan to obstruct investigations into the incident, allowed the perpetrator to continue to perform his or her acts for 14 years, and support the perpetrator in his or her activities. Trust me, if a truly “analogous” situation comes to light at any of the three universities that I have been affiliated with a student and employee for entire life (ND, Univ. of Chicago and Indiana University) I wlll be leading the charge for those universities to pay a similar price as I demand occurs at PSU.
Again, there are so many more shoes to drop in the situation, PSU has got to self-impose
a suspension of the football program for a year or two in concert with support from
the NCAA and the Big 10. They have got to get in front of this issue. It will not go away. Thursday, July 12 was the beginning of the beginning; not the beginning of the end.
There are 4-5 avenues of inquiry that we don’t know what police and investigators know or will discover when people are deposed under oath: pre-1998 abuse by Sandusky (and what did PSU know about it). The Freeh report really focused on the 2001 event and its investigation reached to 1998. There is still more to learn about Sandusky’s abuse; the Sandusky Golden Parachute; the $600,000 gubernatorial campaign contribution from Second Mile to then AG and now Governor Tom Corbett, and what communications occurred between PSU and Second Mile.
LikeLike
You do realize that ND had an official policy of knowingly and willingly sending unqualified student volunteers into a death trap for a least a decade don’t you?
Seriously, at least PSU (eventually) cleaned house. Swarbrick and Kelly didn’t receive any punishment whatsoever.
LikeLike
FAMU resisted doing anything at all until the governor stepped in and made his opinions clear. Only after that did the president get a vote of no confidence. And he finally announced his retirement a few days ago. And it was after the governor’s comments they finally got rid of the director and suspended the band. Similar recommendations had been made years earlier.
A&M had been reckless for decades and ignored comments over the years that the bonfire as was being done was dangerous. This was an event attended by the football team, football coach and president of the university.
Both had cultures that this was the way we have always done it. So they are very valid analogies.
And of course, Montana has their issue now with the coverup of rapes and sexual assults by the football team. The same allegation was made against Notre Dame, but that is unproven.
LikeLike
What exactly is different between this Penn State incident and those incidents you’ve stated?
Coaches/Admins looked the other way and dangerous activities resulted in horrible things happening.
These are legal issues though; laws were broken in these cases resulting in tragedies (just as in the Penn State case).
The NCAA needs to stick to dealing with competitive issues. Leave the legal issues to the courts and juries.
The last thing we need is Mark Emmert deciding he’s Lady Justice.
LikeLike
The NCAA has conditionally approveded Simon Fraser for Division II. They are considering applications from schools in Mexico as well. Realignment in ten years could have an international flavor.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/19580928/ncaa-close-to-adding-1st-foreign-school
LikeLike
I absolutely do not like that at all. International events are fine, but college sports have always been distinctly American and there a place for that too. They should continue searching for national championships.
LikeLike
Saw a rumour somewhere Pac 12 was thinking about expanding with unnamed, unexpected schools. University of British Columbia anyone? (not that I believe the rumour of expansion at all).
LikeLike
The UNAM Pumas played in the Sun Bowl in ’45 so it’s not unprecedented.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8169124/sources-penn-state-trustees-pressed-ex-chairman-steve-garban-resign
PSU’s trustees are starting to in fight. Everything that comes out makes a few people look worse and worse.
LikeLike
PSU has 32 members on its BoT? No wonder they were slow to respond. It is a bloated committee.
(Of course Illinois only 11 members and they still had their own issues)
LikeLike
“bloated committee”
That’s pretty much a redundant adjective for anything government related.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-delany-big-ten-scheduling-at-ground-zero-after-pac12-breakdown-20120714,0,4272149.story
Delany talking about B10 scheduling after the P12 deal fell through.
“I thought if they could not do it with nine (league games), they would go to eight,” Delany said. “But I guess they had television arrangements that made it stickier to do that.”
While a possibility, dropping to 8 seemed unlikely if you knew anything about their TV commitments. I’m surprised Delany didn’t know they would insist on 9. I wonder if the P12 would have said OK if the B10 stuck with 9 games as well.
Ten conference games, Delany said, would produce “the truest champion.” But it’s a pipe dream because schools want at least seven home games, and some have home-and-home dates with the likes of Notre Dame and Stanford.
I’d rather see 10 B10 games than a I-AA, 2 MACs and a mediocre AQ plus 8 games. The problem is the automatic 5 road games mean the big boys need to buy 2 home games each year so it will lead to worse schedules overall for them.
A nine-game slate last year earned approval – “a majority with reluctance,” Delany called it – despite protests from coaches that don’t want to play five Big Ten road games every other season.
You’d think the B10 would understand the math and explain it to coaches. A fifth road game isn’t always a big deal. If they were smart and set is up so 1 division all got 5 home games and the other got 4 maybe that would help. Then you can’t say it hurts your chances at winning the conference.
I also wish the ADs would tell the coaches to sit down and shut up and play the schedules they are given. Coaches shouldn’t have a say on whether the conference goes to 9 games. That deference to coaches was part of the PSU problem. They need to be treated as employees that work for the AD and president, not as the rulers.
LikeLike
Delany also said it looks like the 7 win minimum for a bowl is dead.
LikeLike
Yeah, I actually like the idea of having all the teams on one side having 5 home games at the same time; would do away with the competition issues…
LikeLike
I’m back from a nice long vacation where I’ve been blissfully out of touch, so I should have a new post up later this week.
Personally, I’d want to see a 9-game conference schedule with the Pac-12 alliance going away. I agree that coaches are generally the worst people to ask about scheduling practices – the only 2 things that they care about are (1) racking up wins and (2) getting into particular recruiting territories. Not that those aren’t important to a program overall, but coaches are inherently provided an incentive to look to the short-term as opposed to the long-term.
LikeLike
I agree. I suspect the presidents/ADs are also reluctant though even outside the coaches. They do probably like the income from a guaranteed home game over another in conference home and home. They are also going to have similar concerns about win/loss over the long term effecting the conference. On top of that, they were waiting till 2017 before. Now with more games scheduled then (some PAC-12 series already scheduled), they might decide if they do it to wait longer.
My guess is that 9 games is dead for now 😦
LikeLike
Eric,
The ADs get income either way. The ninth game ups the TV deals. It’s much better than an OOC home and home in that respect.
LikeLike
I’m not really sure why you guys think the odds are poor for a 9th game.
I’m willing to bet the odds are at least 60-70% that we see a 9th game by 2017. The main reason is the new TV deal.
When the ADs have the numbers in front of them and they’re each looking at a millions extra for an extra guaranteed weekend of Big Ten conference games, the money should overcome the objections from coaches. That’s just my hunch though…
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’m not really sure why you guys think the odds are poor for a 9th game.”
Presumably because they think the people in charge are pussies that are afraid to challenge themselves if they can avoid it.
LikeLike
That’s true Brian, but at the same time we all know how these guys get when there’s more money to be had. They just can’t help themselves if there’s $ in it given the moves that have happened the past couple of years.
LikeLike
http://www.bigeast.org/News/tabid/435/Article/235666/BIG-EAST,-Syracuse-University-Reach-Agreement-on-Syracuse-Departure-From-the-BIG-EAST.aspx
The Big East Conference and Syracuse University today announced that both organizations have reached an agreement on Syracuse’s departure from the Big East and move to the Atlantic Coast Conference. Under the terms of the agreement reached between the Big East and Syracuse, the Big East members will vote, in accordance with the Big East’s bylaws, to terminate Syracuse’s membership in the Big East effective July 1, 2013, at which point Syracuse will join the ACC. In addition to other consideration, Syracuse will make a total cash payment to the Big East of $7.5 million.
LikeLike
How does $7.5M compare to what they were previously expected to pay?
LikeLike
I believe the expectation was 27 months and 5 million. They are getting out ~12 months early for 2.5 million.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07/16/Colleges/BCS-playoffs.aspx
ESPN has agreed to pay an average of $80 million a year for the Rose Bowl, industry experts say, which could push the price tag for the playoffs media rights as high as $600 million for an all-in package that includes a championship game, two semifinals and four major bowls each season.
LikeLike
Very curious to find out what “other consideration” constitutes.
LikeLike
This should be here not in the Syracuse thread.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/07/16/Colleges/BCS-playoffs.aspx
ESPN has agreed to pay an average of $80 million a year for the Rose Bowl, industry experts say, which could push the price tag for the playoffs media rights as high as $600 million for an all-in package that includes a championship game, two semifinals and four major bowls each season.
LikeLike
Is this (80MM) all the B1G and PAC will get for the game? Does the Rose Committee get to keep sponsorship and ticket sale revenue?
Isn’t ESPN paying 100MM per MNF game? Isn’t the Rose at least on par with a MNF game?
LikeLike
Two things: 1) the difference was way bigger before; it was like $60M for MNF game to $30M for Rose Bowl before; that difference has shrunk a lot. 2) ESPN pays for way more content than just the weekly MNF game, they get rights to put the weekly and Sunday shows up, NFL Countdown show, NFL Live, etc. That deal is also going to potentially include the rights for a NFL playoff game every year. That playoff game is going to be huge value to ESPN.
You’re comparing Apples to Oranges here.
The important thing is that the MNF deal increased 73%. The Rose Bowl deal increased 167%.
If you strip out the extra things that ESPN gets with its MNF deal, the Rose Bowl is basically being paid the same amount for the game itself.
LikeLike
@Mike – The Rose Bowl earned a 10.2 U.S. rating last year compared to an average of 8.4 for Monday Night Football.
http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/12/30/espns-monday-night-football-ratings-down-nearly-10-percent-from-2010/
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/01/bcs-record-low-rating-for-the-rose-bowl/
Part of the higher price for MNF is the premium of buying a program that draws that high of ratings over the course of 17 weeks. That allows for ESPN to recoup much more from advertisers and subscriber fees compared to the once-per-year Rose Bowl. There are also other rights built into the MNF package, such as the NFL Draft and, most importantly, widespread video and replay rights (which is key for ESPN since they have so many NFL-related programs and platforms both on TV and over the Internet).
LikeLike
They are expecting the Champions Bowl to be in the same range. When interviewed just after the announcement, DeLoss Dodds said he had heard esimates in the $40 million range. But he seemed skeptical about it being that high. These numbers have to be a surprise to everyone.
LikeLike
Its interesting that this does NOT include the playoff years. Its worth $80 million without a playoff game and in many years without the conference champions (who may be in the playoff).
LikeLike
That’s especially important to the fact that the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowls will get to host their games 10 of the 12 years if they each only have 2 semifinals.
That’s also why the 4 conferences are going to make sure they only have to host twice each…
LikeLike
Essentially, the Big Ten and Pac-12 are each guaranteed $400M over the 12 year cycle from just the Rose Bowl contract.
LikeLike
The Champions Bowl will get maybe the second or third rated SEC team and the Second rated Big 12 team. I have doubts this game will command any where near $80 million without any history, tradition etc.. The conferences also have overlapping markets with Texas. The SEC will also have to share the proceeds with 14 schools vs. 10 for the Big 12. I wonder if they will split that 50/50????
Makes me wonder if the CCG’s are undervalued at around $25 million.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8170790/penn-state-nittany-lions-new-jerry-sandusky-accusers-say-abuse-dates-1970s-report-says
And the hits just keep on coming. 3 new Sandusky accusers have come forward, all from the 70s and 80s. The statute of limitations has probably expired, but it goes against the defense’s argument that you don’t just become a pedophile that late in life.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8169773/penn-state-nittany-lions-paternos-conduct-own-review-freeh-data
Unable to leave things alone, now the Paternos are making a review of Freeh’s report to show Joe was a saint.
“A source close to the Paternos estimated that it may take months, even years, for the Paterno family’s team of lawyers and independent experts to conduct the review of the Freeh report.”
Do you really want to bring this up again in months or years? Who believes a report sponsored by the Paterno’s will be objective?
LikeLike
They should hire the same investigative team OJ hired to find his ex-wife’s killers.
LikeLike
Ridiculous. Any involvement they can have in this kind of effort can only be negative. At this point, just be silent and let time pass. That’s pretty much the first rule of media relations after something like this.
LikeLike
One thing that kind of occurs to me (in retrospect) about the recent Boise State reluctance to commit to leaving the MWC for the Big East. It seems obvious that Boise would have loved for the Big 12 to swoop in with an offer to them (and probably Louisville) to join their conference and expand to twelve teams. What’s a little strange about this is two or three years ago this would have seemed delusional. Now (if you’ve followed conference expansion) this sort of thing seems normal and is largely taken for granted, honestly to the point where it seems barely worth mentioning.
LikeLike
Paternoville is dead. Long live Nittanyville!
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/penn-state-football-after-freeh-report-paternoville-to-change-name-1092071/
LikeLike
I’ll be very interested to hear about the time slots for semi-finals. What has been works out fine if you have one New Years Eve semi-final and one New Years Day, but with the Rose Bowl and Big 12/SEC bowl hosting less often, I wonder if they are willing to have 2 semi-finals on New Years Eve. If we assume that the Rose and Big 12/SEC host twice each and the Orange Bowl hosts 6 times, then you’d only need 2 years with 2 semi-finals on New Years Eve and I could see that working out.
On the other hand though, there was mention of the Rose and Big 12/SEC bowl possibly hosting in the same years. If that’s the case, is the plan to have 2 semi-finals on New Years Eve 4 of the 12 years?
My guess is this really hasn’t been fully worked out although the New Years Day timeslots have been promised to the Orange, Rose, and “Champions”
LikeLike
I think you are right that a lot hasn’t been thought out. They’ve had a small group holed up in a room and now have to expose it to outside thoughts.
I don’t think those timeslots have so much been “promised” as “claimed.” The Big 10/Pac 12 staked their claim on the traditional Rose slot and the Big 12/SEC staked their claim on prime time and intend to challenge anyone who dares challenge them.
LikeLike
Well it’s going to be interesting.
On the one hand, you have the 4 conferences claiming the timeslots and then stating that they’ll only host 2 semifinals each, so they get to guarantee huge revenue streams in 10 of the 12 years.
The other question is what the ACC/Orange Bowl will do; will the ACC also want 10 years of guaranteed revenue streams? What about the Orange Bowl though? Wouldn’t the Orange Bowl rather host up to 5 or 6 years?
Once you answer what happens to the ACC and Orange Bowl, the rest falls into place.
LikeLike
zeek,
“On the one hand, you have the 4 conferences claiming the timeslots and then stating that they’ll only host 2 semifinals each, so they get to guarantee huge revenue streams in 10 of the 12 years.”
Not true. They’ve said they aren’t sure how many they’ll host, but I’ve seen nothing official about how many they will host.
LikeLike
If the Rose and Champions only host semis 2 of 12 years, they have pretty much set up a bidding process among bowls wanting to be in the semis. They had one before, but this intensifies it. If they split it evenly, that’s 5 of 12 years. If the Orange only wants 2, that’s 6 of 12 years.
LikeLike
Yeah the logistics of all this are completely in the air. Everyone wants their cake and eat it, which will probably result in some backwards scheduling process. You will probably have some years with 2 semi-finals on New Years Eve, some years with 1 semi-final on NYE/NYD each, and then other years with both semi-finals on New Years Day.
In order to build the brand of the playoff semi-finals, they’d be better having them both on one day
LikeLike
Mark Emmert talks possible sanctions against PSU. He doesn’t rule out the death penalty.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8171574/jerry-sandusky-scandal-ncaa-president-mark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state
LikeLike
I would be absolutely shocked if the NCAA gave Penn St. the death penalty. Because Penn St Football doesn’t live in a vacuum, you can’t punish PSU without wreaking havoc on college football.
For arguments sake let’s say PSU gets the death penalty. I also assume that the Big Ten won’t get a waiver to hold a conference championship game with 11 members since the NCAA hasn’t allowed it before. Does the Big Ten stay at 11 football members until PSU comes back? Would the Big Ten would just let their championship game and check go? It shouldn’t cost Michigan, etc. ~$2MM in revenue because of Sandusky. Do they expand and take a school to replace PSU and then settle on 14 when they come back? Kick out and replace PSU? In almost every Big Ten expansion scenario, some school gets raided from the Big East. Why should the Big East suffer through another raid and ensuing instability due to Sandusky?
IMHO, the NCAA will realize the collateral damage of the death penalty is too great and decide on something else. I think a Baylor like punishment of no non-conference for X years along with scholarship reductions and vacated wins is what they will settle on.
LikeLike
The collateral damage of SMU’s death penalty surprised everyone. There are enough people around who remember how much it hurt the rest of the SWC. This had nothing to do with the rest of the Big 10. It didn’t even directly have anything to do with the PSU football team (except the crimes Sandusky did while still a coach-and that is clearly not within the NCAA’s purview anymore than Petrino’s drunken driving-only PSU’s response).
If hypothetically it happened, the Big 10 would get a waiver. And if hypothetically they didn’t get the waiver, they could borrow a MAC school for a year.
Its appropriate not to rule anything out at this point in time, but I don’t think it will happen. But as one article put it, the NCAA if nothing else, is arbitrary and inconsistent. I wouldn’t even try to guess what they will do.
LikeLike
And that doesn’t even account for all the other things now. Penn State football was estimated to have a $40M impact on the community annually in the 80s.
Now imagine a 100k stadium shut down, Penn State’s budget cut down massively for the interim, all those outlays (Title IX and all) that are required for their 30 or so sports…
College athletics as a whole is so much more complex than it was when SMU was shutdown; to put a big operation down like Penn State would have an impact several times that of SMU…
LikeLike
That is the classic “Too Big To Fail” argument and you might be right but that also implies CFB is “Too Big To Control” beyond wrist slappings and punishments far uner proportion to the offense.
LikeLike
It’s not that they’re “Too big to control” it’s that the control must be done to limit damage to ‘innocent’ parties.
LikeLike
frug,
“Mark Emmert talks possible sanctions against PSU. He doesn’t rule out the death penalty.”
He didn’t really say anything. He said everything is on the table, which it should be, but also said nothing will happen until PSU responds to his letter. Emmert has no direct control over the investigative and punishment groups, either.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/07/report-air-force-cincinnati-to-cancel-future-football-series/
This is interesting, Air Force just canceled an upcoming series with Oklahoma St. and is now calling of a series with Cincinnati. While Air Force says that OSU and the Bearcats initiated both cancellations, it means that Air Force now has only Army and Navy on its OOC schedule from 2014 on. Speculation is that they are clearing their schedule for a possible move to the Big East along with Navy.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8174934/jerry-sandusky-scandal-penn-state-nittany-lions-say-answer-ncaa-days
PSU says they’ll answer the NCAA’s letter in a few days. I think this is wise. It’s better to get this over with now then bring it up again in a few weeks or months. Maybe the NCAA will decide whether or not to charge them with something before the season starts. They could even decide on penalties this fall.
LikeLike
I really think this is one of those situations the NCAA should stay out of. They are treading dangerous waters if they are thinking of severely penalizing PSU.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8175462/jerry-sandusky-scandal-penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-passed-reform-2004
PSU’s BoT considered governance reform in 2004 but were basically stopped by Spanier and Chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin. It would have added more oversight and could have stopped some of the later attacks as well as better prepared PSU to deal with the investigation.
LikeLike
Hello nicce post
LikeLike