Do You Guys Know How to Post Videos to Facebook? Why Mark Zuckerberg Should Buy a Sports Network

Posted: August 3, 2012 in Olympics, Sports
Tags: , , , , ,

As we watch coverage of events at the Olympics that occurred 8 hours ago, social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter happen to be among the largest beneficiaries of the London games. Whether it’s complaining about NBC callously deleting a tribute to victims of terrorism from the Opening Ceremony (and then continuously digging themselves into a deeper hole again and again and again trying to justify the decision) or lauding the record-breaking Michael Phelps, we’ve seen further proof that what was once considered to be a solitary activity of sitting on a computer or checking a smartphone has actually been powered by large events that many of us experience together. Indeed, Bill Simmons asked Mark Cuban a few months ago at the MIT Sloan Analytics Conference about whether social media is eroding TV viewership, to which Cuban responded with a strong negative and used a line that ought to be plastered all around Silicon Valley: “Television drives social media.”

The irony in a world that is increasingly geared toward on-demand viewing and the use of time-shifting devices such as DVRs is that the events that are shown live and can draw large aggregate audiences watching them all at the same time have skyrocketed in value despite overall TV ratings being down. As I noted last year, sports leagues have arguably gained the most from this phenomenon since they not only draw large live audiences, but get the hardest-to-reach (and therefore most valuable) demographic of age 18-34 males. Advertisers still pay a significantly greater premium to reaching a lot of people in the same place, which is something that on-demand services and online streaming websites haven’t been able to replicate.

On the flip side, there’s suddenly a whole lot of bearish attitude toward the revenue generating capabilities of social media sites, particularly Facebook. Yesterday, Facebook’s stock dipped below $20 per share for the first time and is hovering around 50% of its initial public offering price. A large part of Facebook’s problem is that its most valuable asset (the exhaustive treasure trove of wide-ranging personal information of its users) cannot be fully and effectively leveraged on the Facebook website itself. Targeted ads based on information that you plug into Facebook always sounded great in theory, but the issue is that clients such as General Motors haven’t found such ads to be very effective. At the core, we don’t log onto Facebook seeking to click on Internet ads, buy products or even glance at banner messages, so no matter how targeted a particular ad might be, it’s ultimately a shot in the dark as to whether we will even notice it. Contrast this with Google, where its ads that pop up in connection with search terms has shown to be fairly effective and profitable since people that are searching for products are often looking for ads. The much smaller social media player of Yelp! has been rewarded by investors on a similar basis, where its content of restaurant and business reviews by users naturally draws in people who are going to notice advertising.

The upshot is that Facebook’s asset of user information is actually more valuable for advertising platforms other than Facebook itself. Hmmmm. What’s the one advertising-delivery technology that we have found to be inextricably linked to the use of social media webstites? Television. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. of the Wall Street Journal made the argument even before Facebook’s IPO that Mark Zuckerberg’s baby ought to buy ABC, CBS and NBC based on a number of the arguments that I outlined above. I’d take that one step further and say that Facebook’s optimal purchase would be a sports network where live events are able to drive a disproportionate amount of (a) watching commercials as they are aired as opposed to avoiding them via a DVR and (b) social media engagement on Facebook itself, which in turn creates more valuable personal information for Facebook to leverage and creates a self-sustaining profit cycle. As the Internet increasingly becomes the mechanism to deliver programming to television sets as opposed to cable and satellite*, Facebook would receive a further advantage by being able to use its information to have targeted TV advertisements that will surely be coming down the pike and can’t easily be avoided during games (unlike ads on the Facebook site).

(* To be clear, this needs to be distinguished from on-demand viewing and streaming. What I’m talking about here is “form” as opposed to “substance”, where the pipes that actually deliver television channels to your home will increasingly be via the Internet. That doesn’t mean that the Internet will eliminate television channels themselves, but rather your cable and Internet bills will effectively merge together into one at a higher price if you want to receive premium content. This is already an explicit goal of the Google Fiber project in the Kansas City area that will create Internet connections that are 100 times faster than what are currently in most American households. As much as chord-cutting and a la carte options have gained in popularity, those episodes of Mad Men or Breaking Bad that you might be watching on NetFlix or Hulu would never have been produced in the first place if there wasn’t the basic cable subscriber fee model that exists today. Therefore, if we want to continue to receive the content that we see on TV today, it isn’t going to come for free. Those TV program producers will have to raise the same amount of revenue if they want to create that type of content, so I’d envision a shift to “channels” along the lines of ESPN3 that are websites that charge Internet providers a subscriber fee similar to today’s basic cable subscriber fees. At the end of the day, we’re going to have to end up paying the same amount whether it’s for cable or the Internet for the same amount and quality of content.)

Jenkins noted that AOL cashed in its chits to buy “old media” company Time Warner back in 2000. It’s really quite amazing that all of those AOL trial disks that I used for beverage coasters back in college ended up paying for properties such as Batman, Bugs Bunny, CNN, HBO, TNT, TBS, the Warner Bros. studio and the Atlanta Braves. As we well know, AOL went from the most dominant force on the Internet to the Ariana Huffington-run blogger sweatshop that it is today in fairly rapid fashion, so it certainly made the right choice to use its sky-high valuation to buy tangible media assets when it did. With the way that the price of Facebook stock has been plummeting lately, Mark Zuckerberg ought to pounce on Disney (ESPN), News Corp. (Fox Sports) or Comcast (NBC Sports) while he still has the chance.

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

(Image from The Hollywood Reporter)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Hawks.

    Like

  2. joe4psu says:

    add

    Like

  3. Christian in Wylie says:

    Hook ’em

    Like

  4. bamatab says:

    Roll Tide Roll!

    Like

  5. frug says:

    With the way that the price of Facebook stock has been plummeting lately, Mark Zuckerberg ought to pounce on Disney (ESPN), News Corp. (Fox Sports) or Comcast (NBC Sports) while he still has the chance.

    Where in the world is Zuckerberg going to get the cash to buy one of those? Those are enormous companies and I doubt investors are going to rally behind guy whose company has lost half its value in six weeks especially since the last great attempt to fuse new media and old media (AOL-Time Warner) is now considered the most disastrous merger in the history of American business.

    Like

  6. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

    Like

  7. joe4psu says:

    Very good news for PSU today. Running backs Curtis Dukes, Akeel Lynch and linebacker Mike Hull are said to be staying. So far 8 have left, 2 of which would have started or seen significant playing time. There are at least 70 scholarship players committed to staying and still a few unknowns.

    Like

  8. Bo says:

    Urban Meyer is going to destroy Michigan and their obese coach.

    Like

  9. I’m sure all of you will be interested in this: here’s an in-depth look at the back-and-forth between the NCAA and Penn State leading up to the announcement of the sanctions last month. The original position of the NCAA was to punish Penn State with a 4-year death penalty:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8228641/inside-secret-negotiations-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I just finished reading that. It’s amazing how some of those trustees still don’t get it.

      “This was such overkill,” one trustee says. “It’s like walking around with a dagger in you. Emmert and the NCAA are basically ruining this university. They are destroying the school.”

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I don’t know that I disagree with that comment. I don’t disagree with Penn State taking them given the options, but I still agree with the trustees in that this was uncalled for from the NCAA (now from the legal/civil system, I’d have no problem with the fines being so severe the school was basically shut down).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Eric,

          The part I was commenting on was him saying the NCAA is ruining the university and destroying the school. The football program isn’t the school, or at least it’s not supposed to be.

          I’d also say comparing NCAA sanctions to be stabbed is hyperbolic at best. Walking around with a dagger in you will generally result in your death. I don’t equate PSU having bad football teams to people dying.

          Like

    • frug says:

      This just reiterates that PSU’s BoT is just way to big. Losing control of the message lead people to believe they had voted to accept the Freeh report before they had even discussed it, not being able to brief the whole Board about the sanctions agreement before Erickson agreed to them and not following up on after they were briefed about the Sandusky situation.

      PSU’s BoT has 32 members, they should have half that many at most.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Don’t know if this was already posted:
      http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-07-29/Ed-Ray-discusses-Penn-State-penalties/56579482/1

      Emmert’s comments are a reason this should have gone through a more normal procedure. “I was so appalled at just the thought….I really started at this from the scorched earth approach….” You had a bunch of CEOs, and CEOs tend to be impatient shoot from the hip types, who were reacting like a lot of message board posters. This was so horrible we have to burn down everything in Happy Valley. It sounds like it was more of that than the, “we have to do something or the NCAA will look bad” approach, although I’m sure that was in a lot of their minds.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The if this leaks threats in the previous article are another reason this should go through a normal process. They held a gun to Penn St.’s head so much they were afraid to talk to their whole board. Penn St.’s board is still dysfunctional with help from the NCAA. There’s a clear structural problem there.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        Emmert’s comments are a reason this should have gone through a more normal procedure. “I was so appalled at just the thought….I really started at this from the scorched earth approach….” You had a bunch of CEOs, and CEOs tend to be impatient shoot from the hip types, who were reacting like a lot of message board posters. This was so horrible we have to burn down everything in Happy Valley. It sounds like it was more of that than the, “we have to do something or the NCAA will look bad” approach, although I’m sure that was in a lot of their minds.

        The results defeat your argument. Cooler heads prevailed and PSU didn’t get the multi-year death penalty.

        You have never shown that a different process would have likely resulted in a different outcome. The NCAA waited over 7 months for an investigation to take place, looked at the results, and then a committee met and made a punishment decision. This is not much different from the standard procedure, just with different groups of people investigating and forming the committee. People say PSU didn’t get due process, but they consented to the outcome. Plea bargains negate having your day in court, too. That is due process. PSU could have said no and fought the harsher penalties but they chose not to. Individuals didn’t get to defend themselves, but that wouldn’t have happened with criminal cases in the works anyway. Besides, the NCAA didn’t punish any individuals.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          The NCAA basically blackmailed them. And the committee was doing it because they were mad about what happened instead of rationally looking at things. Now the enforcement group has never been known for rationality….

          Cooler heads only prevailed because PSU prostrated themselves and repeatedly pointed out who else would be hurt by the proposed 4 year death penalty. It had nothing to do with what the NCAA was doing. It had everything to do with what Erickson and their representatives were doing.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “The NCAA basically blackmailed them.”

            That’s not how I see it. Ray says they never threatened PSU with the death penalty. Any negotiation can end if one side leaks details.

            “And the committee was doing it because they were mad about what happened instead of rationally looking at things.”

            Pure speculation. You can be mad and still punish rationally. You are assuming that only penalties you agree with would be rational.

            “Cooler heads only prevailed because PSU prostrated themselves and repeatedly pointed out who else would be hurt by the proposed 4 year death penalty.”

            You can’t know that. We have no alternate reality to compare against.

            “It had nothing to do with what the NCAA was doing. It had everything to do with what Erickson and their representatives were doing.”

            Isn’t that how criminal defendants get the best treatment as well? Admit what you did wrong and beg for mercy? I fail to see the problem with this.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Using the term scorched earth? That’s clearly not rational thinking.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Scorched earth can be a rational strategy.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            NCAA looks like the criminal organiztion here.

            That is the way the Mafia and Stalinist states behave………and the EPA.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          LOL at your “cooler heads prevailed” bullshit……..

          Like

  10. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8231167/joe-paterno-family-sends-letter-demanding-appeal-ncaa-sanctions

    Yet again the Paternos make asses of themselves. This time they are demanding an appeal of the NCAA sanctions against PSU.

    I don’t know why they think they have any standing to demand an appeal. PSU was punished, not JoePa. There are things like this: “[Paterno family lawyer] Sollers also complains that the Paterno family was not given proper due process by the NCAA before the organization rendered its judgment.” Since when do the families of employees of a school have any due process rights from the NCAA?

    Am I the only one that thinks less and less of JoePa every time these clowns release a statement? They just keep reinforcing how right the Freeh report was about the culture at PSU and how important things like a wins record are to these people. It makes me think JoePa valued that a lot more than he ever claimed to, and makes it seem more likely that people would do unusual things to help Joe get the record.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Actually, the Paterno’s estate might be the only potentially plaintiffs who would actually have standing to sue the NCAA and PSU for the sanctions. They could argue that the vacation victories has harmed their ability to market Joe Pa’s image (i.e. no longer say a product is associated with the winningest coach in history).

      Like

      • frug says:

        I should clarify that

        A. The Paterno estate could only sue regarding the loss of victories
        B. It would be really hard to prove the loss of victories itself damaged the estate
        C. Even they could prove damages they would still have to prove the victories were vacated improperly.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        Since the NCAA sanctioned PSU, not JoePa, and PSU accepted the punishment, why would the Paternos have grounds against the NCAA? The explicitly said they weren’t punishing individuals yet, and they vacated all of PSU’s wins during that period, not just JoePa’s.

        Wouldn’t the Paternos have to sue PSU for consenting to the sanctions? At most they could get an injunction against the NCAA preventing them from officially stripping Joe’s wins yet.

        As for cause, my understanding is that you can’t generally sue for hurting the reputation of a dead man. The Paternos can still license gear labeling Joe as the all time winningest coach. The NCAA just won’t agree with them about his status. I fail to see how they have cause.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t think that’s relevant. That’s all ancillary.

        I don’t think they have any grounds, but I don’t hold it against the family. Its their Dad. Their family. He made a really big mistake, but he did a lot of other good things. Its not the same as trustees behaving the same way.

        Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Oh please, please, please do it!

      I for one am looking forward to somebody in that vile nest being foolish enough to actually open the door to giving the NCAA subpoena power.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Let’s make a deal. Give the NCAA subpeona power……….and open up the NCAA to subpeonaes………I’d love to know the internal discussions that went on here……who said what to who

        Like

  11. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8229459/university-florida-coach-aubrey-hill-resigns

    A UF coach with ties to the Miami scandal quit to deal with personal issues and not be a distraction to the team. That sounds like the NCAA, and thus the media eventually, is swarming around him. methinks there is some fire behind the smoke here.

    Like

  12. Carl says:

    PSU is ineffectual 😦

    Like

  13. RayF says:

    I see it the other way around, Disney buys Facebook. Actually I see Comcast buying Facebook. Comcast already has high speed cable internet to each house plus their cable business.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Comcast is already working with Twitter for the Olympics, so I’m thinking that’s who they’d go after.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, it’s a bit late for Facebook to pull off what AOL pulled off unless it plans to triple its share price in the next year.

      AOL was valued at around $200 billion and able to pull off that deal.

      Right now, Facebook has stumbled out of the gate and is worth around $40-50 billion. They could only be bought out by the big media companies, most of which are worth closer to $100 billion.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Market Capitalization of FB vs. Media companies as of 4:00 PM on 8/3

        Facebook: $45.18 B

        Comcast: $92.61 B
        Walt Disney: $88.96 B
        News Corp: $56.95 B
        CBS: $22.44 B

        Admittedly, he wouldn’t actually need to buy all of Comcast, Disney, or News Corp. to do what Frank is suggesting (just NBC, ABC/ESPN or Fox Broadcasting), but I as I said above, I just don’t see how Zuckerburg is going to find the money to buy one of those companies (and I can’t see Disney or Rupert Murdoch selling their prized possessions for that matter).

        Like

  14. Morgan Wick says:

    I can’t agree with your parenthetical; there’s been some pretty good shows paid for entirely with ads.

    Like

  15. Brian says:

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1208220.html

    CFN’s list of dangerous non-AQ teams this year.

    Upset alerts for the B10:
    8/31
    MSU/Boise

    9/1
    PSU/OH
    IL/WMU

    9/8
    OSU/UCF

    9/15
    NE/AR St
    MN/WMU

    9/22
    IL/LA Tech

    9/29
    PU/Marshall

    Like

  16. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8234080/madison-police-say-wisconsin-rb-montee-ball-was-present-fight-prior-attack

    The plot thickens in the Montee Ball attack. Now it seems that the attackers were seeking revenge for a fight from the previous night with football players. Ball was present at the fight location on Friday night but wasn’t part of the fight apparently. At least 1 person was treated at the hospital after the Friday night fight.

    Like

  17. MIKEUM says:

    I like this article. FB needs a platform partner beyond social media to grow further. It reminds me of how email grew from a novelty at the end of the 90s to the standard, and then relegated socially by FB. It is the standard now in biz. FB was indeed overpriced at IPO and that was in part due to valuing its future possibilities in an unknown frontier, rather than today. The market has downpriced it because FB is not leveraged yet. I would say that “television” is secretly searching for another platform to leverage its product because it is already maxed ou conventionally. Hence, FB with its potential penetration has the leverage over television at this time regardless of current market value. Television has the upper hand in sports obviously but future broadcasting over another medium could crush convential television. TV also has alot of baggage and cost with it as well that web-based/direct delivery does not. It is not trying to fill every 24 hour period with content.

    Like

  18. zeek says:

    http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_21241613/mark-kiszla-150-000-olympic-bonus-missy-franklin

    Olympic bonuses tied up by NCAA for the younger swimmers competing (would Ledecky be considered a professional when she applies to college?)

    I think the NCAA should probably overlook the Olympic bonuses. It’s a fairly controlled situation, and they could probably decide to overlook these without blowing up the notion of amateur athletics (as much of a farce as it is).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      I’m sure the NCAA’s concern is the slippery slope. Is it OK only for the Olympics? What about World Championships? What about sports that don’t play in the Olympics but have other major competitions? If bonuses are OK, under what conditions? It’s pay for performance, and once that gets into the NCAA it will take root in football and basketball.

      Like

  19. Great Lake State says:

    Why this guy didn’t time the public offering to coincide with ‘The Social Network’ release, I don’t know. All the early adopter types had begun to abandon it as passe by the time they got around to it. Once again the ‘smart people’ underestimated the knowledge of the average Joe. They thought if they hyped it enough the rubes would buy in,desperate to own a piece of cool. Facebook was anything but cool when it offered and anyone with kids or any sense cultural phenomenons sensed it.

    Like

  20. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Pre-Season #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  21. ccrider55 says:

    I hate to say it, but I wish ESPN (anybody but “everything is a personal story that needs to be shown to the exclusion of actual competition coverage NBC) was broadcasting the Olympics. Seriously, if I see another Phelps interview I’ll puke. I’ve gone back to watching the crawl or checking online for results. Perhaps a collaboration. ESPN covers the competition and NBC does the fluffy stuff.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      But then we would miss Ryan Seacrest telling us who leads the twitter universe. Of course, he never even mentioned the Dude of West Virginia.

      Like

    • Craig Z says:

      ESPN would do the same thing. The Olympics draw a lot of people who don’t normally follow sports because they like watching that sort of thing.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Well they lose me, at least for a while. I change channels as soon as that stuff starts, even to NCIS or Big Bang Theory, and sometimes I don’t turn back until that episode ends.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Craig Z,

        “ESPN would do the same thing. The Olympics draw a lot of people who don’t normally follow sports because they like watching that sort of thing.”

        The thing is, nobody knows that for sure. We’ve been stuck with NBC coverage for so long everyone has adapted to it. There’s no competition, so nobody knows if a different style would do better. We know the time delay would probably stay for business reasons, but they might well show more events and less schmaltz. The key is showing the events that women and casual fans will watch. I don’t think there is much proof that having only 15 minutes of competition in an hour of coverage (25 minutes of ads, 20 minutes of crap) is the best way to do it.

        Like

        • Craig Z says:

          ABC used to do the same thing when they had the coverage. Lots of stories about athletes coming from a war-torn country or overcoming some personal tragedy. In some ways it is the forerunner for reality shows like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. The audience sees the competitors behind the scenes in an attempt to give more of a rooting interest.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They used to discover a story during the Olympics, and then tell it. Now we are “treated” to pre packaged stories that are injected into (and instead of) the games.

            I’m proud to say I’ve never watched American Idol or Dancing with the attention hounds, other than when passing them changing channels.

            Like

        • As I noted in a separate post, I’ve seen a very large difference between the coverage on over-the-air NBC compared to the cable networks. Generally speaking, I’ve enjoyed the cable networks since they have largely stuck to the nuts-and-bolts of straight-forward sports coverage. For instance, I was a large fan of Bravo’s coverage of tennis. Over-the-air NBC is where we’ve seen a lot of melodramatic schlock.

          Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      ONLY way to watch the Olympics is to tape the whole thing, then skip over any event that has the word “synchronize” in it……..as well as all “heats” and interviews.

      Like

  22. bullet says:

    I’m kind of offended by the homerism to the exclusion of the competition. They keep pumping the Americans and then as an afterthought (in the events Americans are contenders) mention the people who eventually win. If you don’t follow the individual sports closely, you have no idea who should do well. At least in swimming you could tell something from the lane assignments and NBC did give some limited info.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Agree. It isn’t about the Olympics. It is about promoting the ultimate sporting event to not necessarily a sports market for max profit.

      I can’t wait til they show fluffy crap throughout the Super Bowl (sarcasm). I think/hope the NFL is smart enough to control/limit that stuff during the actual game as part of the contract.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      What can you say? They know their audience. Most Americans only care how the USA does in events except for a very few high profile events.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Human beings are all about “the tribe”.

      If a Russian network was broadcasting the games we’d see nothing but Rooskies. China…nothing but Chinese.

      I don’t mind American networks showing us American athletes. I am generally less interested in an event if no American athletes have a chance to medal. That doesn’t mean I have no interest….just less.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        I don’t think this is as true in many other countries. For instance, I’ve heard that the BBC and CBC tend to be much more impartial in their coverage. Granted, they usually have fewer rooting interests as well (though Canada has a lot in the Winter Olympics, yet even there, they’re a lot more balanced than NBC).

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          You can’t compare BBC to NBC…………if PBS were broadcasting the olympics it would look like BBC.

          You need to compare NBC to the SUN or the GLOBE or whatever

          Like

  23. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8236899/will-fuller-decommits-penn-state-nittany-lions-picks-notre-dame-fighting-irish

    Another bad weekend for PSU. They lost their best returning receiver in Justin Brown (OU), and then a 2013 WR decommits. I mention this not to kick PSU when they’re down but to comment on the recruit. From the article:

    The switch came on the heels of last week’s visit to Penn State, in which Fuller reaffirmed his commitment there. He tweeted July 28 that he was “100% committed to the greatest college.”

    It’s nice to see that commitment means something to him. He waited a whole week to switch to ND after being 100% committed.

    “Top notch education really tipped the boat for me,” Fuller told ESPN.com’s Dave Hooker in a text message. “They have a 98 percent graduation rate for players.”

    That’s a bad reason not to go to PSU. They are also a top school and had a very high graduation rate under Paterno.

    Fuller also said the NCAA’s sanctions on the Nittany Lions didn’t play a role in his decision, but, he added, Notre Dame offered him in response to the issues at Penn State.

    In other words, the sanctions did play a role.

    The 6-foot-1, 163-pound Fuller was the lone Penn State commit who was recruited as a wideout.

    Most important from a PSU point of view is this, probably. They still have 6 months to recover, though.

    Like

  24. Phil says:

    The NY Daily News had an article late last week saying the numbers being talked about for the NBC-Big East deal are $14mm per school. The acting BE commissioner went on Cincinnati radio and said the new BE deal could exceed the current ACC in both revenue and exposure.

    Obviously, that would be great for the BE schools, and the Big Ten has to be just salivating at the idea their eventual huge payday, but I was interested what the impact would be on a couple of other conferences if the Big East does do so well in their deal.

    If there are factions within schools like FSU and Clemson that are already unhappy in the ACC, what happens when they realize they are making the same amount of money for their regular season football games as SMU and Temple?

    It is obvious (after the Pac12 and BE evidence) that the best thing a conference can do for their TV revenue is getting their rights out on the open market. Can the ACC leadership survive the fact that they tied up their rights for an additional three years just to get Pitt and Syracuse?

    Rumors were the Big 12 was in the middle of (or had already completed) redoing their tier 1 rights deal with ESPN. The big question, since this deal was running out in 3 years, is WHY??? Why wouldn’t they wait and see what they can get on the open market three years from now? If you are a school in the Big 12 not named University of Texas, shouldn’t you be concerned that Texas is pushing an ESPN renewal as a payback for the Longhorn network deal?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Why? Get the money now instead of 3 years from now. Latest rumours are $20.6 million per school. SBJ article estimated $19.2, Neinas said it would be $20 million or more. Those numbers make them competitive with the Big 10 and Pac 12, comfortably ahead of the ACC and, for the moment at least, ahead of the SEC. Only the Big 10 has a renewal coming up anytime soon. There’s no guarantee the market will be better 3 years from now. People thought real estate would always go up. Atlanta average home prices are at 1990 levels.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        Three years isn’t a long time. When the Big Ten added Nebraska, they didn’t redo their ABC/ESPN deal, and that had a lot more left on it than 3 years. The Big Ten wasn’t going to delay their chance at the open market.

        The housing comparison is not a good one, You can look at a lot of indicators (like rent) and see that housing values were getting out of touch with reality. The fact that sports are watched live is only making them more valuable.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I’m with bullet on this. If you’re keeping up with the Joneses, and only 1 conference has an open window any time in the 2010s, you should probably be more strongly willing to sign on into the 2020s without waiting for the next 3 years…

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Me too………this economy is not the same American economy of the last 50 years. It could crash anytime…..esp. if a certain you-know-who someone gets reelected.

            Like

        • I think the bigger risk in waiting is a broader slowdown in the cable TV industry overall where today’s high basic cable subscriber fees (which have been powering the money behind all of these TV sports contracts) wouldn’t be sustained. So, the best comparison would be how banks and mortgage lenders made lending standards so lax that it artificially drive up housing prices. It’s not the houses themselves that were the issue, but rather the collapse of the financial underpinnings that were fueling the housing bubble that caused a housing price crash. The same thing could arguably happen to the cable industry, where the financial underpinnings that allow for high payments to sports leagues could end up collapsing. Personally, I don’t believe that will be happening in the near future, but that’s still a risk that people should be aware of.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I don’t expect a collapse (but technology could change all that), but I think the days of continuous big increases are over. There’s starting to be a lot of price resistance by customers and new options.

            Like

    • texmex says:

      IMO the only way the BE can get remotely close to the ACC is if NBC overpays for its coverage..which it might. I believe the Big 12 wanted to have a deal in place for their Tier I content to have ammunition to market themselves for prospective expansion candidates.What I like about the Big 12 TV deal is they split Tier I and Tier II (ESPN vs Fox) so they are not beholden to just one network. What I don’t like about the Big 12 Tier I deal is it’s still regional in nature. Every Saturday 2:30 telecast is a regional broadcast. What they needed more than anything is to make sure their Tier I content has an exclusive national window

      Like

      • Phil says:

        That’s the whole point, the Big East is going to be overpaid because they got to market, and based on the leaked Neilsen ratings report the Pac 12 was overpaid for the their content as well.

        I understand your expansion point about the B12, but I still don’t agree with passing up that chance. Let’s look at NBC, if they do sign the big but unimpressive Big East, they will now control a lot of content, but when it comes to “marquee games” they only have the 7 Notre Dame home games and the odd Boise St game. The Big 12 tier 1 package is the perfect complement for NBC! Pick up those additional 18 games and now NBC has a lot of Big East content, centered around their coverage of the marquee programs ND, Texas and Oklahoma.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          We could see NBC arranging more ND-BE matchups if they get the BE, though (could we see the Irish on the blue turf of Boise, say, in a 2-for-1; that would be so awesome to see. . .especially when Boise scores 10 touchdowns on the Domers).

          Like

      • Eric says:

        I have a hard time seeing the ACC contract being more per team, but given the increasing football contracts, I could see it being not terribly far away (and more total, just not per team). I could also see it being a lot weaker than predicted here. Timing is a big key here though and the Big East will be hitting it at the right time if the bottom doesn’t fall out of the economy in the next few months.

        Like

  25. bullet says:

    Another long, but interesting article on NCAA new eligibility requirements for HS seniors. They are trying to cull out athletes who have no business in a 4 year college and are requiring a certain number of relevant courses in HS. Right now 15% of athletes would not be eligible, but 35% of fb players and 43% of bb players would not be eligible.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8236949/ncaa-increases-minimum-eligibility-standards-division-student-athletes

    Like

  26. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8240385/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-file-appeal-federal-lawsuit-denial

    At least 4 PSU trustees plan to appeal the NCAA sanctions, mostly as a way to set up a federal lawsuit when the NCAA rejects their appeal.

    1. Do 4 of 32 trustees have any right to overturn the boards decision to accept Erickson signing the consent decree?

    2. Since a consent decree was signed, why wouldn’t the NCAA say no?

    3. Will these people ever understand how bad they look?

    Like

    • frug says:

      1. Not sure

      2. Trustees and a person with first-hand knowledge of the discussions said the move is a precursor to a federal lawsuit that will ask a judge to invalidate the sanctions, because trustees expect the NCAA to reject the appeal.

      3. They seem to believe that the PR hit they have already taken is so severe they have nothing to lose.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        At this point I am not sure what they expect to happen. They don’t have to accept the penalties. As has often been noted when it comes to suing the NCAA, it is a voluntary association. PSU could refuse the penalties, they would just have to give up NCAA membership as well. Could Penn State argue that they don’t realistically have a choice when it comes to joining the NCAA, since they basically have a monopoly on college athletics?

        I just don’t see any result that would help PSU or change anything, unless other schools were also upset, but that does not seem to be the case.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Ross,

          The state already told PSU they couldn’t use state funds to pay their fine. I’m guessing they can’t use state funds for this lawsuit, either. I’m sure they can get donors to pay the legal costs, but perhaps only if it’s anonymous.

          “Could Penn State argue that they don’t realistically have a choice when it comes to joining the NCAA, since they basically have a monopoly on college athletics?”

          The NAIA is a perfectly valid alternative, it just doesn’t have any other major schools and doesn’t make much money.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Insurance will cover their legal costs for lawsuits. They’ve already mentioned that.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Have none of these people spoken to a PR representative? I seriously question if they understand how bad it looks to just keep dragging PSU through this whole disaster again and again.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            They did say that, but I saw/heard somewhere that one of their insurance companies said they wouldn’t cover the lawsuits because PSU withheld pertinent information that would have changed the terms of the policy.

            Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t think anything will come of it, but I do have respect for them for it.

      Like

  27. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/54890/wisconsin-unveils-alternate-uniforms

    WI copied NE’s alternate uniforms. That should be a nice ugly on ugly game.

    Like

  28. bamatab says:

    It looks like the SEC & Big 12 have sent out RFPs (request for proposals) to 10 cities for the bids on the “Champions” Bowl. The cities are Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, Orlando, Nashville, Tampa and Jacksonville. I still personally think it’ll come down to Dallas and New Orleans. While supposedly Atlanta has stocked up $13 million for the bidding, apparently New Orleans has stocked up $40 million for their bid.

    http://blog.mysanantonio.com/big12/2012/08/san-antonio-among-10-cities-asked-to-bid-on-champions-bowl/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Interesting list of cities. I notice Miami didn’t even make the cut. I doubt Phoenix is high on the SEC’s list of preferences. I can’t imagine Jacksonville or Nashville winning. I’m guessing SA is a longshot. That narrows the list to Dallas, Houston, NO, Atlanta, Orlando and Tampa. I don’t think Tamps wins, and probably not Houston either. That makes it Dallas, NO, Atlanta and Orlando.

      I hope Dallas or NO win for history’s sake (my prediction is they share the game).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t see them going to Florida, both because of the distance and because of later bowl games. Its Dallas, New Orleans with Houston as the longshot. Atlanta is home of the SEC championship game. I don’t see the SEC wanting to be in the same place twice.

        Like

      • bamatab says:

        Yeah, I doubt the SEC wants the game in Phoenix. I also doubt that the Big 12 really wants the game in Florida. I doubt the Big 12 wants it in Atlanta either, not to mention it appears that Atlanta would get outbid by at least New Orleans if all Atlanta has in its “war chest” is $13 mil, compared to the $40 mil that New Orleans has. I also doubt that San Antonio has $40 mil stashed away to outbid N.O. That leaves Houston, Nashville, Houston, & Dallas. I think most SEC & Big 12 fans would prefer not to sit in the freezing cold sleet & rain for their bowl games, so I’m guessing that is a big strike against Nashville. Even though they probably could, something tells me that Houston isn’t as willing to spend the money that N.O. and Jerry Jones are willing to spend. I’d love to see it alternate between Dallas & N.O., but for that to happen they’d have to put it up for bid yearly, which I don’t see happening. In the end, I think it’ll come down to a bidding war between the two of them.

        Like

  29. frug says:

    http://www.medalspercapita.com/

    Check out the medal count scoreboard adjusted for population and GDP. Also allows you to weight the medal count (4 points for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze).

    Based on these numbers, Jamaica has been the most impressive country so far (i.e. through 8/6).

    The US and China, on the other hand, have basically done what they would be projected to do based on their size and wealth.

    Like

    • frug says:

      I’ll add that Jamaica has always done very well in this measurement going back to at least 1984, so they will probably finish the games near the top this year also.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        Though unless you are the host country, isn’t there basically an upper limit on how many athletes you could bring? I realize not all of the athletes that fail to qualify would even make the finals, but considering how small the differences can be in a lot of events, I think the fact that you can only bring so many into each event makes this metric less relevant that it would be otherwise.

        Plus, look at the U.S. in gymnastics. 3 of the top 4 in the qualifier, yet only 2 can attempt to medal. That’s at least one instance where the U.S. would very likely have picked up another medal but could not due to the rules.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Yeah, the caps on competitors/teams per event does skew the results (if the US could send three basketball teams to the Olympics they would be, on paper at least, the three best teams in the world), so it isn’t even close to a perfect measure, but it does show how some countries are simply more efficient at winning medals than others.

          Like

          • frug says:

            I’ll amend my previous statement slightly, the 12 best American players not on Team USA would still be the second best team in the world on paper, and the next 12 best American players would compete for a bronze, but might have some trouble.

            Like

    • @frug – Thanks for the link. I was just thinking a couple of days ago that India had to be the worst performing country at the Olympics on a per capita basis by far and this confirms it.

      India’s problems with being competitive in the Olympics fascinate me. One would think that the sheer size of their country would mean that even without Chinese-style training programs or the resources of the US, they ought to be able to win more medals just on a random basis. How is there not a single elite runner (either short or long distance) or gymnast in a country of 1.2 billion people? Why haven’t they even done well in events that are more technical and don’t necessarily require superhuman athletic ability? Is there anything that India can do to change that?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/neither-the-will-nor-the-cash-why-india-wins-so-few-olympic-medals/260693/

        This article does a pretty good job of summing up India’s issues.

        From my parents (from India), I’ve pretty much learned that it’s an issue of inefficiently identifying potential Olympic athletes. In many other countries without the money that the largest/wealthiest countries have, they have some sort of natural national sport or pastime that translates well into Olympic medals. In India, outside of field hockey that doesn’t really exist (and India got effectively priced out of that).

        The things that set the US and China (of late) apart are that the two countries do such a good job of identifying athletic talent. In the US, great athletes get put on tracks early on (once they’re first found), that put them on a collision course to eventually hit the big time stages in their sports whether Olympics or professional. In China, they basically just take the best young athletic talent and train them in their programs while hiring the best coaches and building out the best facilities.

        In India, there’s nothing even remotely close to that. The kids in India that play sports are mostly shuffled into cricket (since it’s really the only major lucrative professional sport there). Everyone else is shuffled through testing for advanced schooling that are so hard to get through anyways.

        What India really lacks is the sports architecture that the US has in place for 10-17 year olds. The US has all sorts of travel leagues and AAU basketball that naturally feed into the NCAA when the kids get to college age.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      While interesting, and I realize that’s the point, clearly there is a flawed underlying theory to his numbers.

      Why should medals track with population or GDP? For population to be totally correlated, people in every country should be equally interested in all Olympic sports and all sports would need to be treated equally. The Olympics would need to stop placing arbitrary limits on the number of athletes from one country and the medals should extend beyond the top 3 places based on the number of competitors.

      GDP is totally screwy. Not all sports require much money to train (running versus tennis, for example), and many athletes don’t live or train in their “home” country. Why doesn’t the US GDP count for all the foreign athletes that our colleges and other coaches train?

      Finally, you have the small and large number problems. Division by a small number of medals gives a very noisy ratio. Likewise, extreme large populations or GDP make it impossible to get low ratios based on the limited number of medals available.

      I’m sure with a lot of work a more sensible formula could be constructed, but why bother?

      Like

  30. Brian #2 says:

    In a CNNSI roundtable discussion, three of the four writers (Mandel, Staples, and Dietsch) believe an eventual SEC Network has the best chance to catch on nationally out of all conference networks.

    I thought this was a surprising answer given the Big Ten’s head start, but Staples made a good point that the SEC is the league most fans watch when they aren’t watching their own conference.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/richard_deitsch/08/06/college-football-tv-roundtable/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a3

    Like

    • bullet says:

      My opinion of Mandel just dropped. He likes Musberger???? And he likes Herbstreit as well. Herbstreit doesn’t make me turn the channel like Musberger, but he’s definitely low on my list.

      Like

    • Ross says:

      I may be more likely to tune to the SEC than any other conference outside of the B1G (as a Michigan fan), but that does not mean I would ever demand access to the SEC network. I am just not sure they have a large enough alumni base outside of their footprint that would really demand the network.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I don’t get what they mean by catch on nationally…; the Big Ten has plenty of subs outside of the footprint.

        The SEC will as well, but neither is going to get carriage anywhere outside of the footprint. So why exactly is this even a consideration at all?

        Like

        • Kevin says:

          The only games fans of other conferences want to see are the “National” games that are already broadcast across the country via CBS or ESPN etc… I can gaurantee that a SEC network or BTN would never get basic carriage beyond the footprint. Sports Tier sure but not basic or digital subs.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Zeek & Kevin:

          The BTN is on basic carriage outside the footprint on various carriers. DirectTV and AT&T U-Verse come to mind. Evidently Dish Network as well. I believe Verizon FIOS too.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Fair enough, but I mean among local carriers in other states. No one’s going to get localized carriage outside of the footprints. Not the Big Ten, and not the SEC…

            This whole issue of which network would be more national is foolish; neither will be…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Zeek:

            Not sure how the PTN will work. They signed up a bunch of local carriers. Don’t know if they will put the PTN on basic outside their footprint.

            Like

  31. Brian says:

    http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=163

    Some info about the Orange Bowl and such.

    “But there is more to it than that. OB officials are talking to other conferences, looking to arrange a rotating group of four or five opponents from either the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Big East, as well as Notre Dame, as part of the opponent rotation for the ACC opponent.

    The tentative plan would simply be to invite the team with the highest ranking as the ACC opponent.”

    I don’t see them all agreeing to this without a guaranteed chunk of the revenue. Especially because the Orange wants some freedom to not strictly follow the rankings but to cherry pick popular teams that will sell tickets and draw viewers.

    “Speaking of ND. The Irish and the ACC continue to focus on a deal which would allow ND to play 6 games a year against ACC teams in exchange for getting full membership in the ACC in all other sports.

    The sticking point would be in basketball. Putting together a schedule for a 15-team league is much tougher than doing it for a 16-team league. Talks will continue….”

    I just don’t see ND agreeing to 6 ACC games annually. I wonder if the ACC could redo their TV deal a little with 3 guaranteed home games against ND every year.

    “The Big East is close to setting up its 2-division configuration for next year, but don’t expect it to be strictly geographically based”

    Also, the BE expects to get more than $14M per team per year due to NBC and Fox trying to get more CFB content.

    Like

    • greg says:

      ND would certainly agree to play 6 games annually.

      Whether they actually do it is a whole other issue.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        greg,

        Yes, yes, supposedly ND didn’t live up to their deal with the BE. Was it in writing, because the BE has never pushed the issue?

        Still, take the default ND rivalries (USC, Navy, MI, MSU, PU, Stanford) plus scheduled games against BYU, TX, etc and it’s hard to see them playing 6 ACC teams each year. Sure BC, Pitt, GT and Miami fit them nicely, and other ACC teams would work for them as well. I just don’t see them wanting 6 per year every year. Maybe if the deal is for 4.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          6 out of 14 schools? Eh. They typically play Pitt and BC virtually every year anyway. They probably wouldn’t mind the ‘Cuse all the time if the Orange hold their home games at the Meadowlands. FSU half the time. GTech and Miami maybe half to 3/4th the time each. That leaves 1-1.5 games against what they consider an academic peer (UVa/UNC/UMD/Duke/Wake). Duke & Wake likely would even be willing to give 2-for-1’s while UMD may be willing to host their home games neutral site.

          As for their other traditional rivals, USC, Navy, & Stanford every year. Maybe PU as well. I’m almost certain Michigan and MSU will play ND 2/3rd of the time at most going forward. That leaves 1 slot every year (or 4 out of 6 years) for Texas/OU/etc. I don’t think ND would care about sacrificing BYU.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “6 out of 14 schools? Eh. They typically play Pitt and BC virtually every year anyway.”

            Yes, although BC isn’t on their schedule after this year. The past 10 years ND has played USC, Stanford, Navy, MI, MSU and PU every year and BC and Pitt 8 times. The next most frequent opponent is 4 times (UW, AF).

            “They probably wouldn’t mind the ‘Cuse all the time if the Orange hold their home games at the Meadowlands.”

            I doubt SU would agree to that all the time.

            “FSU half the time. GTech and Miami maybe half to 3/4th the time each.”

            I don’t think they want all of these that often.

            “That leaves 1-1.5 games against what they consider an academic peer (UVa/UNC/UMD/Duke/Wake). Duke & Wake likely would even be willing to give 2-for-1′s while UMD may be willing to host their home games neutral site.”

            Why would the ACC agree to that when the value to them is in TV money from playing ND? The whole point is to get ACC home games against ND.

            “As for their other traditional rivals, USC, Navy, & Stanford every year. Maybe PU as well. I’m almost certain Michigan and MSU will play ND 2/3rd of the time at most going forward. That leaves 1 slot every year (or 4 out of 6 years) for Texas/OU/etc. I don’t think ND would care about sacrificing BYU.”

            So basically 11 fixed games every year, with only 1 for variety? They might as well join a conference at that point.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “I doubt SU would agree to that all the time.”

            I think they would. SU does want to play in the NYC area frequently.

            “Why would the ACC agree to that when the value to them is in TV money from playing ND? The whole point is to get ACC home games against ND.”

            Because 6 games (even if 1 once every 2 or 3 years is part of a 2-for-1) against ND is better than 2-3 every year. They’d give up something like 1 home game out of 50 vs. ND and gain a bunch more. BTW, what I described are exactly what Wake has already agreed to.

            “So basically 11 fixed games every year, with only 1 for variety? They might as well join a conference at that point.”

            Essentially (though not quite fixed; 11 from a pool of schools). Hey, I’m not a Domer, but to those guys, “independence” is almost a religious tenet, so I kind of see it as akin to Catholics giving up meat on Fridays. They still eat fish/seafood/fleshy things, but they say they’re abstaining from meat.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      In the article, he mentions that the major sticking point to ND joining the ACC is making up a 15-team schedule (for basketball, presumably). To me, the solution is simple: Add a basketball-only school, and there is one (and really, only one) basketball program that is a major brand, doesn’t play Div1-A football, is close to the rest of the AC schools, and also meets the ACC’s academic standards: Georgetown.

      The Syracuse-Georgetown rivalry could continue as well.

      Like

  32. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8243778/penn-state-nittany-lions-royalty-merchandise-numbers-surprise

    As I predicted, PSU fans are gobbling up gear like always, but outside people are buying a lot less. Based on royalties, PSU has dropped from 10th to 12th for the past school year.

    “In December, it was bad,” said Steve Moyer, whose family has owned Lions Pride, a sports gear store in State College, since 1976. “That month, we were down 25 percent over the previous year and compared to say, a Big Ten championship, maybe down about 60 percent.”

    But Moyer said in the next two months business turned around.

    “When JoePa (former head coach Joe Paterno) passed away we were doing really well,” Moyer said. “It was our best January and February on record.”

    Some of that is predictable, especially with selling a lot of Paterno-related gear after his death. But the sad part is the next sentence:

    Moyer said that he actually has sold more Nittany Lions gear in the past couple weeks since the NCAA handed down its sanctions but realizes that the future is still a very big question mark.

    Like I predicted, the defiant PSU fans are buying stuff to spite the NCAA.

    Outside of State College, it appears that Penn State apparel has had a hard time coming off the shelves.

    Matt Powell, an analyst for SportsOneSource, a sports market retail tracking firm that monitors sales in sporting goods stores, said that in July, Penn State merchandise sales were down 50 percent from where they were during the same period last year. Powell’s company does not track sales at college bookstores.

    “The bottom just dropped out,” he said. “The trend certainly seems to show that fans are moving away from supporting Penn State.”

    As expected, the rest of the country is backing off their PSU support.

    Like

  33. Brian says:

    In case you didn’t hear, PSU will have names on the back of their jerseys this year. That’s the only major change for 2012 (also a blue ribbon for abuse victims, but schools do that sort of thing all the time). For 2013, who knows?

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t like them changing that tradition. No real reason to mess with it. (Coming from a fan who wishes Ohio State would stop doing special things for the Michigan game).

      Like

  34. Andy says:

    Brian, I thought you had sworn off of college football because the Rose Bowl wasn’t given extra special treatment in the playoff structure. Why are you still posting on here 18 times per day?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      As always, you fail at reading comprehension.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        But I can count:

        Football wins since 2005:

        Missouri: 65
        Ohio State: 60

        Like

        • Ross says:

          A 7 year span? What a cutoff.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Missouri wins an 8 year span too. 70-68.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “Missouri wins an 8 year span too. 70-68.”

            Yet another lie. It’s 68-68. Congratulations on needing 8 years to match OSU’s win total in 7 years, I guess.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            OSU’s win total in 7 years is 60. Mizzou beats that in 7 years (63) or 8 years (68). So looks like your math was wrong. Does that mean I get to call you a liar?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “OSU’s win total in 7 years is 60. Mizzou beats that in 7 years (63) or 8 years (68). So looks like your math was wrong.”

            Wrong again. OSU got to keep 0 wins from 2010, so when totaling wins from the past 8 years OSU only got wins from 7 of those years. So MO needed 8 years to equal OSU’s wins from 7 years, as I said.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Thank you Brian, you just made my day. You finally did exactly what I knew you’d do. You’re trying to weasel your way out of the well deserved consequences of OSU’s cheating. So that season doesn’t cout at all, eh? That’s how it works in your world, huh? Too funny. You have about as much integrity as your football program. Not surprising.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “You’re trying to weasel your way out of the well deserved consequences of OSU’s cheating.”

            Not at all. As I said, OSU counts no wins from 2010. So from 2004-2011, MO needed 8 years to win as many games as OSU won in 7.

            “So that season doesn’t cout at all, eh?”

            Sure it does. OSU was officially 0-1, and thus they count no wins from 2010. So in 7 years they won as many games as MO did in 8 years.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Let’s just spell this out so there’s zero room for confusion. Here are Ohio State’s win totals over the last 8 seasons:

            8, 10, 12, 11, 10, 11, 0, 6. That’s a total of 68 wins over 8 seasons. Can you count to 8? Those were 8 seasons I listed right there. Missouri also has 68 wins over 8 seasons.

            It’s really quite simple.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Or are you saying you get to skip whichever seasons you don’t like when comparing records over a period of time? Is that it?

            Well sure, then I can leave out every bad season Mizzou’s ever had and claim they have the best win % in the SEC. Why not? If it’s good enough for the buckeyes it’s good enough for Mizzou.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No, tOSU had a boatload of wins that they had vacated, not changed to losses, therefore they only had 7 years eligible to count wins within that 8 year span. It’s really not that difficult.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I’ll just use the Brian method to determin how good Missouri has been at football. I’ll skip over whatever seasons I don’t think should count. I think I’ll just count Missouri’s top 50 seasons. We’ll just leave out those other 71 seasons, they shouldn’t count. We’ll only count:

            1890, 1891, 1895, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1916, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1949, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1998, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010

            Missouri’s overall record is now 347-119, or 0.7446, ranking first in the nation in all time win %, ahead of Michigan and Notre Dame, and well ahead of Ohio State.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “Or are you saying you get to skip whichever seasons you don’t like when comparing records over a period of time?”

            If you had 2 neurons to rub together, you would note that OSU was officially 0-1 in 2010. Thus their 8 consecutive year win total was also the number of games they won in 7 years (I didn’t say consecutive – it makes a difference). It took MO all 8 of those years playing a full schedule to match that total number of wins, and we all know what the totals would look like if OSU counted the other 12 games from 2010.

            “Well sure, then I can leave out every bad season Mizzou’s ever had and claim they have the best win % in the SEC. Why not?”

            1. You wouldn’t have many seasons left

            NC = 0
            BCS bowls = 0
            Major bowls since 1946 = 4 (none since 1969)
            Conference titles since 1946 = 2 (none since 1969)

            2. MO is 0-0 in the SEC, so they don’t have the best W% in the SEC.

            3. If you only eliminate the bad years, MO still wouldn’t have the best W% of current SEC members. AL is at 71.0% all time. MO would have to eliminate all but a handful of years to top that.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, take away the word “consecutive”. Fine, I’ll play that game too.

            As you can see above, I ran a simple analysis, fed all of Missouri’s season records into an excel spreadsheet, ranked them by win %, and took the top 50. 50 is pretty many, wouldn’t you say? The top 50 not only beat out all of the SEC, but everyone in the country. And I could have taken the top 65 and still ranked #1 in the SEC.

            As far as Mizzou vs the SEC, their current record vs SEC teams is 20-8. I doubt anyone in that league has a better record against SEC teams. And I didn’t even have to skip any seasons to get that win %.

            And if you want to exclude Cotton and Fiesta from the list of major bowls, you’re free to do so, but again that’s pretty weasely of you. But maybe I’m nitpicking.

            Oh, and Mizzou won a national championship in football in 1960, just not one of the major two. They finished that season 11-0.

            Like

          • I really don’t like intervening in discussions, but I think everyone has made their respective points clear on this issue, so I’d ask that we all move along to a different topic.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Conference records over history of 12 team Big 12-15 years
            1. Texas 90-30
            2. OU 86-34
            3. NU 81-39
            4. TT 69-51
            4. KSU 69-51
            6. A&M 64-56
            7. CU 60-60
            *****
            8. MU 58-62
            *****
            9. OSU 55-65
            10. KU 36-84
            11. ISU 34-86
            12. BU 18-102

            Last 10 years of 12 team Big 12:
            1. OU 65-15
            2. UT 63-17
            3. NU 47-33
            3. TT 47-33
            *****
            5. MU 42-38
            *****
            6. OSU 41-39
            7. CU 38-42
            8. A&M 37-43
            9. KSU 35-45
            10. KU 25-55
            11. ISU 25-55
            12. BU 15-65

            Big 12 titles for Missouri-0
            Last conference title for Missouri-1969 in Big 8

            Schools with the longest time since winning a conference title
            #1-#5 Vanderbilt, Temple, Rutgers, USF, UAB never
            #6 Iowa St. 1912
            #7 MS St. 1941
            #8 Ole Miss 1963
            #9 New Mexico 1964
            #10-11 Minnesota, Indiana 1967
            #12 Ohio U. 1968
            #13-#14 South Carolina, *****Missouri***** 1969

            AP cumulative rankings for the decade of 2000s:

            #1 Ohio St. 179 pts
            #2 UT 176 pts
            #4 OU 165 pts
            #14 TCU 86 pts
            #19 WVU 62 pts.
            #25 NU 45 pts
            #29-30 Missouri 37 pts.
            #29-30 Texas Tech 37 pts.

            Ohio St. cumulative AP ranking by decade:
            30s 18th
            40s 6th
            50s 4th
            60s 4th
            70s 6th
            80s 12th
            90s 9th
            00s 1st

            Missouri cumulative AP rankings by decade in top 25-only once
            60s 9th

            Missouri is showing some promise, but talking smack to Ohio St. is just silly.

            This also shows why the Big 12 is fine. Competitively, Nebraska was the big loss. The rest were middle of the pack.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps you’d prefer losses suffered by opponents? 12 schools lost to tOSU in that 0-1 year. Those stand. Who else inflicted that many losses that year?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            No doubt any analysis of Mizzou over the last 30 years is going to show Mizzou to be lacking. Mizzou has had exactly 14 decent seasons in the last 30 years, and quite a few terrible ones. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 00, and 01 were all miserably awful seasons. The program was in shambles over that time for various reasons. Those years drag Missouri’s average down a ton. As I’ve said on here lots of times, exclude those years and Mizzou’s easily a top 25 program. But those years happen so Mizzou’s record kind of sucks. Unless you’re counting using The Brian Method ™.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ccrider, I’m pretty sure what you’re doing there is called cheating. When you give up your wins because you cheated, you don’t later get to say those wins count when opposing fans bring it up. In fact, that’s basically the entire point of giving them up in the first place.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            No. The games occurred and the results of tOSU wins were not reversed. The wins were vacated. All the opponents records still reflect losses.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Also, bullet, I don’t know where you got your stats but your “longest time without a conference title” rankings seem to have left out Kansas. Their last title is older than Mizzou’s.

            The Big 8 was pretty one sided there for a few decades. OU and NU won it pretty much every year. KSU grabbed a couple in the 90s, and CU got a few around that time too. Oklahoma State had exactly one in the last 60 years up until last year. When a couple of schools are that dominant there just aren’t as many titles to go around for the other schools. Mizzou got their fair share up until the 60s, but they didn’t keep up with those two after that. NU and OU were both routinely ranked at the very top of the national polls almost every year during that stretch. The expansion to 12 teams brought in Texas, another team often ranked in the top 5. Then there’s the matter of the conference championship game. Mizzou had the best record in the Big 12 in the regular season in 07 and 08, but both years they lost in the championship game. By the old way of counting things, that’s 2 conference titles right there.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            ccrider, yes, and those losses have nothing to do with OSU anymore, officially. OSU does not get those wins.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            before somebody corrects me, I’ll correct myself. Without a conference championship game, Mizzou would have conference championship trophies in 2007 and 2010, not 2007 and 2008. My mistake.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Apparently comprehension really isn’t your strong point.
            As you seemed to be having trouble understanding that wins in 7 years is a subset of wins in 8 for tOSU, and the same number, I was showing another measure that is informative regarding your proposition that Mizzu > tOSU during that period. I disagree.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, you can change around the metrics in all kinds of ways and prove all kinds of points.

            My metric of choice was number of wins over a span of 8 years. By that metric, Mizzou = OSU. By some other metric of your choice, maybe not.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Do the schools that lost those games list the opponents name or opponent unknown? They still lost to tOSU, but the Buckeyes can’t claim the W.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            You’re right, ccrider. How could I have missed it. OSU vacated those wins so that they could still claim them as wins anyway. You win.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            Being ridiculous as always. No wonder so many people think MO is a joke.

            “I think I’ll just count Missouri’s top 50 seasons. …

            1890, 1891, 1895, 1899, 1902, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1916, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1949, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1998, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010”

            Leave it to you to screw up cherrypicking data. MO had a higher W% in 1976 (7-4 = 0.636) than in 2003 (8-5 = 0.615). I also would have chosen 1914 (5-3) over 1910 (4-2-2) but that’s just for aesthetics since the W% is the same.

            I’ll also point out that you needed to use 28 years before the end of WWII to make your top 50 years. In other words, not the modern game.

            “Missouri’s overall record is now 347-119, or 0.7446,”

            Wrong. It would have been 347-118-19, or 0.737, for your selection. The best 50 would have been 346-117-19, or 0.738.

            After 1945, MO’s best 50 years equate to 0.613 (338-211-14).

            “ranking first in the nation in all time win %, ahead of Michigan and Notre Dame, and well ahead of Ohio State.”

            Yes, your best 50 seasons (top 41.3% of all your seasons) would just barely out do #1 MI’s all time W% of 0.736, #2 ND’s 0.731 and #5 OSU’s 0.713. Bully for you.

            OSU has played 122 seasons to MO’s 121, so let’s see how they compare:

            OSU’s 50th best W% is 0.750, so I think MO’s in trouble. That record becomes 441-66-13, or 0.861, decimating MO’s paltry 0.738.

            But that includes 16 early years, you say, so what if I limit it to post-1945?

            OSU’s 50th best W% is now only 0.667. The overall record becomes 445-106-9, or 0.803.

            Even better, how about I just use the last 50 years for OSU against MO’s best 50 years?

            MO 0.738
            OSU 0.754

            Even when you cherrypick data, MO loses.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “I really don’t like intervening in discussions, but I think everyone has made their respective points clear on this issue, so I’d ask that we all move along to a different topic.”

            Sorry, Frank. Your post didn’t show up for me until after I posted my last one.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            FtT:

            Sorry. I missed it too, but I should know better anyway.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Brian, I’m impressed you put that amount of effort into nitpicking me only to come up with numbers that were barely different from my own.

            Yeah, I didn’t worry about ties for expediency. Good job catching me on that one. You win again!

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Andy,

          “But I can count:”

          Can you? That makes you a big boy, then.

          “Football wins since 2005:

          Missouri: 65
          Ohio State: 60”

          Losses since 2005:
          MO – 29
          OSU – 18

          Conference titles since 2005:
          OSU – 5
          MO – 0

          BCS bowls since 2005:
          OSU – 5
          MO – 0

          Even with you cherry-picking the time span, I’ll take OSU’s results over MO’s.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Major NCAA infractions and probations in football: OSU 1 during that span, Mizzou 0 all time.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “Major NCAA infractions and probations in football: OSU 1 during that span, Mizzou 0 all time.”

            Not quite an accurate picture, as usual. MO’s football program has been busted twice, both before the NCAA broke things into minor and major violations. They did get hit for LOIC and improper inducement of a recruit, though.

            And I’d still take OSU’s football program over MO’s any day of the week.

            I note that you failed to find any other accomplishment to brag about, and conveniently ignored the fact that OSU’s W% was much higher even during your selected time span. In essence, you bragged that MO played more games than OSU did as if that is some major feat.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Apparently it’s not all that hard to get more wins than the mighty buckeyes. Who knew?

            Like

        • Eric says:

          Nice try, but no matter what the NCAA or Ohio State itself may say, we did win 12 games in 2010 season. Rewriting history doesn’t actually change it.

          Since 2005:

          Ohio State: 72
          Missouri: 65

          Like

          • Andy says:

            I guess you guys shouldn’t cheat so much and then you wouldn’t have to make bogus claims to keep up with lowly schools like Mizzou.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I guess you guys shouldn’t cheat so much and then you wouldn’t have to make bogus claims to keep up with lowly schools like Mizzou.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            No lowly claim. I’ve despised the NCAA changing their record books since long before it effected Ohio State. It they don’t want you hanging banners I’m OK with that, but don’t pretend things didn’t happen.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            “No lowly claim. I’ve despised the NCAA changing their record books since long before it effected Ohio State. It they don’t want you hanging banners I’m OK with that, but don’t pretend things didn’t happen.”

            But OSU cheated to get those wins. OSU fans may continue to claim them out of insecurity, but they aren’t counted by the NCAA because of the cheating involved.

            Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            Cheating or not, comparing Missouri to Ohio St in anything football is laughable and why Andy isn’t taken seriously.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Fact: Missouri has more wins in football over the last 8 years than Ohio State. Deal with it.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “Fact: Missouri has more wins in football over the last 8 years than Ohio State. Deal with it.”

            Fact: You are wrong. Both have 68 wins over the last 8 seasons.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            So let me get this straight, Brian. You’re triumphantly proclaiming that The Ohio State University, pillar of all that is great about college football in your little world, has the same number of wins as lowly little mizzou, the school you’ve spent countless hours tearing down as trash in this very forum. Now this is just precious. I love it.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            And by the way, Brian, Idon’t know if you’re right or not, and I’m not going to bother to check. I know you get all orgasmic everytime you successfully nitpick me on some minor detail, so I’ll just let you have this one. 70 wins, 68 wins, doesn’t change much. OSU hasn’t won any more games than Mizzou over the last 8 seasons. That’s pretty great, I say.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Fact: Bears eat beets. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “So let me get this straight, Brian. You’re triumphantly proclaiming that The Ohio State University, pillar of all that is great about college football in your little world, has the same number of wins as lowly little mizzou,”

            No, I wasn’t triumphant. I was merely correcting the misinformation you were spreading. I don’t like that OSU had to vacate 12 wins, but I understand why it happened and I’ve accepted it. It doesn’t change the overall success of OSU in a meaningful way.

            “the school you’ve spent countless hours tearing down as trash in this very forum.”

            I haven’t spent any time “tearing down [mizzou] as trash.” I’ve stated facts about MO’s football team, mostly (a few about the school).

            “And by the way, Brian, Idon’t know if you’re right or not, and I’m not going to bother to check.”

            Color me shocked at how little value you place on the truth. Facts were never your strong point. Why make the statement in the first place if you can’t be bothered to find out the truth first?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            My central point was correct, again. Mizzou has just as many or more wins as Ohio State over the last 7 or 8 years. If it makes you feel better to know that the degree to which I was right about that was 3% off, have at it.

            Brian, we have very different styles. I put very little thought or effort into my posts on here, and while nobody has ever successfully pointed out how I was wrong on any of my main points in the several years I’ve been on here, some of you have correctly pointed out that I’m sometimes sloppy with some of the exact details. Sue me. I truly don’t care.

            You on the other hand can spend who knows how much time composing many fact filled thousand word essays to demonstrate to me precisely how much Mizzou sucks, and then shrug it off like it was nothing. I guess maybe to you it is nothing because you live on here and write 20,000 words per day in this forum. So what’s a couple thousand words here and there tearing down Mizzou, right? But for me who mostly just skims this forum for topics of interest, your Mizzou trash talk sticks out in my mind over all of the other crap you write. Oh, but as you said, it’s not trash talking if it’s true, right?

            Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            Sometimes the truth hurts.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            wins in the last 15 years:

            Missouri: 107
            Notre Dame: 107

            Owch. And that’s on the field, not just in the record books. And Mizzou had several really crappy seasons during that stretch too.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And ND has been, by their standards, crappy for most of that time.

            Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            Andy, Yes I know. This is why you don’t see me on here spouting how great the Irish are, but I guess standards for bragging rights are different at every school….or as the saying goes, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Yes, and the Mizzou resurection under Pinkel didn’t really start until 2003, so their 15 year numbers are pretty crappy. I went to 15 years because that’s how far back you’d have to go before Notre Dame’s record pulls even with Mizzou’s. But OrderRestored takes all kinds of pleasure in pointing out how weak Mizzou football is, but you have to go back to the middle of the decade before last before his team was any better.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “I put very little thought or effort into my posts on here”

            Way to admit the obvious.

            “You on the other hand can spend who knows how much time”

            It takes less than a minute to check the records of MO and OSU since 2004 before claiming what the results are. I don’t see that as an unreasonable amount of time to expect you to spend on research before making a factual claim.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I eyeballed the numbers and added them up quickly in my head in about 5 seconds. Apparently I was slightly off. Isn’t the first time, won’t be the last. Mizzou still has just as many or more wins than OSU over the last 7 or 8 years, just like I said. So I was right. And you’re still getting that orgasmic high of a successful nitpick so I guess everybody wins.

            Like

  35. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Champions Bowl update from the New Orleans/Sugar Bowl perspective.

    http://www.nola.com/sugarbowl/index.ssf/2012/08/allstate_sugar_bowl_will_be_in.html

    Like

    • Brian says:

      “The Birmingham News reported Tuesday that bidding cities can choose between a lump-sum guaranteed payout to the leagues or offer a minimum guarantee that includes a management fee.

      In exchange for staging the game, the bowl would retain the ticket revenue with the leagues getting the TV money and title sponsor revenue.”

      Good info. Expect expensive tickets.

      “If the Sugar Bowl loses out in bidding for the Champions Bowl, it is still expected to land one of the access games, which would pit two at-large teams in non-semifinal years.

      The Sugar and Fiesta have first negotiating rights for those spots once the contract situation is settled, and at least not making the cut for that game is considered unthinkable by the Sugar Bowl.”

      I didn’t know the Sugar and Fiesta had dibs, but I guess it makes some sense.

      “BCS officials have indicated they prefer having two games in the Eastern time zone (Orange, Capitol One or Chick-Fil-A), Central (Sugar and Cotton) and Mountain/Pacific (Rose and Fiesta) with one played in each zone each day.”

      So like we all said a while ago, it’s largely down to Orlando versus Atlanta. Whichever wins will get the early 12/31 slot most likely. The non-Champs bowl between the Cotton and Sugar will probably get the late afternoon slot on 12/31 and the Fiesta will get the primetime slot.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Will the NCAA force the CFA Peach to change its sponsor in order to be politcally correct? I’m guessing money trumps political correctness for NCAA.

        Chick-Fil-A Bowl has played New Years Eve in recent years.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Sponsors are allowed to be bigots, they just can’t sell alcohol or tobacco or gambling, etc.

          Like

        • frug says:

          Technically, it’s not even the “Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl” any more, it’s just the Chick-fil-A Bowl to cut down on people referring to it as the Peach Bowl (how often do you hear people refer to the All State Sugar Bowl or Tostitos Fiesta Bowl?)

          Actually, this raises an interesting question; if Bowls like the Capital One or CFA get into the playoff rotation do you think they will be forced to reinsert the former names (Citrus Bowl and Peach Bowl)? All the current BCS bowls have kept their traditional names, but the only significant non-BCS bowl to do so is the Cotton Bowl.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            frug,

            It’s one of the things I’m hoping for most here. I don’t have a huge problem with Chick-fil-A (don’t agree with them either, but there are plenty of corporations I have bigger problems with), but I’m very much hoping that its a rule all BCS bowls have to have a permanent non-corporate name.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            I think they might have to reinsert the bowl name, but not have to drop the corporate name. Sponsors change over time and the NCS may want to have the consistency of the bowl name.

            Like

  36. Brian says:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/08/07/pac-12-networks-updates-on-comcast-twc-cox-and-more/#more-25893

    Some bad news for the P12N:

    “Cox has reversed course and decided not to make the Pac-12 Networks available to many areas outside the Pac-12 footprint, even on a sports tier. Some states/regions will have access, but many won’t.”

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      A bit disappointing I’m sure. Seems a bandwidth issue as they are choosing not to use content they are already paying for.

      Wilner: “I don’t know the reason for the decision — bandwidth is probably a good guess — and things could still change in some areas as the result of customer pressure: Cox is not planning to offer the Pac12Nets in Oklahoma, for instance, which means the Oklahoma State-Arizona won’t be shown.”

      I don’t think any evaluation should be done for several years, certainly not before it even launches.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Meant to include this also.

        Wilner: “Like Comcast, TWC and Bright House, Cox has already purchased the rights to show Pac-12 Networks content. Where Cox chooses to show that content is up to Cox. This is not about gaining leverage for upcoming negotiations.”

        Like

        • texmex says:

          If I’m a Big 10, SEC, Big 12, or ACC school, there could be issues scheduling a non-conference game with a PAC 12 school until wider distribution occurs…especially if you’re mid-tier program in one of those leagues where the chances of ABC or FOX picking the game up decrease.

          The Oklahoma State-Arizona game this year will be on the PAC 12 network. Cox has a heavy footprint in Oklahoma, but because they’re not carrying it outside of the PAC 12 footprint, many OSU alums could miss that game. Now they could work something out to have it broadcast on some local Oklahoma affiliates, but there are a lot oF OSU alums in Texas that would be shut out.

          Like

          • frug says:

            The weird thing is how suddenly Cox decided to drop the PTN. I have family who lives in Oklahoma so I checked online last month it said that they would be carrying the network. Then checked the channel finder last week and sure enough the company had changed its mind.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:

            Perhaps a hedge against the possibility of a smaller NCTC picking it up? Less than a week out they pull bait and switch, and can switch back if competition appears because they are already paying for it.

            Like

  37. Brian says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-08-07/Albany-Stony-Brook-join-CAA-football/56861126/1

    A little expansion news:

    Albany (Northeast Conference) and Stony Brook (Big South) are joining the CAA in 2013 to replace GA St and ODU when they move up to I-A. Both teams made the playoffs in 2011.

    Like

  38. ccrider55 says:

    PSU trustees aren’t alone, players to appeal also.

    http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8245600

    Like

  39. Brian says:

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/08/illinois-play-washington-soldier-field-2013/

    IL will host UW at Soldier Field in 2013. It’s part of their new plan to play once a year in Chicago. Does this excite the IL fan base, Frank (and other IL fans), or would most fans rather see them play in U-C?

    I’d think they might want to play in St. Louis on occasion as well. It doesn’t have to be against MO. Future P12 opponents would work in STL, too.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Does this excite the IL fan base, Frank (and other IL fans), or would most fans rather see them play in U-C?

      I think the hardcore fanbase would prefer a true home game, but the reason to play in Chicago is to give Chicagoland (and Northwest Indiana area) fans who don’t want to travel to Chambana a chance to see the team live.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I know. I also assume they want to get more fans in Chicago, and offering a chance to see a game in Soldier Field can’t hurt. It’s helpful for recruiting, too. But there’s something special for alumni about coming back to campus, and Chicago isn’t that far away.

        I’m just curious how the fan base in general responds to this.

        Like

        • frug says:

          The casual fans probably like it, but I doubt the most devoted fans have any strong feelings either way. They prefer the environment in Champaign, but they aren’t going to get up in arms about moving one game to Chicago every other year.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Judging by the somewhat steep drop in ticket sales in Champaign over the past decade, this may actually help consolidate their attendance if there’s one less home game there.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            I don’t disagree, but I think they’re talking about 1 game every year.

            Like

          • frug says:

            They count games at Northwestern as Chicago so they will only be giving up games in odd numbered years.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Maybe so. They may want more games where they control the seating, though. Not that NW tickets are hard to get generally, but IL can get 60,000 seats at Soldier Field versus a lot less at Ryan Field.

            Like

        • I think that it’s a very good thing for Illinois to be playing games in Chicago (and not just because I live here). The school’s connection to Chicago is the largest market-based asset that the school has, yet it’s been underutilized though the years. As long as Illinois still plays 7 home games in Champaign in the years that they play in Chicago (which appears to be the goal for 2013), I don’t think there will be too much of an issue outside of the hardcore Downstate Illinois fan base.

          I would also like to see the Missouri series in St. Louis again with the same caveat of still having 7 games in Champaign. That’s the real reason why Illinois dropped the series as opposed to poor performance.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            I can’t imagine why Illinois needs a 7th game in Urbana Champaign vs St. Louis. Attendance at Illinois home games isn’t all that great, and the Arch Rivalry games sold very well, and were usually on ESPN. I have little doubt Illinois would make more money by playing Mizzou in St. Louis than by playing another cupcake at home. The truth is you just don’t like getting the extra loss every single year.

            Unfortunately, Missouri has 2 ready made border rivals who are both don’t want to play us because we beat them too often.

            Like

          • @Andy – No, I’m speaking the truth. As with about 99.9% of all decisions in college sports, it’s not about “being scared of a loss”, but solely financial. The 7th home game matters because of the massive renovation that was just completed at Memorial Stadium, so the school needs to maximize the use of the new high dollar suites to get the proper ROI. Those suites are sold-out for the long-term (even if overall attendance might be tepid), so the difference between only being able to charge for 6 games as opposed to 7 is pretty significant. We’re not Ohio State or Michigan, so that makes that extra revenue particularly important. That’s why Illinois is only willing to play off-campus if there are 7 games in Champaign (which will be the case in 2013). From my recollection, the payout that the Edward Jones Dome was providing Illinois and Mizzou was around $3 million and that didn’t make it worth it for either school in today’s market. If the city of St. Louis were willing to provide Jerry Jones-type money, then that would have been a different story (but that’s not likely happening).

            Don’t get me wrong – I’d personally rather see the Arch Rivalry game reinstated at a neutral site than watch some cupcake FCS or MAC team in Champaign, but I understand the financial rationale behind it.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Really, Andy? Keep your trash talking for other message boards. FTT is and always has been about intelligent, respectful discussion. I have yet to see any trash talking between Spartan & Wolverine fans, UM and tOSU fans, or any other B1G rivalries. Let’s keep it that way. Besides, I have some friends who are Missouri grads and are as friendly as people in this country come. They represent their state and university well. Try to follow that kind of lead rather than seeking out opportunities to trash others schools.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            If you haven’t seen trash talked in this forum you haven’t come here often. There have been thousands of flaming trash talking post on here in the last few years, and only a fraction of them have been from me.

            I’m not trying to flame Frank. Obviously I read his blog and value what he has to say or I wouldn’t be here. I’m just disagreeing with him.

            I honestly think Illinois would still be playing Mizzou had they won more of those games. He’s free to his opinion, I disagree with it. I don’t find it convincing at all.

            Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            Makes sense to me Frank; maybe next time you should use smaller words?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            No, it really doesn’t, actually. He’s using dollars from 5 years ago to make arguments about decisions that would be made for next year or beyond. Of course the dollars wouldn’t be the same. Of course they would need to be higher. And to make that happen, Illinois would have to come to the table and negotiate that alongside Mizzou. Mizzou has plenty of luxury suites as well, and we’re about to build $100M more of them starting next year, and yet we’re still looking for neutral site games. So why does it make economic sense for Missouri but not for Illinois?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Andy, almost all neutral site arrangements slowly tend to find their way back to campus sites. The reason why is always financial.

            Texas A&M-Arkansas is already headed in that direction.

            The only neutral site game that’s untouchable is probably Texas-Oklahoma. Outside of that, there is always talk about moving neutral site games back to campus. There’s been plenty of whispers about Florida-Georgia getting moved to campuses although I don’t see that one going that direction soon.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            All I know is that the event was very successful financially, and Missouri wanted and still wants to keep it going even though Mizzou has plenty of luxury suites and averages about 20% higher home attendance than Illinois. It seemed like everyone was happy with the arrangement, except Missouri won every single game and eventually Illinois dropped out.

            You’ll have a hard time convincing me that Illinois will make more by playing Charleston Southern, Western Michigan, or Louisiana Tech at home than they would by playing Missouri in St. Louis. I mean, maybe I’m totally wrong, but I doubt it.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Andy:

            I believe the Illinois AD has said that they would still like to play Mizzou on occasion but HaH. Again, it’s about the dollars.

            Like

    • Andy says:

      Mizzou would be happy to play Illinois in St. Louis. They just refuse to play us because we beat them 7 straight times.

      Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      It will be interesting to see if St. Louis becomes a battleground city for the SEC and Big Ten. From my experience, STL is certainly a Mizzou-centric town, but Illinois has a solid following and the Big Ten may want to give them more events there to try and prevent losing it completely to the SEC. Conversely, I wonder if the SEC may hold its basketball tournament there to plant a flag.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      @Frank

      Illinois fans should be pretty excited about a trip to Seattle. It ranks right up there with Austin as my favorite road game destination.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Mike – I agree about Seattle. LSU played U-Dub up there in 2008. The campus was great. The view from the stadium was incredible. The stadium was a dump, but its undergoing a huge renovation. Seattle is a great town. I wish the Mariners would have been in town that weekend so I could have scratched Safeco off my MLB bucket list.

        As a Louisianan, I do have to say that the quality and taste of Pacific Northwest seafood can’t compare to ours.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          @Alan – I lucked out and was able to catch the Mariners, but missed the Seahawks. You are right about Husky Stadium, but between the view and the noise I had no problem overlooking a few warts.

          As a Louisianan, that’s a very high complement to the Pacific Northwest.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Mike – maybe I wasn’t clear. The Pacific Northwest seafood isn’t nearly as good as Louisiana seafood. Its good. Its not as bland as New England, but it ain’t South Louisiana by any stretch.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Alan – My mistake. I misread your comment.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not much Creole influence in the NW.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @cc – No, but there is a lot of Asian (not just Chinese, but Japanese, Asian Indian, Indonesian) fusion restaurants that are not only good but interesting.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          The Salmon in July when the Salmon are running is great in Seattle.

          I understand Mike (not this Mike I don’t think) has his restaurant open in New Orleans again-SW, Asian, Creole influences. Old place’s name was Mike’s on the Avenue. Well worth the visit Alan.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      BTW, once the B10 goes to 9 conference games, it will be virtually impossible for the Illini to have 7 home games and still play in Chicago the years NU goes down to C-U. The only way they would still be able to do that is if they can get some teams to play them in Chicago “neutral site”. Almost none of the other teams in the Big 5 conferences would be willing to do that (other than maybe ISU, WSU, and some ACC schools like Duke or Wake; Miami would be a coup). Certainly some BE teams may be up for that (Cincy? Boise?) as well as lower level schools.

      I suppose you could still put together a decent slate for the Chicago game if you’re the Illinois AD:
      ISU every 4 years (they would like to visit Chicago fairly often given that a good chunk of their alums end up there), then choosing amongst Cincy, maybe Boise, WSU, maybe NIU (that would throw a bone to the politicians as well), etc. Heck, maybe even Iowa as an OOC game in the years when they don’t play (Iowa also with a big alumni base in Chicagoland).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “BTW, once the B10 goes to 9 conference games”

        Don’t you mean if? At this point, it sounds like they prefer to stand pat even beyond 2016 when the new TV deal kicks in.

        Like

  40. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8243930/penn-state-nittany-lions-recruits-dorian-johnson-zach-bradshaw-decommit

    Ouch. This is the first major recruit to decommit from PSU, plus they lose a WR recruit right after losing their top WR to OU.

    “Offensive tackle Dorian Johnson (Belle Vernon, Pa./Belle Vernon), No. 27 in the ESPN 150 and a Penn State commitment since June, decommitted from the Nittany Lions on Tuesday evening, his coach, Aaron Krepps said.

    Johnson, the No. 2 offensive tackle nationally and No. 2 overall player in Pennsylvania, said he would take his time regarding a decision when sanctions, which include a four-year bowl ban and massive scholarship reductions, were levied against Penn State on July 23.”

    It’s a blow to lose a player like that for any school. To make it worse:

    “In June, the 6-foot-6, 285-pound tackle committed to the Lions over Ohio State, Pittsburgh and West Virginia.”

    So either their in-division border-state rival, their major in-state rival or another border state AQ team will probably pick him up to compound the loss.

    Like

    • joe4psu says:

      Yes, another tough loss. On the plus side 3* linebacker Brandon Bell re-affirmed his commitment after visiting yesterday and 4 * linebacker Zayd Issah is on campus today. Hopefully with the same results. Visiting with Zayd is 5* tight end Adam Breneman who has been one of our firmest commitments and best recruiters. That can’t hurt.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Nice avitar.

        Like

      • cutter says:

        I just looked at the Scout recruiting rankings and they list Penn State at #29 in their ratings with nine total recruits. See http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=688&yr=2013

        I’ll be curious to see if Christian Hackenberg and Adam Breneman stick at Penn State. I could see Breneman staying because he’s going to have to redshirt due to his recent ACL injury and he might have trouble getting an offer from a comparable program at this time. Add in the way the Patriots use the tight end position, and you can see why he’d be willing to stay.

        Hackenberg might be another story. As a highly-rated quarterback, he was recruited by a lot of schools that may get his interest again. If the bowl ban stays in place, he won’t be able to play in the post-season (including the Big Ten Conference championship game) through his career. That’s going to be a tough situation for him to face, especially if it looks like PSU is going to have problems putting talent around him with the 65 scholarship limit.

        Being in the same division with Ohio State and Wisconsin isn’t going to help matters either. Urban Meyer should have OSU back at the top of the B10 food chain pretty soon and Wisconsin is already there after winning a couple of conference titles. Michigan looks like it’s righted its ship with Brady Hoke as head coach, so there’s another program that looks like it’s on the upswing again. Michigan is currently #1 in Scout’s rankings and if the Wolverines get WR Laquon Treadwell and RB Derrick Green, they’ll likely have a class in the top 5 come next February.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        joe4psu,

        “Yes, another tough loss. On the plus side 3* linebacker Brandon Bell re-affirmed his commitment after visiting yesterday and 4 * linebacker Zayd Issah is on campus today. Hopefully with the same results. Visiting with Zayd is 5* tight end Adam Breneman who has been one of our firmest commitments and best recruiters. That can’t hurt.”

        Breneman and Hackenberg are the keys right now. As long as they stay put, other skill talent will probably want to play with them. Breneman is a PA guy so he’ll stay, and Hackenberg has been steady in his commitment.

        It was unfortunate to lose a WR recruit after all the losses to graduation and then Brown leaving, which is why I mentioned it. When it rains, it pours.

        Like

        • Mike says:

          @Brian

          “When it rains it poors”

          I saw a tweet earlier today that since November 6th, Penn St has lost 25 scholarship level players (2012 de-commits, 2013 de-commits, and transfers)

          Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1209532.html

    CFN’s list of toughest places to play:

    B10 (6) – 5, 7, 9, 16, 18, 20 (WI, OSU, PSU, MI, IA, NE)
    SEC (6) – 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 14 (LSU, FL, AL, AU, GA, SC)
    ACC (3) – 11, 15, 17 (VT, Clemson, FSU)
    B12 (3) – 4, 13, 19 (OU, TX, WV)
    P12 – 2 (OR)
    Other – 8 (Boise)

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Well……….it’s pretty damn hard to play at IU with all the partying going on out in the grass lots………just sayin’

      Like

  42. greg says:

    This is kind of a random aside, but has anyone looked at Illinois’ home schedule this year? Hard to get any less appealing at the BCS level, now that PSU ran into their troubles.

    Western Michigan
    Charleston Southern
    Louisiana Tech
    PSU
    Indiana
    Minnesota
    Purdue

    Like

    • frug says:

      That’s what we get for scheduling 8 home games last year.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      greg,

      “This is kind of a random aside, but has anyone looked at Illinois’ home schedule this year? Hard to get any less appealing at the BCS level, now that PSU ran into their troubles.

      Western Michigan
      Charleston Southern
      Louisiana Tech
      PSU
      Indiana
      Minnesota
      Purdue”

      Are you saying that the Purdue Cannon and the LoL Trophy aren’t enough to make a compelling home schedule?

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      This whole business of scheduling OOC trash teams really sucks……..it was bad enough when BIG teams were playing 2-3 MAC teams a year……….really unfortunate that the football playing schools won’t get together and agree on meaningful incentives to schedule competitive teams….

      Like

  43. Richard says:

    Great article by Posnanski on why NBC shows the key sports on tape delay:
    http://sportsonearthblog.com/2012/08/08/for-dick-ebersol-its-simple-were-here-to-make-great-television/

    Like

    • Richard says:

      BTW, for those of you still complaining about NBC not showing the key sports live, NBC’s primetime Olympic coverage doesn’t beat the best ratings for college football, college basketball, MLB, or the NBA (NHL not worth mentioning). 33.6M viewers on average over the first 10 nights of the Olympics.

      Highest viewership for a CFB game (title game): 24.2M (second highest was LSU-‘Bama I at 20.0M; Rose Bowl was 17.6M)
      Highest viewership for a CBB game (title game): 20.0M
      NBA Finals averaged 17.3M
      World Series averaged 16.6M

      A night of TV consisting of people you’ve never heard of before the Olympics started diving, tumbling, and swinging around bars also beats every single NFL regular season game in viewership.

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-201208080800reedbusivarietynvr1118057589-20120808,0,36253.story

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        “BTW, for those of you still complaining about NBC not showing the key sports live,”

        I have these complaints about delayed coverage:

        1. Why not also show it live? For those that want to see it that way, it’s available. For those that want the primetime crap, they can get that. Based on his reasoning, it shouldn’t cut into their numbers significantly.

        2. Delaying things that could have been shown live because they give higher priority to something else that is tape delayed. That’s not an issue for London since nothing is being contested during American primetime.

        3. Show me more events and fewer useless features (twitter counts, etc) and athlete profiles. Those 4 hours should be packed full of sports since they have an entire day of overlapping events to cover.

        “NBC’s primetime Olympic coverage doesn’t beat the best ratings for college football, college basketball, MLB, or the NBA (NHL not worth mentioning). 33.6M viewers on average over the first 10 nights of the Olympics.”

        That doesn’t make their coverage good, it just means the Olympics are popular. It’s the ultimate casual viewer sporting event since they often cater to women and men will watch anything.

        They also love to tout each year drawing the highest ratings ever, as if the country doesn’t grow every 4 years, too.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I think you can get the live coverage if you’re one of those die-hards willing to pony up to get the streaming live coverage. NBC probably figures this setup maximizes revenue (and they’re probably right).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            They presumably are making the right financial decision, but I still hope they all DIAF for ruining such a great event.

            Like

        • @Brian – I tend to agree with you here. Tape delaying in and of itself to have a prime time package doesn’t bother me. I completely understand that NBC isn’t paying billions of dollars to show the all-around gymnastics finals at 3 am. However, I have never understood why NBC has been so resistant to follow your first suggestion of showing events live when they happen and then have a taped prime time package later on.

          What makes me more upset is not showing major events live when they ARE occurring during perfectly reasonable American TV watching hours. A large number of high profile swimming events, for instance, could have been shown live in the American afternoon during the past two weekends, yet NBC only showed them on tape in prime time. It was even worse for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics when NBC was tape delaying events for West Coast viewers even though they were occurring in the SAME time zone. I’ll give a bit more leeway when the games are in a place like Beijing and there’s little that you can do about the time difference, but there was zero reason to have had anything in Vancouver shown on tape delay anywhere in the US.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, both of Phelps final swims (100m fly and 4x100m medley relay) could have been shown live with no real repercussions for their ratings.

            The ratings dip on the weekends anyways as people have other things to do, why not try to grab those people during mid-day.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Unless primetime tape-delay ratings top afternoon live ratings.

            In the Posnanski article, Ebersol noted that this year’s taped swimming events ratings topped the live swimming events ratings from Beijing.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Ebersol can’t retire fast enough. Maybe without his taint the coverage can return to something approaching tolerable.

      I laugh at the notion that anybody at NBC knows what great television is, and the ratings back me up. The Olympics do well despite NBC, not because of it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        BTW, the worst thing in that article is when Ebersol claims his coverage is more neutral and professional than anyone else’s. I know any number of people that would beg to differ with him about that.

        He complains that the BBC will cut into an event to show a Brit finish 5th while NBC would never do that. Of course not. NBC has already restricted what they will show to the sports the USA is expected to do really well in plus a handful of hyper-popular events they show no matter what (100m, women’s gymnastics, etc). The BBC shows everything. And as a host nation that never competes to win the medal count, I can excuse them cutting in to show the results for the home athletes. I wish NBC spent more time showing me how all the various Americans do and less telling me the backstory of someone I’ve never heard of and couldn’t care less about.

        There’s also this:
        “You know what I think is the greatest moment of the Olympics?” he asks. “It’s my favorite 20 minutes in all of sports. It’s at the end of the Opening Ceremonies, when all the athletes are standing in one place.

        And yet he couldn’t be bothered to show the athletes taking the Olympic oath or show the 7/7 tribute. Apparently those aren’t good stories or great moments. Jackass.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      A thought:

      As the Olympics are such a goldmine, I do wonder why the IOC, NBC, and USOC haven’t considered splitting up the Summer Olympics (which are huge) in to a Summer (for outdoor disciplines) and Indoor Olympics. It would make hosting easier as well, and I don’t think folks will get Olympic fatigue, with the Summer Olympics on their traditional schedule and Indoor the year before that (so Indoor, Summer, and Winter Olympiads would be spaced 1-1.5 years apart. Also, this way, the southern hemisphere could still host Indoor Games while NBC could be guaranteed that both Summer and Indoor take place during July/August (before football starts).

      In the US, the Indoor Games may even be bigger (featuring gymnastics & swimming as well as basketball and diving).

      Baseball & softball could be added back in again. Rugby and cricket may even be added.

      Like

      • @Richard – That’s an interesting idea. Personally, I think the Olympics overall would work well on a 3-year rotation. Every other year would probably be too much, but 4 years between Olympics seems to a bit long and means that a lot of elite athletes only get the chance to compete in one set of Games (notwithstanding Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt). The 3-year rotation would split the difference and keep a little more of the momentum between between Games.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Frank, they probably think they dealt with that by moving the Winter Games to the other even years.

          You also have to think that they do sort of worry about possible overlap with other events like the Asian Games or Commonwealth Games (along with how long it takes some of these countries to put together Olympics buildings and the like).

          The World Cup pretty much owns the other even year summers, and the eventual FIBA/NBA basketball world cup is likely to become popular enough in its own right every 4 years as well.

          Moving to every 3 years moves you into weird years where you start hitting years with other events.

          Like

          • @zeek – That was actually my other thought where the World Cup ought to be on a 3-year rotation, too.

            I’ll be interested to see how the FIBA/NBA basketball world cup will perform if it comes to fruition. To me, it seems like a “penny wise, pound foolish” move for the NBA. I understand that the NBA is feeling like the IOC is getting a ton of basketball value essentially free of cost off of the backs of NBA marketing efforts, but that has to be balanced with how much the participation of basketball stars in the Olympics specially has supercharged interest in the NBA internationally in a way that the other American pro sports leagues haven’t been able to replicate. I highly doubt that supercharged interest is going to come from a new FIBA/NBA basketball world cup. My fear is that it will end up like the World Baseball Classic where it’s a contrived event and the top stars don’t want to participate. NBA stars are willing to give up multiple summers (as the year prior to the Olympics typically involve international competitions) to play for free when the goal is an Olympic gold medal that holds special value no matter how much money you might make. The World Cup in soccer is much more important than the Olympics, but that’s the result of decades of competition and prestige built up over time. A new basketball world cup can’t create those same stakes overnight.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree with you on the FIBA/NBA world cup idea.

            I’m not sure how it’s going to entice the superstars. For that event, they’re going to want to get paid heavily.

            The Olympics has its own aura to it; being an athlete at the Olympics is like participating in a giant 2 week patriotic event. They go to the other events, and they get to be worldwide celebrities with every media network on the planet sending their people to go and ask them questions. Some of the newspeople have commented on how it still evokes the Dream Team in that respect outside of the US.

            The FIBA/NBA world cup isn’t going to have that aspect to it, so I’m not sure what other than money is going to be able to entice the superstars. It won’t get anywhere near the media attention that the basketball does at the Olympics.

            Perhaps, they’ll turn it into a full tournament like the NBA playoffs, but I’m not really sure that NBA players want to spend 2 full months playing in an international tournament like that with multiple grueling series right after the NBA playoffs.

            The Olympics has it right in terms of giving you enough basketball over the 2 week timespan to care.

            Yeah, the big issue will be how to create enough interest at first to get superstars to care. It’s a chicken and egg kind of problem. Without the superstars, there won’t ever be interest, but you need the interest to get the superstars there…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, I don’t think the Olympics and World Cup will both go on a 3 year rotation, especially since the international soccer schedule is already so crowded that they can barely fit in everything as it is. This isn’t as big a deal for players in the Americas, but if you’re an elite European player, you spent the entire 2009 qualifying for the World Cup, 2010 prepping for and playing in the World Cup, entire 2011 qualifying for the UEFA championship (which is as big in Europe as the WC), and 2012 prepping for and playing in the UEFA championship. this isn’t even counting the club games. Mind you, UEFA is by far the most powerful continental confederation in FIFA, so the WC isn’t moving off a 4-year rotation pretty much ever.

            Splitting up the Olympics seems far easier. The Asia and Commonwealth Games will adjust.

            As for the Winter Games, yes, they added some sports and moved it to a 2-year offset, but there just aren’t that many extra activities that you can do on ice and snow. The number of medals contested is a small fraction of that contested in the Summer Games. If anything, it’s an argument for splitting off the Indoor Games as well, as, despite the much smaller number of disciplines, the Winter Olympics gave NBC ratings that are only slightly less than the Summer Games.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            As an alternative, they could move some/many of the indoor sports to the Winter Olympics and make the two more equivalent in size. I realize part of the problem is that the Winter Olympics have to be in a city in/near the mountains and there aren’t many big cities available that can also host the extra things.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Right, I’ve thought of that as well.

            My thinking is more about what I would do if I was the IOC/USOC/NBC, though. I don’t think adding another Olympiad (especially if the sports are different from the Summer Games) will cause Olympic fatigue, and it probably would lead to another boffo ratings event. In short, I don’t think the IOC has maximized it’s earnings potential yet (whether the individuals involved have maximized their bribe-acceptance potential is another question).

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            IRC the IOC did make some noise about moving a number of sports to the winter games several years back. To be honest the idea of adding indoor track to the winter/indoor games is very appealing to me. Bring back the 60m dash!

            Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        @Richard & @Frank,

        Both of those ideas are intriguing. Once every three years and/or splitting up the Olympics into Summer/Indoor/Spring could certainly make things interesting.

        Like

  44. Brian says:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/ncaa-london-olympics-missy-franklin-359007

    I’m not sure how important this is, but it’s about the former players suing the NCAA for using their likeness without paying them. The NCAA has been ordered to turn over details about all sources of revenue so the plaintiffs can calculate potential damages. Worthy of note is that this includes information about deals signed at the conference and school level. There is a protective order to keep the info private, however.

    Like

  45. bullet says:

    Top dozen Schools with the longest time since winning a conference title (not counting independents)
    #1-#5 Vanderbilt, Temple, Rutgers, USF, UAB never
    #6 Iowa St. 1912
    #7 MS St. 1941
    #8 Ole Miss 1963
    #9 New Mexico 1964
    #10-11 Minnesota, Indiana 1967
    #12 Ohio U., Kansas 1968

    So with Ohio St. and Penn St. on probation, do IU and Minnesota have any chance this year? IU gets Wisconsin at home. Minnesota gets Michigan and Michigan St. at home.

    There’s a good argument for 1968 beginning the modern era. In the 1967 season IU, Minnesota and Purdue tied for the Big 10 Title. It took 30+ years for Purdue to win another title. The Sugar Bowl invited Wyoming. The Sugar howled and screamed when they got stuck with Hawaii 40 years later. And 1968 saw the introduction of the wishbone and a change from the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offenses.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Considering last year, it’ll be a victory in Bloomington if Indiana even gets near a bowl game, let alone to the Big Ten title game. As for Minnesota, they’re doing what seems to be a good job of rebuilding during this offseason, but the results on the field will speak for themselves.

      The odds in the Eastern division are probably all on Wisconsin and Illinois with Wisconsin the rather heavy favorite and Illinois much more of a longshot. But this is the kind of year where Illinois can thrive. It’s like the last time they went to the Rose Bowl, everything broke right, and it seems like a weird year would favor that. Of course, they have a new coach, so who really knows what’ll happen; at least they have plenty of talent returning.

      As for Minnesota, they’re going to be trying to battle their way out of 6th place in the Western division, and if they get 4th or 5th, that’d be a big accomplishment because it’d mean they topped Iowa and/or Northwestern.

      You’re talking about the two bottom feeders these past couple of years. I think Purdue will make more noise than either, since it looks like it’ll be the first one out of that bottom group if it doesn’t have another injury streak.

      It just doesn’t seem likely that either is going to crawl out of their 6th place division spot this year, so getting to the title game would be a pretty incredible feat.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        My ceilings for Indiana and Minnesota this year would be 5-7 and 7-5 respectively. I’m not sure how either can do better than those records, and they can certainly do a lot worse.

        Like

      • BoilerTex says:

        Talent-wise, this is probably the best Purdue team since 2005. Of course, they likely tore about 4 ACL’s in the time it took to type this. So I will refrain from getting over-confident if you don’t mind.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “Top dozen Schools with the longest time since winning a conference title (not counting independents)
      #1-#5 Vanderbilt, Temple, Rutgers, USF, UAB never
      #6 Iowa St. 1912
      #7 MS St. 1941
      #8 Ole Miss 1963
      #9 New Mexico 1964
      #10-11 Minnesota, Indiana 1967
      #12 Ohio U., Kansas 1968”

      Who’s #14, I wonder?

      “So with Ohio St. and Penn St. on probation, do IU and Minnesota have any chance this year?”

      No, they have no chance. MN might make a bowl, but they can’t top MI, MSU and NE in the standings. IN will be lucky to win 4 games, and have no chance to top WI in the standings.

      On that list, I’d give USF some slack for being a new program. Temple almost won the MAC. So did Ohio. I’d guess those 3 are the most likely to get off this list in the next 5 years.

      Teams with almost no chance are KS, MN, IN, NM, MS, MS St, ISU and Vandy. That leaves UAB and Rutgers as darkhorses to get off of this list.

      “There’s a good argument for 1968 beginning the modern era. In the 1967 season IU, Minnesota and Purdue tied for the Big 10 Title. It took 30+ years for Purdue to win another title. The Sugar Bowl invited Wyoming. The Sugar howled and screamed when they got stuck with Hawaii 40 years later.”

      I suppose it depends what characteristics you use to define modern. You could pick 1992 when the scholarship limit started dropping to 85, the SEC started the CCG era and independents all but went away. You could pick 1973 when the NCAA scholarship limit started and the B10 was about to change their bowl rules (no longer just the Rose, and no more no-repeat rule). You could pick 1965 when unlimited substitution was allowed.

      “And 1968 saw the introduction of the wishbone and a change from the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offenses.”

      OSU begs to differ.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        One thing that strikes me when you look at those scores from the 50s and 60s prior to the wishbone era is how often you would have a Texas (or other good team) beat a much weaker team something like 21-7. Then all of the sudden, the top teams started scoring 40, 50 and 60 points. Texas went 30-2-1 from 61 to 63 and scored over 34 points twice in 61, once in 62 and only once with the MNC team in 63 (in fact, they scored over 21 only 4 times that year-49-7 over Texas Tech, 34-7 over Ok. St., 28-7 over OU and 28-6 over Navy in the bowl). Texas also went 30-2-1 from 68 to 70 and won 2 MNCs. The 68 team hit at least 35 after the 1st 4 games-7 straight times. 69 was over 35 6 times. 70 hit 35 8 of 11 games. That’s 21 in 3 years vs. 4 in the earlier 3. They never broke 50 in the earlier period, but did it 6 times in the later period.

        The OU and Nebraska teams of the early 70s were running up huge scores, as were most of the other good teams not coached by Woody Hayes.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “The OU and Nebraska teams of the early 70s were running up huge scores, as were most of the other good teams not coached by Woody Hayes.”

          And thus my problem. OSU never went to the true wishbone, although it did use several versions of the T formation. Still, Woody blew out some teams. He hit 40 about once every other year in B10 games in the 50s. It was about once per year in the 60s. It rose to over twice per year in the 70s as he had some of his most talented teams and started to use the pass some. That’s not that different from what TX did against SWC/B8 teams.

          I think part of it was the natural transition of the game as the recruiting rules gave the top teams a bigger advantage and the game went to open substitution and such.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            For whatever reason, the gap grew between the top teams and the rest. Interestingly, Texas, which invented the wishbone, was one of the 1st schools to drop it. When Darrell Royal retired, Fred Akers switched to the I to highlight Earl Campbell. And while Texas invented it, OU perfected it, but then Texas eventually learned how to defend it.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, I have a hard time seeing either winning anything for a long time.

        We also may be near the end of the period where the “other” teams are going to win the conference due to the expansion and title game.

        If Arkansas can’t emerge out of the SEC West, how are teams like Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue going to emerge from their divisions? Even Iowa would have to top Michigan, Nebraska, and Michigan State to get up to the title game itself. I realize that Iowa has outperformed Michigan State over the past 20 or so years, but Michigan State is in the better natural spot in terms of recruiting in Ohio/Michigan and probably has a better trajectory. Once you split a power conference into divisions, you get more expected results, especially a top heavy conference like the Big Ten is…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          zeek,

          “Yeah, I have a hard time seeing either winning anything for a long time.

          We also may be near the end of the period where the “other” teams are going to win the conference due to the expansion and title game.”

          I agree 100%. Consider this:
          1967
          IN and MN played 7 B10 games, 9 or 10 games total, and no CCG. They also tied at 6-1 with PU with IN getting the Rose Bowl bid based on length of time since they last went (PU would have won under modern tiebreakers I think).

          IN beat IL, IA, MI, MSU, PU and WI but lost to MN
          MN beat IN, IL, IA, MI, MSU and WI but lost to PU (MN also lost to NE OOC)

          Both missed OSU, and OSU won 4th place at 5-2 and was the only other winning B10 team in conference play. IN only played 1 ranked team all season (#3 PU). MN’s lone ranked B10 opponent was #5 IN (also #7 NE OOC).

          2012
          IN and MN will play 8 B10 games, 4 OOC, and would have to win the CCG. In addition, their B10 games are much tougher with the additions of PSU and NE.

          IN – OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IL, MSU + NW, IA (3 are preseason ranked – OSU, WI, MSU)
          MN – MI, NE, MSU, IA, NW, WI + IL, PU (4 are preseason ranked – MI, NE, MSU, WI)

          So IN would play 4 ranked teams to win the B10 and MN 5. That’s much harder than in 1967.

          Instead of playing 1 king like in 1967, they each have to play at least 2 every season now. Add to that the rise in status of WI and MSU lately and it gets even harder.

          On the other hand, IN is only 3 NCAA investigations away from play in the CCG this year.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I mean if I asked you “how many of the next 10 Big Ten titles won’t be won by Michigan/Michigan State/Nebraska/Ohio State/Wisconsin?” you’re going to answer zero.

            That’s just the nature of divisional alignment now; the whole game has changed.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I’d expect a darkhorse winner about once every decade, especially since you left me IA and PSU.

            Let’s look at the other CCG leagues for guidance:

            SEC – 20
            FL – 7
            LSU – 4
            AL – 3
            TN, AU, GA – 2
            Other – 0 (MSU and SC appeared once each, AR is 0-3, other 3 never made it)

            No darkhorse winner, but MSU making the CCG is close.

            B12 – 15
            OU – 7
            UT – 3
            NE – 2
            CO, KSU, TAMU – 1
            Other – 0 (MO was 0-2, other 5 never made it)

            I’d say KSU counts as a darkhorse winner.

            ACC – 7
            VT – 3
            Clemson, FSU, GT, WF – 1
            Other – 0 (BC is 0-2, other 6 never went)

            WF is clearly a darkhorse winner.

            Every league is different, of course, but I’d say the B10 should expect the unexpected once every 10 years.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            One thing about those Big 12 championships, Colorado, A&M, KSU and Texas all each won once in major upsets and OU had a minor upset. A division format gives you the ccg hurdle, but also only requires you to beat 5 teams (sometimes only 3) to win a division. Texas was 7-4 and beat #3 Nebraska who only lost 2 games in 4 years. KSU beat #1 OU in the 2nd biggest upset. A&M beat #3 KSU who otherwise would have gone to the BCS game because of other upsets that day. And Colorado beat #2 Texas who they had lost to 41-7 earlier in the season in a game that sent Nebraska to the BCS title game. OU beat #1 Missouri in a minor upset (OU had already beaten them that season) to knock them out of the BCS game.

            The SEC, on the other hand, has had very few upsets. I can think only of one shocker off hand, one of the many Alabama Florida games, but Alabama had a good record, they were just underrated.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            Yes, the B12 had the upset bug in their CCG while the SEC rarely did (2001 – #21 LSU over #2 TN, 2005 – #13 UGA over #3 LSU). But I was talking more about the teams nobody ever expects to win (like IN or Duke), and CO and TAMU and UT don’t fit that. People just didn’t expect them to win that year.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            @Bullet,

            The one really, really big upset in the SEC CG was in 2001. Tennessee entered the game ranked #2 and 10-1 or 11-1 and faced a 3-loss LSU team. The Vols were Rose Bowl-bound against Miami if they had won, but LSU pulled off the win.

            Like

    • RutgersFootball says:

      Have to defend my Scarlet Knights. Although it was before I was born, I believe Rutgers won the MAC in 58, 60 and 61. Still puts them #7 on the list, but its better than never. I give them a better shot than USF to end the streak this year with WVU gone.

      Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8251823/penn-state-nittany-lions-sources-penn-state-expected-ratify-sanctions

    It looks like the majority of the PSU BoT wants the various splinter groups appealing to the NCAA and/or suing them to STFU. The BoT will have a special meeting on Sunday to formally ratify the consent decree of sanctions to make it clear where the BoT officially stands on the issue.

    The resolution the board will consider states “the process followed by the (NCAA) was unfortunate and the punitive sanctions are difficult,” and refers to the consent decree as “binding.”

    The outcome of Sunday’s meeting seems almost certain, sources told “Outside the Lines,” because two straw polls about whether to appeal the sanctions were taken by a quorum of trustees during a conference call Tuesday.

    That call may have constituted an illegal board meeting, given the votes taken, the number of trustees present and the lack of public notice given about the call — a requirement of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.

    Only a few of the more than 20 trustees on the Tuesday call said they wished to appeal the NCAA sanctions.

    Maybe this will be enough to shut up everyone else, but I doubt it.

    Tuesday’s call lasted about two hours and was very contentious, sources said, as trustees and legal counsel debated the merits of appealing to the NCAA.

    A person with knowledge of the discussion said Gene Marsh, an attorney who negotiated the deal with the NCAA on behalf of Penn State, told trustees that the sanctions were not appealable by any single person based on NCAA bylaws.

    I thought so. Here’s hoping the judges realize this too and dismiss any such suits with alacrity.

    Like

  47. Brian says:

    http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/tom_oates/tom-oates-college-football-schedules-no-strength-quite-yet/article_74716008-e115-11e1-bc82-001a4bcf887a.html

    A piece about OOC scheduling in the B10 and when/if to expect upgrading. Also, a poll on WI’s new alternate uniforms (WI’s fans don’t like them either).

    Like

  48. Brian says:

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1210218.html

    CFN’s top 40 questions heading into the season (in reverse order). Lots of questions for every conference.

    Like

  49. ccrider55 says:

    Honey Badger dismissed from LSU. Just heard on the radio.

    Like

    • frug says:

      http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/10/dismissed-honey-badger-no-longer-an-lsu-tiger/

      “This is a very difficult day for our team,” Miles said in a statement. “We lose a quality person, teammate and contributor to the program. However, with that being said, we have a standard that our players are held to and when that standard is not met, there are consequences.

      “It’s hard because we all love Tyrann. We will do what we can as coaches, teammates, and friends to get him on a path where he can have success. We are going to miss him.”

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Don’t bury my Tigers just yet. If Les Miles and his teams have proven anything during his tenure, its that they can handle adversity. Mathieu was the biggest big play game changer I’ve ever personally seen in a Tiger uniform. Losing the Honey Badger certainly hurts, but LSU is DB-U. LSU also has its best, most experienced offensive line, is 6 deep at RB with 4 and 5 star players, and has a QB that can throw deep. With a lighter schedule this season, and an offense that should be less predictable, LSU might not need as many big plays that HB would have otherwise provided.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think LSU’s biggest problem is handling success. Last year was a great year with the Oregon, WVU, Alabama, Arkansas and UGA wins. Its just hard to replicate that. Now maybe the 2nd Alabama game is enough of a motivator. But it takes a lot of things to go right to get to the title game and it takes a lot to overcome complacency.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          bullet – after losing 21-0 in the BCS NCG in NOLA, to a team that they previously beat on the road, I can assure you that there is no complacency in Baton Rouge. The Tigers may not win them all or go to the BCS NCG, but its a more complete team than the 2011 version, with a softer schedule.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Honey Badger update: While McNeese State still appears to be the likely landing spot, Mathieu’s family has made inquiries to LSU about the possibility of going to school at LSU, on his own dime, and being reinstated next year. Mathieu was kicked off the team and lost his scholarship, but he hasn’t been kicked out of school. Word is that his family is deeply embarrassed by this whole ordeal and they want him to make things right at LSU. The upcoming NFL draft is apparently not their concern at this time.

            The procedure for his 2013 reinstatement is that he go to counseling and submit to random drug tests throughout the year. If there are no positive tests, a committee of LSU administrators and staff consider his application for reinstatement.

            Before his dismissal, he was considered to be a mid-to-late 1st rounder. I’m guessing he still transfers to McNeese, plays football this fall, drops out in the spring and preps for the draft – but there’s a chance.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Brian – I saw the Gannett article before it went national. Their local reporter is always more interested in being first, and being right is just a bonus. The NOLA and Baton Rouge papers have different angles and LSU has since backed off the definitive statements. That being said, I think the Honey Badger is a McNeese State Cowboy by the end of the week.

            Like

      • bamatab says:

        @Alan – I personally don’t think that you will be as hurt by the lose of Mathieu in your base (4-3) defense. I’ve heard that Jalen Collins has a lot of talent, and some have said he has the potential to even be a little more “consistant” when it comes to man-to-man coverage (which wasn’t really Mathieu’s strong suit due to his size). The problem will be in the nickel and dime packages. When they put Mathieu in the nickel spot he was a terror, whether it was coming in on a blitz, or covering the slot receiver. That is where I think he will be missed the most. I don’t know who will come in as the nickel back for you guys (I’ve heard that a true freshman has been getting a lot of reps), but there is no way that Mathieu’s loss won’t be felt in the nickle and dime packages.

        But with that said, I still think they are still a top two or three team in the country without him. You guys just have too much talent at the other spots on that defense not to be.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          bamatab – my point was not that he won’t be missed, because he will be sorely missed. Mathieu was the most dynamic player in CFB last season. Every time he touched the ball, the possibility of a game-changing play existed. The Honey Badger is the only reason I still had hope in the 4th quarter down 15-0 to your guys. LSU was only one punt return, interception, or fumble recovery from being right back in the game.

          TM7 is irreplaceable. No other team in CFB has anybody like him either. LSU without Mathieu doesn’t mean LSU won’t be a good or great team this season. It just means that LSU can’t depend on the Honey Badger to bail them out of an offensive funk with a big play on special teams or defense – just like every other team in America.

          Just like Bama, LSU replaces 1st round draft picks with inexperienced 4 and 5 star recruits.

          Will you be attending the Bama game in Baton Rouge on November 3rd?

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            I”m not sure yet. I would love to since I haven’t been to Baton Rouge in the past couple years. We’ll just have to wait and see how things work out a little closer to game time I guess.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            bamatab – if you decide to come, you’re more than welcome to stop by my tailgate party for a few drinks and some great food.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            Alan – Thanks for the invite. I’ll let you know if I end up making the trip.

            Like

  50. Brian says:

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/08/jerry-sandusky-new-investigation-penn-state-child-sexual-abuse

    Just in case the Sandusky scandal wasn’t bad enough, there may be another layer. Apparently the feds are investigating his membership in a pedophile ring and potentially sharing boys with other men “connected to Penn State.”

    “Investigators have interviewed at least one man who claims to have knowledge of Sandusky and a very prominent man, with strong ties to Penn State, both sexually abusing a boy,” a source familiar with the situation told RadarOnline.com.

    If true that’s not PSU’s fault in any way, but it’s still not the sort of news PSU fans want to hear.

    Like

  51. zeek says:

    An aside on the Dwight Howard trade:

    When are these NBA GMs going to learn that near term cap space is almost meaningless when you’re entering a rebuild?

    The #1 goal should be to get the highest value asset(s) back in a trade. The emphasis should not be on a salary dump.

    Would you rather be the Magic after the Lakers trade receiving back a couple of not so bad flotsam and 5 late draft picks that are all astonishingly protected, or would you rather just keep the bad contracts and get the guaranteed lottery pick from Toronto (via Houston) along with an unprotected Houston pick?

    Why the emphasis on dumping contracts when contracts expire naturally in 2-3 years? This argument that Orlando would have $30M in cap space in 2014 is the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever heard a GM say after a trade like this. They would have had that same $30M in cap space if they had held on to Dwight and let him walk…

    They should have done a deal with Houston and gotten that guaranteed lottery pick from Toronto at a minimum. That pick alone is worth more than 5 random 25-30 range picks in the years 2014-2017… (I still can’t believe how bad the assortment of picks they got back is…).

    Now they can only rely on their own pick each year to be a lottery pick…

    Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      I don’t follow the NBA much, but the trade made no sense to me either. It seemed like they had better offers before this. It seems like the Magic owner is going full Clippers-mode. Why spend any money or try to compete when you can make pure profit while sucking?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, as someone who follows the NBA closely, I’m kind of shocked that they accepted this trade.

        The odds that a late first rounder turns into even just a rotation player are relatively slim, and to trade Dwight for roughly 4 or 5 of those kinds of picks is just mindboggling.

        There were clearly better offers on the table in terms of rebuilding if you just look at the picks that Houston put on the table.

        But Orlando wanted to get rid of salary a bit faster instead of trying to get back higher draft picks (and much sooner draft picks since Houston’s offer would have been draft picks in the 2013-2014 drafts).

        Instead, they get this laughable assortment of picks that’s heavily protected and doesn’t even start coming to them until 2014-2017. The first pick is the worse of Denver or New York’s first (held by Denver) in 2014, and then they get Philly’s pick 2 years after Philly gives Miami a pick (so that can’t happen until 2015 at the earliest). Finally, they get the Lakers next available first in 2017.

        They didn’t really get back a single worthwhile asset. They’re going into full tank mode relying on only their own draft picks to become quality players, but at least like you said, they dump the salary a bit faster so they’ll get some profitability out of it in the near term…

        Like

    • wmwolverine says:

      It’s profit!

      Like

  52. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/08/10/new-coach-primer/index.html?sct=cf_t12_a0

    Stewart Mandel predicts how all the new coaches will do this year.

    From the B10:

    • Urban Meyer, Ohio State: The Buckeyes are ineligible for the Big Ten title, but will likely spoil someone else’s chances: They face Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska. Meyer inherits a defense much like those he produced at Florida: loaded, particularly up front, with potential first-rounders John Simon and Johnathan Hankins. All four starters return in the secondary. Sophomore quarterback Braxton Miller is a rising star, but he’s hurting for playmakers around him, particularly at running back, so expect a bumpy first year for the new offense. Predicted 2012 record: 10-2.

    • Bill O’Brien, Penn State: A free agent exodus caused by the NCAA’s sanctions has stripped Penn State of its star running back (Silas Redd), starting receiver (Justin Brown), All-Big Ten kicker/punter (Anthony Fera) and other potential contributors. O’Brien’s pedigree as a quarterbacks coach suggests he can bring out the best in senior Matt McGloin, but the offense returns just one other starter. The defense has more dependable veterans like linebackers Gerald Hodges and Matt Mauti. It’s hard to imagine the Nittany Lions won’t splinter once the trying season wears on. Predicted 2012 record: 4-8.

    • Tim Beckman, Illinois: Ron Zook’s team collapsed last season, going from 6-0 to 6-6, but there’s no question he recruited talent, producing four first- or second-rounders last spring. Returning defensive tackle Akeem Spence and linebacker Jonathan Brown could be next in line, as the Illini return seven starters from last year’s No. 7 defense nationally. Beckman was known for offensive fireworks at Toldeo, but his options are limited in Champaign. Junior quarterback Nathan Scheelhaase could still become a consistent thrower, but Illinois may struggle to run the ball. Predicted 2012 record: 7-5.”

    I think he’s way off on PSU. Even with the losses of talent, I think they still have a lot of winnable games. I think they will be closer to 7-5 in 2012.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, they’re a really tough out for teams like Illinois and Northwestern. Even wounded, there are only a few games that I’d put as automatic losses. They’ll still have talent close to at least 8 or so of their opponents…

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The thing to remember is that losing 9 starters could be a major plus on offense. They would have been really good last year with any sort of offense.

        It all depends on how well O’Brien can motivate them with the sanctions and their luck with injuries. I think 7-5 is the floor. This could be a team with a chip on its shoulder that surprises a lot of people.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “The thing to remember is that losing 9 starters could be a major plus on offense. They would have been really good last year with any sort of offense.”

          If the players they lost were the bad ones, yes.

          Let’s look at the facts, first:
          1. PSU graduated 15 players from last year’s 8/29 depth chart
          a. 3.5 OL, 1 WR, 1 TE, 0.5 FB starters
          b. 3 DL, 4 DB starters plus back up LB
          c. 1 KO returner

          2. PSU lost 2 more before the scandal
          a. Backup WR/KR/PR
          b. 3rd string DB

          3. PSU lost 6 more after the scandal
          a. 1 RB, 1 WR starters, backup QB, TE
          b. Backup MLB
          c. Kicker/punter

          4. PSU lost 3 others not on the 2011 depth chart after the scandal
          a. OL
          b. FS
          c. DT

          Here’s a look at PSU’s current depth chart (second one on the page):
          http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2012/8/7/3217641/the-impact-of-transfers-on-an-already-thin-depth-chart

          PSU already was suffering major attrition on offense due to graduation. Add in the losses of Silas Redd, Justing Brown and Devon Smith, and the only significant returning starters are 1.5 OL and a shaky QB. That’s not good.

          On D, PSU graduated 7 starters (3 DL, 4 DB) and a key backup. Add the loss of a quality reserve LB and some depth at DB and that’s bad too.

          On ST, PSU lost the K, P, KR and PR. All they have back is the LS for kicks (the one for punts graduated).

          Essentially, PSU returns 7 of 24 starters including a shaky QB. I think this is too many losses to claim addition by subtraction.

          On top of all that, everybody has to learn new systems.

          “It all depends on how well O’Brien can motivate them with the sanctions and their luck with injuries.”

          Motivation is key, but the game results will impact that. The more they lose, the harder motivation will be. Backups that don’t play will start looking to leave, too. Injury luck will be crucial as they don’t have much depth, of course.

          “I think 7-5 is the floor. This could be a team with a chip on its shoulder that surprises a lot of people.”

          I don’t think it’s the absolute floor, but it’s close. I could also see them winning 8 or maybe 9 if everything goes right. If things go horribly wrong, they could lose 6 or 7 games. That’s why I said they’d be closer to 7-5 than 4-8. That chip on the shoulder can only do so much. At some point the players have to make plays, too.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            I definitely agree that momentum will be big. If they come out of the gate strong, they can do fairly well. If they lose a couple they shouldn’t, it will build.

            Like

  53. ChicaGoB1GRed says:

    Watching the men’s basketball medal ceremony, I just wasn’t that thrilled about a bunch of NBAers tearing through the amateur players (though in many cases the other teams had pros mixed in as well) wasn’t all that thrilling. In fact it was boring and predictable.

    It got me thinking about pro athletes in the Olympics. It seems like there are still strict amateur rules enforced on Olympians, but selectively. How did that happen? How is it justified? Or am I wrong and there’s no limits on pros?

    Like

    • @ChicaGoBIGRed – I actually thought the opposite: the gold medal game was almost too exciting. The US was only up by 1 point at the end of the 3rd quarter and it was incredibly close until the very end. For me, as a basketball junkie, I really enjoy seeing all of the countries being able to use all of their local NBA players and you can see how much a number of countries, particularly Spain and Argentina, have a legit amount of top tier talent that wasn’t in existence when the original Dream Team played in 1992. The US rolled over almost everyone except for Spain, but the games that didn’t involve the US were extremely compelling. I’ve heard a lot of people say that they don’t want the pros continuing on in the Olympics (including many NBA owners such as Mark Cuban), but I think it’s shortsighted. It would be like arguing that MAC football is more exciting than Big Ten football because “anyone can win the MAC”. Look at men’s Olympic soccer and how few little people cared about it (despite being by far the most popular spectator sport in the world) since there weren’t any top players involved. That’s essentially what we’d be looking at if NBA players can’t participate in the Olympics going forward.

      My understanding about the use of pro athletes in the Olympics is that it’s determined by the particular international federation in each sport (e.g. FIFA for soccer, FIBA for basketball, etc.). FIFA imposed an age restriction of 23-and-under for soccer for the Olympics, while FIBA allows for NBA players to participate. I don’t know of any other summer sports that have any restrictions on the use of pros – remember that as soon as you take any type of payment for anything related to your sport (e.g. an Olympic swimmer that runs a swimming camp for kids is considered to be a pro), then you’re considered to be a professional. If you’re a top tier Olympian in one of the higher profile sports such as gymnastics, swimming or track, you’re likely locking in an endorsement deal as soon as you can because most people only have one set of Olympic games to cash it in. The one notable exception has been Missy Franklin, who has refused all endorsement deals and even small appearance fees in order to keep her NCAA eligibility so that she can swim when she goes to college. On the one hand, that sounds noble on paper. On the other hand, her marketability likely won’t ever be higher than it is now and swimmers have notoriously short career windows (notwithstanding a freak like Michael Phelps). Plus, from a competitive standpoint, winning Olympic gold medals at age 16 and then saying that you want to swim in college would have been like Kobe Bryant leaving the Lakers when he won an NBA title at 21 in order because he had a dream of playing basketball in Greece.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Missy made the comment recently that she didn’t know what opportunities were out there. She’s like FSU right now, evaluating all her options, not just which college.

        Pro leagues are so spread now and the lines between pro and amateur so thin in some places, we should just keep it like it is. Talent is rising everywhere. Spain had 9 of their players with NBA experience. The American team was at a height deficit in the front line.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      I thought the opposite while watching the semifinals and finals to be honest. Spain’s squad was almost as deep as the US squad in terms of NBA-level talent, and their front-line was clearly superior in NBA talent (Gasol brothers + Ibaka).

      There were almost 40 NBA players in the tournament (12 for the US) and that number is hugely improved over a decade ago. Now almost every squad had a couple at least. In the future, that should only grow.

      This is the second straight Olympics where Spain had the US in a very close game in the 4th quarter of the Gold medal match, and last time a couple of Kobe hero shots won it; this time a couple of LeBron hero shots and some aggressive CP3 offense/defense won it.

      I really don’t think the gap between the US and some of these other countries is particularly large (Spain, Argentina, and Russia all had a deep level of NBA-level talent).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Also, Spain’s coach made some silly mistakes like leaving Marc in with 3 fouls to pick up a 4th in the first half (5 fouls = ejection in FIBA).

        One other point, the quality of play in many foreign leagues is rising. There used to be much more of a stigma attached to playing in Europe for American ex-college players. That’s pretty much gone.

        The quality of play in Spain’s pro-league and some leagues in Eastern Europe has been especially noted as approaching the level of US basketball play over the past 10 years. Those leagues have become great prep areas for future NBA players such as 2nd round picks. A lot more of them get stashed away to train over there and then come over here with a lot more seasoning.

        Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/08/12/penn-state-trustees-voice-support-ncaa-penalties.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a3

    Well, PSU’s BoT agreed to support Erickson and the consent decree. They couldn’t vote officially because they didn’t provide 10 days notice. I don’t know why they didn’t just schedule it later so they could vote. Perhaps they were afraid the vote wouldn’t do well enough.

    But more than two dozen members of the 32-member board then voiced support for President Rodney Erickson’s decision and a desire to move forward, although many criticized the NCAA sanctions themselves.

    Member after member then spoke in support of the president’s decision, many saying he faced an impossible choice and acted in the best interests of the university, and many said it was time for board members to unite and move on.

    Some other good info:
    “I was also told that the NCAA board thought it was the worst case of loss of institutional control they had ever seen, and that an even greater issue on their mind beyond the acts of individuals was the idea of a `culture problem’ at Penn State,” he said.

    The there was this:

    Trustee Anthony Lubrano, however, said he too wanted to move forward but “not at the price of our proud past.” He criticized the actions of the NCAA and the resources it relied upon, especially the school’s internal investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh, the findings of which he called “so inconsistent with reality that I find them to be intentionally inflammatory.”

    “For example, Penn State athletics has served as a model program for the NCAA member institutions, contrary to the assertion that Penn State athletics had a `culture problem.’ For those of us involved with Penn State athletics, we know just how untrue that is.”

    So he knows what reality is, and it isn’t what’s in the report. Clearly people involved with PSU athletics know more about how healthy their culture was than those on the outside with no bias. I’m pretty sure the NCAA would not say that PSU is a model program now.

    On the bright side, there was also this:

    Trustee Ryan McCombie also said he would appeal but told fellow members Sunday that he had told his attorney to refrain from legal action “to allow for sufficient time for full and deliberate review.”

    Maybe some common sense snuck in and told him how bad this would look.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      So SMU didn’t have a loss of institutional control worse than PSU? I guess not. Everyone knew what was going on. The Chairman of the board, former Governor Clements, personally approved the payments (another example of naming things too early-Clements HS in Sugar Land, a Houston suburb, is named for him-his main accomplishment was being the 1st Republican governor in Texas since reconstruction).

      The term LOIC really doesn’t fit very well. It should mean something like Miami where everybody is off doing their own thing and the President and possibly even the AD don’t know what is going on and there is no effort to control things (again like USC with the agents). With PSU, the President did know what was going on and ultimately had the final say on reporting the crime or not. The AD and VP informed him and discussed it with him. He consciously chose to accept his subordinate’s recommendation not to report at that time, but to evaluate and decide later.

      With Penn St., it was unconscionable decision making at the top of the institution and a lack of followup, not really an institution out of control, except for the dysfunctional board.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Exactly! This was absolutely under control, but was at best terribly misguided. It seems to me to be a conscious attempting to protect the PSU brand, not simply an athletic program, in that they wern’t hiding what most consider rule violations that create competitive advantage. They were hiding criminal behavior by a former employee who had “retirement” agreements that allowed campus access.

        Like

    • Phil says:

      I watch this video and Lubrano=reality isn’t what comes to mind:

      Like

  55. Wes Haggard says:

    http://deadspin.com/5932286/?u…dium=socialflow

    What if this aggravates the NCAA beyond the breaking point? What if the NCAA retaliates with the Death Penalty for four years? Would the B1G ignore the situation or would the B1G have a deep scheduling problem and BTN problem requiring content. Would the problem be so severe and serious that the B1G would excommunicate PSU? If so, which University would be the expansion candidate. I know that the geographic logic says that Notre Dame would be first on the list but the Irish cling to their independence and have refused all inviations to the B1G up to now. So who is next? Kansas? Maryland? Rutgers? Texas? (Who has not signed the Big 12’s Grant of Rights)

    If it were just Maryland, would that be enough or would the B1G ask others to join the party? Georgia Tech? Virginia? UNC? Would the B1G go to 16 teams and create a workable POD lineup beating the SEC to the punch?

    Like

  56. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/63674/big-east-hires-firm-to-help-with-tv-deal

    Big East has Rose Bowl and Pac-12’s TV negotiator on their case.

    It’ll be interesting to see how they do, especially given that NBC is looking for content to fill up NBC Sports’ airwaves (the Olympics was really the coming out party for their Sports Network), and that there’s no one else on the near horizon going to market…

    Like

  57. Brian says:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/08/13/pac-12-networks-the-football-broadcast-lineup/#more-26041

    An early look at what the P12N will carry:

    “The Pac-12 had the first or second pick of games seven times in the 13-week season, and it took advantage of the options available.

    The league’s three ranked teams, USC, Oregon and Stanford, will appear on the Pac-12 Networks five times in the first four weeks of the season.”

    Here are some highlights:

    *** Sat., Sept. 1
    Nevada at California, noon
    San Diego State at Washington, 7:30 p.m.

    *** Sat., Sept. 8
    Oklahoma State at Arizona, 7:30 p.m.
    Duke at Stanford, 7:30 p.m.

    *** Sat., Sept. 15
    Houston at UCLA,7:30 p.m.

    *** Sat., Sept. 22
    California at USC, TBA

    Like

  58. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    Middle States Commission Issues Warning:

    http://live.psu.edu/story/60717

    MSC is the agency that holds PSU’s accreditation.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Well they certainly have a more legitimate claim to jurisdiction than the NCAA.

      It won’t happen, but having its accreditation pulled would be the real Death Penalty for PSU.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        “It won’t happen, but having its accreditation pulled would be the real Death Penalty for PSU.”

        Agreed on both parts of that statement. The DOE pulling all funding would also be a death blow, and it also won’t happen..

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Agreed. They’re one of the groups who should be reviewing this. While the monitoring was one of the parts of the NCAA penalty I agreed with, the NCAA shouldn’t make PSU do the same thing they are doing with the accredidation agency and presumably, the DOE later. Interestingly, the article states that the NCAA penalties are part of the reason the accredidation is being reviewed. Getting members into additional trouble with accredidation agencies is not one of the purposes of the NCAA.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “Interestingly, the article states that the NCAA penalties are part of the reason the accredidation is being reviewed. Getting members into additional trouble with accredidation agencies is not one of the purposes of the NCAA.”

          They aren’t necessarily in any trouble. They just have to explain what they’re doing to fix any problems. The reason the group said the NCAA penalties drew their attention was the fine. They want to make sure PSU is sound financially and won’t be undermining their education to pay the fine. It’s not a problem, PSU just has to explain to them where the money will come from.

          And accreditation isn’t the NCAA’s concern. The fine was 1 year’s worth of FB revenue spread over 5 years. If that causes a school serious financial hardship, then they shouldn’t be playing football and running the risk of getting fined.

          Like

      • Eric says:

        Agree as well on both counts. They should be investigating this (unlike the NCAA still in my opinion), but are unlikely to go quite that far.

        Like

  59. Brian says:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/08/virginia-tech-white-helmets-bird-feet/1#.UCnD-6PHnKd

    Even VT’s players don’t like their new helmets. The white one features two bird feet instead of VT on the side.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      At some point, these designs get ridiculous. I’m not even sure who came up with that idea of a homage to the Fighting Gobblers…

      Like

  60. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8267843/big-east-hire-former-cbs-sports-executive-mike-aresco-commishioner

    The Big East Conference has hired CBS Sports executive vice president Mike Aresco as its new commissioner, Greg Williams, University of Cincinnati president and chair of the commissioner search committee, announced Tuesday.

    Aresco has handled the network’s contract negotiations with the NCAA for the rights to the men’s basketball tournament, and also negotiated CBS’ 15-year deal with the Southeastern Conference.

    Before CBS Sports, Aresco worked at ESPN and was responsible for overseeing the acquisition, scheduling and development of long-term strategies for all of ESPN and ESPN2 college sports properties. He joined ESPN in 1984 and was named assistant general counsel in 1988 before moving to the ESPN programming department.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The odd thing is that he’s never worked for a university or conference. He’s purely a TV guy. On the surface that makes sense, but the BE just hired a TV negotiation expert to get their next TV deal. This doubles up on TV expertise but leaves them with no other special knowledge.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Larry Scott had never worked in college sports either and that worked out alright.

        Personally, I like the idea. The Big East desperately needed an outsider after years of domination by the Providence mafia. Aresco certainly fits the bill.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          frug,

          Not in college sports, but he had been a sports executive before.

          I’m all for an outsider, I’m just not sure someone with only TV experience was the best choice.

          Like

          • Phil says:

            Well, if they don’t get a decent TV deal nothing else really matters.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yes, but that’s why they hired the expert to negotiate the TV deal for them. The commish is a redundant expert.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            There’s best in total dollars and best for the conference going forward. Bevilacqua will maximize the dollars in the deal for them, but you still need the right conference leadership to understand what the best deal(s) are for exposure and possible growth for the conference.

            Like

  61. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The SEC’s webpage did a nice job of keeping up with current and former SEC athletes at the Olympics.

    http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/235771/sec-2012-summer-olympics-review.aspx

    “SEC By Medal
    Gold – 25
    Silver – 14
    Bronze – 19

    * – If the SEC were a country, the 58 medals (counting multiple entries on teams and relays) would rank 5th among all countries:

    1 – USA 104
    2 – China 87
    3 – Russia 82
    4 – Great Britain 65
    5 – Germany 44

    * Not counting multiple entries and relays, SEC athletes medaled in 39 events at the Olympics, which would rank 6th among all countries:

    * – If the SEC were a country, the 25 gold medals (counting multiple entries on teams and relays) would be 4th among all countries:

    1 – USA 46
    2 – China 38
    3 – Great Britain 29
    4 – Russia 24
    5 – South Korea 13

    * Not counting multiple entries and relays, SEC athletes gold medaled in 15 events at the Olympics, which would rank 5th among all countries.”

    Did the other conferences publish similar lists? I would assume that the Pac-12 and the B1G would have had similar numbers.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Sorry for the triple post but here is the Big 10

      http://www.offtackleempire.com/2012/8/12/3238171/b1g-in-london-2012

      27 total medals.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        How sad is it we’ve come to the point that conferences compare olympic medal counts as some sort of competition?

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          And this is sad, how? I find it informative, admirable achievements recognized, for some a heightened sense of pride, for others a goal setting exercise.

          When have conferences no ingaged in friendly (usually) competition? It shouldn’t be unexpected that a world wide competition might inspire a bit of competitive evaluation, which I don’t has happened here, yet.

          Like

          • Ross says:

            Most of the people toting these “conference accomplishments” have no idea how many of these athletes have done in their respective sports while in college. I couldn’t tell you how most of Michigan’s athletes did in their respective sports, other than a select few.

            Sad was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. I just find it ridiculous that the conference pride that has swollen to unseen proportions in recent years in now beginning to spill over into olympic medal counts, when most people could not have named any of these athletes prior to their success.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Ross:

            I totally disagree. Schools, and conferences to a slightly lesser extent, have always touted, honored, and celebrated those of their affiliation that have reached the pinnacle of athletic achievement. I can tell you many, if not most of the medal winners from my school over the last 50 years. It does helps my old brain that my school is no where near the top numbers, but that doesn’t lessen my appreciation and admiration of them, or of those from any other schools.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          I don’t find it sad.

          I think it’s a validation somewhat of the fact that the NCAA does shepherd athletes through Olympic sports, and so it’s important to keep those pipelines healthy…

          It’s basically like the Director’s Cup in action in some sense. Yeah, an Olympian that can medal is a rarity and so you’re talking about skewed samples, but the higher quality athletes that go through a program (i.e. win NCAA championships) should lead to a higher output of Olympians…

          Like

          • bullet says:

            What’s significant is the number from sports that are getting dropped like men’s swimming.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            bullet:

            Well, the overall talent pool doesn’t decrease. A physical freak like Michael Phelps who has the dimensions and size of various body parts that allows his to dominate in swimming will be just as likely to pop up now as 30 years ago. Olympic athletes are usually the very tip of the top in their sport, and the very elite athletes in most of these sports can usually be identified pretty early. So as an example, there are currently 17 men’s gymnastics programs in the US. However, the US would only send 5 male gymnasts, and realistically, only maybe 9-10 male gymnasts in the entire country have a shot at being selected for the Olympics. So it’s unlikely that the quality of the very best male gymnasts in the US would be affected even if you had 85 NCAA men’s gymnastics programs. It’s the guys who are about 50th-100th best in the country who would be affected, but they have no shot at being Olympians anyway.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            The overall gene pool doesn’t decrease, but the probability that the “genetically predisposed” is involved in the sport he/she is most suited for does. You seem to be saying we really only need a couple men’s gym programs? With 85 programs I think we would certainly have double, or triple the number of potential Olympic caliber gymnasts leaving college, leading to an increased number remaining active. When has depth ever been a disadvantage? Do you think the peak has been reached and that steel won’t sharpen steel further?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I agree with cc.

            In addition, competition makes athletes better. With more programs, there will be more who can challenge and push people harder. Even within a single school competition helps. When there’s competition from the other teams it helps even more. The possibility of a college scholarship is also a motivation to continue in a sport. It also provides a continuing structure for training and competition while the athlete is developing.

            Track would be devasted if a lot more programs dropped it like Maryland did. Sports like golf and tennis really have a big structure outside the colleges, but some sports really need the college programs. The US had a higher % of its medals from two sports-track and swimming-than any other country with 30 or medals. And our colleges excel. In fact, a lot of the track and swimming athletes from other countries run or swim at our colleges.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            In fact, a lot of the track and swimming athletes from other countries run or swim at our colleges.

            With more programs, will we be training our own athletes or someone else’s athletes?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ccrider:
            “The overall gene pool doesn’t decrease, but the probability that the “genetically predisposed” is involved in the sport he/she is most suited for does”.

            So what matters is how young you can accurately identify those who are genetically predisposed for a sport. If they can be identified at a young age and the level of performance remains fairly constant, then no, I don’t think depth really matters. If you can accurately identify who the top 20 male swimmers are going to be over the next few Olympic cycles by age 18, then it really doesn’t matter if there are 10 swimming programs or 100. Those 20 who are genetically predisposed would still have scholarships to swim; those outside the top 20 still will have virtually no chance of becoming Olympians no matter how hard they work.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Richard:

            You assume there is an accurate method to identify the top 20 in advance.The most effective and successful way of discovering who is predisposed to success in a sport is to include as large a group as possible, and have them compete. Judge by results, rather than depending on the predictive ability of a model which, by being so exclusive, pretty much eliminates any way to judge the effectivenessand accuracy of that model.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ccrider:

            What predictive model? They compete in high school as well, and in some sports (like women’s gymnastics), the peak of an athlete is actually in HS or before.

            And yes, I do assume that in some sports, there is an accurate method to identify the very top talent in a sport when they are still in HS. For swimming and track, it would be looking at how fast they were as 18 year-olds or younger, for instance.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I guess we’ll have to just disagree. I’ve seen guide a few less talented/gifted kids overcome “superior” kids through pure hard work and toughness. Seen some mature and just start to touch their abilities after HS.

            Swimming is youth? Probably because of mental burnout. Dara Torres ring a bell? Womens gym favors young (read little) because quickness hides form breaks and weight dramatically increases injuries. But I digress, let’s just select for the dozen best in the world. Olympics could be a long weekend affair without the useless, wasteful competition leading up to the finals…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ccrider:
            Um, when in HS, Dara Torres set California HS swimming records that stand to this day. When she was 17, she made the Olympic team, so Torres is a really poor example if you’re trying to find an example of a late bloomer who would have been overlooked if there were less swimming programs (as she certainly wouldn’t have been).

            “I’ve seen guide a few less talented/gifted kids overcome “superior” kids through pure hard work and toughness. Seen some mature and just start to touch their abilities after HS.”

            What sports? With baseball, that’s definitely true. However, I said that with some Olympic sports, it’s easy to tell by the time athletes are 18 whether they have a chance at an Olympic medal or not. Tell me how what I said is wrong.

            “But I digress, let’s just select for the dozen best in the world. Olympics could be a long weekend affair without the useless, wasteful competition leading up to the finals”

            Did I say I didn’t want competition? No. However, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that competition doesn’t exist in high school.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I live in a state that quit sponsoring championships in gymnastics due to all but a few schools ended the opportunity to participate. Most gymnasts now come from clubs.
            Quite a few sports have lost multiple college programs. Fewer HS kids see opportunity in college and late bloomers never get an opportunity. Ashton Eaton is just some kid who played soccer in HS without the chance to develop (start really) in college.

            Torres: you said swimming was a youth sport. Torres definitely not youth in her last competition.

            Yes, when you say select through some omnipotent system only a small sample to move on, rather than having a large group compete to decide who will advance, you are speaking against competition.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ccrider:
            “you said swimming was a youth sport”

            Uh, no I didn’t.

            Here’s the entirety of what I wrote:
            “What predictive model? They compete in high school as well, and in some sports (like women’s gymnastics), the peak of an athlete is actually in HS or before.

            And yes, I do assume that in some sports, there is an accurate method to identify the very top talent in a sport when they are still in HS. For swimming and track, it would be looking at how fast they were as 18 year-olds or younger, for instance.”

            Where in there did I say “swimming is a youth sport” or any point in which saying “41-year-old Dara Torres won an Olympic medal” can be used as a rebuttal?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps I misunderstood this: “If you can accurately identify who the top 20 male swimmers are going to be over the next few Olympic cycles by age 18, then it really doesn’t matter if there are 10 swimming programs or 100.”
            I apologize if I did.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “If you can accurately identify…”
            If you could accurately identify the top 20, refine it to find the top 3, and in order. If a bullfrog had wings… If. That is where my disagreement basically resides. You can’t. You may find 20 of the top 50, or 100, or 200. But you can’t know any of that unless you have everyone competing and your selections all finish in the top 20, 50, etc. over enough events to be nearly 100% reliable every time.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Uh, ccrider, they do have everybody competing (over a lot of meets, too). You seem to be under the idea that before college, no one in the US swims competitively.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Uh, no they don’t. “everybody” have never competed. Perhaps in Russia or Cuba, etc where/when it was mandatory. Quite a few opportunities have disappeared over the last several decades. The percentage of kids involved now is considerably lower than in the ’60s.And your premis seems to be that the competition is of no consequence, since the top 20 have been identified. No sense, or way, at all for a competitor to try to clime into into that elite group. It is not his/her destiny.

            What is magical about the age of 18? Why not refine it and predict the top group by age 12, or 6? Heck, let’s genetic test before birth. Save all those parents the trouble and expense of clubs, camps, HS sports fees and equipment, etc.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “And your premis seems to be that the competition is of no consequence, since the top 20 have been identified. No sense, or way, at all for a competitor to try to clime into into that elite group. It is not his/her destiny.”

            Please stop putting words in to my mouth. The top 20 would have been identified through competition. And yes, it’s true. There is, for instance, “no sense, or way, at all for a competitor to try to clime into into that elite group. It is not his/her destiny” for 99.9% of the world’s population if the elite group we’re talking about is NBA All-Stars. I have a friend who is 5’10”, rather awkward, and obsessed with basketball. I’m shorter than him. We could have devoted our entire lives from the day we were born to becoming NBA All-Stars, and the chances that we’d ever make an NBA roster (much less become NBA All-Stars) is essentially nil. I’m not sure why it’s so hard to grasp that that’s also true for many of the Olympic sports.

            As for the age of 18, as I’ve mentioned numerous times before, it’s possible to identify how good someone will at certain sports by certain ages, and with some sports, that’s 18 or before.

            In other sports, it’s later. However, if, say, a baseball position player doesn’t have a good batting eye before age 25, the chances that he would suddenly develop a good batting eye are rather poor, no matter how hard he tries.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Jeremy Lin. He wouldn’t have been at Harvard if everyone knew he was an NBA caliber player at 17. There are a lot of people who develop dramatically in many sports during college. Reducing the number of programs significantly significantly reduces the possibility of the good but not great to become great. Everyone knew Bolt was good, but he improved his 100M best from 10.03 to 9.76 at the age of 22.

            You don’t develop as many people with potential and you lose some when a college program helps them continue instead of dropping the sport.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            5’8″ Franklin Jacobs, from Wiki:

            “Franklin Jacobs (born December 31, 1957[1] ) is a former high jumper from the United States. His personal best of 2.32 meters (7 ft 7 in) was a world indoor record in 1978,[2] and at 59 centimeters (23 in) above Jacobs’ own height of 1.73 meters (5 ft 8 in),[2] it remains the record for height differential, now held jointly with Stefan Holm, and the record for jump at highest rate of one’s size.[3]”

            “Jacobs barely graduated high school and got no athletic scholarship, but enrolled at Fairleigh Dickinson University in Teaneck, New Jersey with a federal grant.[4] He cleared 7 feet 1 inch (2.16 m) in his freshman year.[4] In March 1977 he tore cartilage in his right leg playing basketball, but competed for over a year without surgery.[5] He established a rivalry with Dwight Stones over the next two years,[4] with media emphasizing the contrast between Jacobs, a short inner-city African American, and Stones, a tall blond Californian.[8] Stones antagonized Jacobs by criticizing his unorthodox jumping style.[5] Jacobs beat Stones at the 1978 Millrose Games in Madison Square Garden, at which he set a world indoor record of 2.32 meters (7 ft 7 in).[6”

            Like

  62. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8268973/two-horse-city-race-host-champions-bowl-sources-say

    The Champs Bowl is basically down to Dallas or New Orleans according to sources. Atlanta is the only other city to decide to bid so far. Phoenix and Tampa have decided not to bid, and the other 5 are undecided. Those sources say most of the 5 won’t bother to bid, either, knowing that Dallas or NO will win. Atlanta is considered a longshot since it hosts the SEC CG.

    None of this is unexpected. Clearly the Cotton and/or Sugar should be the host(s).

    Like

  63. Brian says:

    http://www.timesleader.com/stories/OBrien-in-a-numbers-game,191179

    Some details on PSU’s numbers situation:

    Since BOB took over in January, 16 scholarship players have left the team for various reasons.
    Since the NCAA announced sanctions in July, 11 players have left.
    Since practice started in August, 2 players have left (staying at PSU on scholarship, just quit FB).

    As of now, PSU has 68 players who came to PSU on scholarship plus however many walk-ons they have given scholarships to over the years like McGloin.

    Like

  64. bullet says:

    North Carolina keeps digging a deeper hole, but the NCAA still doesn’t seem interested. Now they have apparently put Julius Peppers transcript online. He took many of the same courses in 1998-2002 that were fraudulent in the past 4 years. This could have been going on for a long time.
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19786587/unc-investigating-how-possible-peppers-transcript-ended-up-on-website

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      I have to imagine North Carolina is going to get hammered. But logic doesn’t always prevail.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Putting someone’s information on-line is I believe, a violation of federal law. They should at least get a fine from the feds. Its the substance that should concern the NCAA.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Putting a student’s transcript online is definitely a FERPA violation. I don’t think FERPA has actually been enforced, so I don’t see a fine coming. But Peppers could sue under FERPA.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          It depends on if the transcript is real, and who posted it and why. If a whistleblower posted it because he/she thought something was being covered up they probably wouldn’t get in much trouble.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “North Carolina keeps digging a deeper hole, but the NCAA still doesn’t seem interested.”

      There’s a a difference between disinterest and deciding the problems don’t violate NCAA rules. Unless athletes got special treatment, it isn’t an athletics issue under current rules.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        If the athletes are told about signing up for a fake class which isn’t otherwise known about and the vast majority of the students are athletes, its pretty obvious what is going on. And if the student-athletes would otherwise be ineligible but for a fraudulent class, that is clearly an NCAA issue.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “If the athletes are told about signing up for a fake class”

          They haven’t been proven to be completely fake according to UNC. People still had to turn in some work, apparently. I agree they sound pretty bogus on the surface, though.

          “which isn’t otherwise known about and the vast majority of the students are athletes, its pretty obvious what is going on.”

          Even the NCAA has a standard of proof. There are many classes at many schools that are mostly taken by athletes. As long as other students have equal access, the NCAA leaves it alone.

          “And if the student-athletes would otherwise be ineligible but for a fraudulent class, that is clearly an NCAA issue.”

          Yes, but apparently none of these classes have been shown to be totally fraudulent. That’s the problem. It’s sort of like how we all know Cam Newton shouldn’t have been eligible but he was because of the way the rules were written.

          Do you really want the NCAA to get into deciding which courses at which schools count for credit?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            From the articles I read, some of these classes never met. The students signed up and got credit. These were African American studies classes, not Coaching 101, so it shouldn’t be predominately athletes. Some of these were supposedly taught by teachers who knew nothing about them. The person doing it forged their signatures. UNC admits they were fraudulent. They are looking at prosecuting the guy. So its not about the NCAA making decisions about credit.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “From the articles I read, some of these classes never met.”

            Some legitimate independent study classes don’t meet.

            “The students signed up and got credit.”

            According to UNC, everyone had to do at least some work in each of those classes. That doesn’t mean they weren’t bogus classes, but it also doesn’t mean the NCAA has the needed proof to bust UNC.

            “These were African American studies classes, not Coaching 101, so it shouldn’t be predominately athletes.”

            Really? According to UNC, their undergrads are 9% black (1704). Athletes make up a decent percentage of that group, especially when you eliminate all the regular students that choose not to study AA Studies. As a topic relevant to many of the athletes, and perhaps not the hardest of majors (every school has easy majors that lots of athletes take), the large numbers shouldn’t be all that surprising. Especially since that department offered a lot of independent study classes which fit an athlete’s schedule more easily.

            “Some of these were supposedly taught by teachers who knew nothing about them. The person doing it forged their signatures. UNC admits they were fraudulent. They are looking at prosecuting the guy. So its not about the NCAA making decisions about credit.”

            Yes it is. As long as these classes were open to everybody and athletes didn’t get special treatment, it’s not an NCAA issue. UNC would have to show these classes were so bad that they should not have counted but UNC hasn’t gotten that far yet.

            There are several investigations ongoing (SBI, special review by the board of governors, etc), so the NCAA may come back and level more sanctions.

            It seems odd you are so gung ho to punish UNC athletics for this when it clearly seems to be an academic problem but keep lambasting the NCAA for going after PSU for a non-athletic problem.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            You fail to see the point Brian. PSU was only peripherally related to athletics and did not involve any student-athletes. UNC’s actual student-athletes were fraudulently given credit to the extent that even the named professor didn’t know about the class.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            As the article says, it threatens the foundation of college athletics if they don’t even try to make them real students.

            Another article talks about how these classes were opened for athletes:
            http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/07/09/north-carolinas-academic-fraud-details-forged-paperwork-little-or-no-instruction/

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “You fail to see the point Brian.”

            Yes, I fail to see your point. I think you fail to see the point, too.

            “PSU was only peripherally related to athletics”

            A former assistant coach/current professor emeritus, the head football coach, the athletic director and the president were all involved in a coverup to benefit the football program. Clearly that is unrelated to athletics.

            “and did not involve any student-athletes.”

            True. So what? A player doesn’t have to be involved for the NCAA to get involved. A coach or administrator is plenty to pull them in.

            “UNC’s actual student-athletes were fraudulently given credit to the extent that even the named professor didn’t know about the class.”

            Says you. The current internal reports haven’t gone as far as to say the credit was fraudulent. Plus, as I have pointed out several times, it’s not an NCAA matter unless athletes got special treatment or there is definitive proof that nobody should have gotten credit for the class. That proof does not yet exist as far as I can tell.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      I read that. He makes some valid points, but stretches things a bit in others. He also missed some other arguments. It’s from a P12 POV for those that didn’t read it.

      Like

  65. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/08/15/preseason-top-25-alabama-usc-lsu/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0

    SI’s Top 25. For once, MSU fans might be happy.

    B10:
    6. WI
    8. MSU
    13. MI
    19. NE
    22. OSU

    Like

  66. Brian says:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/report-sandusky-has-started-writing-book-in-prison/1#.UCxgNaPHnKc

    Sandusky is writing his second book. His first was the autobiography “Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story.” Maybe this will be “Touching Others: The Jerry Sandusky Story Part II.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s