In my observations of conference realignment over the past several years, I’ve actually believed that the various oft-maligned leaders of the Big East have often received a bad rap. The frequent criticism that the basketball side ran the Big East rang hollow to me since having great basketball while improving football are not mutually exclusive, meaning that it made no sense to dilute what was legitimately an elite basketball conference just to add mediocre football bodies. At the same time, there was never going to be a “proactive” move that would have prevented any Big East member from accepting an invite from the ACC, Big 12 or Big Ten. Adding the likes of Houston, SMU, East Carolina, Memphis and Tulane earlier was never going to change the minds of Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Louisville and Rutgers when they got the opportunity to find different homes. No one can really blame any Big East leader for those schools leaving.
The last two defections (Rutgers to the Big Ten and Louisville to the ACC), though, should not have caused an exodus that has seen the non-football “Catholic 7” group (Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and Marquette) leave the league that several of them founded and Boise State decide to never even join as a football-only member (with San Diego State likely leaving right behind them). Just because UConn and Cincinnati are doing everything that they can to leave the Big East didn’t have to mean that this league needed to split apart entirely. Big East commissioner Mike Aresco, who came into the office this past summer with great fanfare and accolades from college sports industry veterans, has made a number of missteps that can’t be simply blamed on Rutgers and Louisville leaving.
Back in the heady days of October, the spin coming out of the Big East was that their new TV deal would be well in excess of $10 million per all-sports school and could even approach ACC-level figures. Aresco, being a long-time TV industry executive with CBS Sports and ESPN, seemed to have some street cred on the issue. However, the problem with all of the Big East valuations was that they were based on external broad-based market factors, such as new ESPN competitors (e.g. NBC Sports Network, Fox Sports One, etc.) needing the magic word of “inventory” and the overall rise in TV sports rights, as opposed to anything at all with the intrinsic value of the Big East itself. The Big East tricked themselves (and many of their fans) into believing that they could turn down whatever ESPN was offering during an exclusive negotiating window period that ended on October 31st simply because they were selling a new TV contract in a rising market. Even if Rutgers and Louisville had never left the Big East (as those defections occurred after the ESPN window expired), it was playing with fire. There was never a guarantee that notoriously cheap Comcast was going to step up with a large offer on behalf of NBC Sports Network while Fox seemed to be more focused on other college conferences. This isn’t just 20/20 hindsight from my viewpoint – the Big East got cocky about their TV valuation back in the fall and set themselves up to get burned on a number of levels irrespective of the actions of the Big Ten and ACC.
That cockiness about the potential TV deal led the Big East down a path where they mistakenly thought that they could convince BYU to join the league as a football-only member. As I’ve stated several times before, BYU’s decision to become an independent was much more about obtaining exposure in and of itself with its ESPN contract and the leveraging of BYUtv than TV money itself. However, reports out of the Big East repeatedly indicated that they wanted to keep going after BYU in a misguided belief that the conference could throw enough money to get the Cougars to bite. This waste of time with respect to BYU prevented the Big East from moving on to different football-only alternatives for its proposed western flank, such as concentrating more on Air Force or going after other Mountain West members. By the time that it was clear that the TV deal that the Big East was holding out for would never materialize, it was too late to get even Fresno State or UNLV (much less BYU). Without further western members willing to come to the Big East, that forced Boise State to reevaluate its own status and ultimately decide to remain in the Mountain West. Whether or not the Big East should have offered Boise State some favorable TV deal terms in the same vein as the Mountain West did (where Boise State’s home games will be sold as a separate TV deal with financial bonuses to schools for national TV appearances) is irrelevant here. It would never have come to this if the Big East hadn’t overvalued its TV prospects three months ago.
Meanwhile, the Catholic 7 had been witnessing the league that many of them founded start turn completely into Conference USA 2.0 over the past several years. What kept them around up until last month was the prospect of a TV deal driven by the bubble in college football. However, what the Catholic 7 figured out (and something that every single college sports fan that follows conference realignment should take note of) is that football in and of itself is not valuable. Instead, what’s valuable is having the right football teams, and the Big East no longer had them. Thus, hitching their wagon to schools simply because they played football no longer provided extra value to the Catholic 7, which meant there also wasn’t any point to being in an unstable hybrid that was getting picked apart due to football-focused conference realignment. Receiving roughly the same TV money in a league that the Catholic 7 could control without worrying about football while also being an aggressor within its sphere of basketball-focused conference realignment (instead of being a victim) became much more appealing. Of course, that TV calculation by the Catholic 7 would have never happened if the Big East had taken the ESPN offer this past fall since the league would have locked in an amount for the basketball schools that wouldn’t have made it worth it to consider splitting off.
At this point, the Big East mainly has to ensure that schools such as Houston and SMU don’t end up heading over to the Mountain West along with Boise State and presumably San Diego State, as well. Now, I personally don’t believe that the Big East will lose anyone else to the MWC (the Big East still seems to be a better value proposition for the Texas-based schools), but perception of who is weak or strong can change pretty quickly in conference realignment. It’s one thing for the Big East to be losing head-to-head battles with the Big Ten and ACC, yet it’s an entirely different matter when the MWC seems to have more momentum.
Ultimately, the decisions of Boise State and the Catholic 7 indicate that the new Big East TV valuation wasn’t going to be much of an increase (if there was an increase at all) over the Mountain West’s current fairly pedestrian deal and what the Catholic schools could receive in basketball TV money on their own. All of that shows that Aresco turning down ESPN’s offer that would have surely been enough to keep Boise State and the Catholic 7 in the fold was a monumental error. The Big East wanted to believe that it could still be in the power conference conversation or even argue that it was a stronger football league than the ACC. However, they got put back into place quickly by the conference realignment gods with a major assist from the hubris of the Big East leadership.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Yahoo!)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawks.
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers! Baseball season starts next month!
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
Go right through …
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Re: Corbett: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
LikeLike
Go Louisville!!!!
LikeLike
Louisville is absolutely overrunning Florida’s defense and has been all game. 9-13 on 3rd down conversions and many of them were long conversions.
33-10 now. This thing is as good as done.
LikeLike
Florida must have gotten an advanced copy of Kiffin’s upcoming book on bowl game strategy.
LikeLike
Figure that this post better belongs here rather than in the old thread:
Someone proposed the idea of the MWC, after adding Boise and SDSU, take Houston & SMU as well as Tulsa and UTEP. Tulsa and UTEP don’t add much, but if you go just a little east, the MWC could add Memphis and Tulane instead (much bigger media markets). If you split in to pods, the Houston-SMU-Memphis-Tulane pod is still pretty close to each other. Would Tulane and Memphis jump? Well, the closest MWC members with the TX added would be just as close or closer than the closest BE schools. With UNLV, SDSU, USU, and UNM, MWC basketball wouldn’t be much worse than BE basketball from Memphis’s perspective. The biggest differentiator is that the chances of schools jumping from the MWC to another league are minimal, promising stability, while Cincy and UConn want to join the ACC yesterday.
BTW, to those folks who think that a MWC that stretches from the Pacific to the Mississippi is crazy, the Pacific Coast League has been in Memphis and New Orleans (as well as Nashville and Iowa) for over a decade now, and minor league baseball isn’t exactly a big-money operation either.
LikeLike
That’s not radically different than the old16 team WAC (and covers many of the same programs) that stretched from Hawaii to Texas/Oklahoma. Tulane and Memphis aren’t really that much farther East.
LikeLike
The PCL is really the “Western Conference” of AAA baseball to the “International” League’s “Eastern Conference”.
LikeLike
The MWC has just stabilized its position by promising Boise St. a larger share of the pie, and that plus the $2m or so less that the Big East was worth to a FB only member paying $0.9m in travel subsidies allowed it to offer the best deal to Boise State.
Would Houston and/or SMU get the sam special package? If the did, would it generate national TV bonuses?
With a set of members unlikely for any major conference, the MWC offers stability the Little East cannot, so on equal expected value of the current lineup, you’d take the MWC. Equal expected value to Boise State implies an upper bound of +3m or so to the favor of the Little East. It does not imply that regular MWC membership is equal or greater in value to regular Little East membership.
LikeLike
Although treating members differently seems like a recipe for disaster (see Big 12), the rules the Mountain West put into place could theoretically work for anyone, including Houston or SMU. If they joined the Mountain West, they’d get the same national exposures bonuses and bowl game bonuses that Boise could get. The only question is if they can package their TV deals separately (much harder).
LikeLike
It’s a risk to have different rule for different schools, but it’s just as big a one to have the same. Miami (FL) probably would never have joined the old Big East without different revenue rules. Meanwhile, if the Big 12 had no made concessions to Texas, it would have lost every big program that it had. Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, and possibly Missouri would have likely added most/all the Big East football schools of a couple of years ago. Instead those programs are safe in a Big 12 which now shares tier 1 and tier 2 equally, has a grant of rights keeping things steady, is tied with the SEC into the Sugar Bowl, has possibly the best alignment of any conference (home and home basketball, round robin football), and rumored to be raiding the ACC more than vice versa even though that’s probably unlikely.
With all of that said, the set-up in Mountain West was set-up for Boise. I have big doubts it will work as effectively for the others and outside of San Diego State, I don’t see any others switching to the Mountain West (and we’ll have to even see on San Diego State).
LikeLike
Other than the Boise games not being part of the original TV package (which is probably a win-win-CBS Sports has been a lousy deal for MWC), everyone gets the same rules. Its just that stronger programs will benefit more.
LikeLike
Bullet:
That’s how I see it. Just a variation of unequal revenue distribution, added to the ability to market (the games other than the 15 CBS gets) to other networks.
LikeLike
So other than the difference in the rules, the rules are the same? Every school, the one that has their home games sold in a separate package, both from the current and from the following MWC package, and the 10 to 13 that do not, get a $300K-$500K bonus for each game shown on a national broadcast network, or ESPN or ESPN2. The fact that the separate package may well be sold to ESPN, which would ensure that Boise State gets the lion’s share of those national broadcasts is somehow not the consequence of Boise State having a special provision to separate out its home games?
The MWC has much less incentive to offer the same deal to Houston and/or SMU or, indeed, anyone not named BYU. And even if they did, the prospect of Houston and/or SMU leveraging such a deal into a number of national TV games per year is substantially less. So even if the MWC offered the deal to Houston and/or SMU, further watering down the value of their next TV contract, it wouldn’t hold the same expected return.
Plus, the more schools have that special rule, the more of Boise State’s away games are lost to the CBS Sports contract.
While the special rule carries costs, I’d say that Boise State is worth those costs to the MWC. But BYU is the only other school that would be, and if BYU knows that full well, that means that they can afford to stay independent for a while, since they can always get into the MWC on favorable terms.
While the prospective financial benefit to Houston and/or SMU of jumping ship to the MWC is lower than was available to Boise State for remaining in the MWC, in the Little East, Houston and SMU are contracted as full members, with a full conference payout, whatever that may be, rather than 70%, no travel subsidy payment to its Olympic sports conference, and and travel costs to the Big East or the MWC would not be nearly the difference from Dallas or Houston as from Boise. Dallas is, after all, about halfway across the country, from either coast, and Tulane and Memphis are substantially closer to them than anyone in the MWC.
LikeLike
@Bruce
From what I’ve read, as cc said, all the conference’s games other than the 15 or so CBS Sports takes, are in that separate package, not just the Boise games.
LikeLike
The first news, last week I believe was of the restructured CBS Sports contract, that the MWC would be free to separately package those games that CBS Sports did not pick up. It was not an announcement of what form that package or those packages would take.
The second news, which came out yesterday or New Year’s day, was the terms of agreement with Boise State, which specifies that none of the Boise State home games will be included in the MWC conference broadcast package ~ either the current one or prospective one ~ and that they will be sold as a separate package.
SO the agreement to allow the games not picked up by CBS Sports to be sold as one or more separate packages was a big piece of what permitted the special terms of agreement with Boise State, but clearly the other part was that CBS Sports must have agreed to waive their rights to pick Boise State home games ~ and doing so to allow the deal that kept Boise State in the MWC obviously was in their self-interest, as rights to the balance of the MWC including Boise State away games is worth more than rights to the MWC without Boise State participating.
LikeLike
The only school in Texas worth the terms BSU got is Texas (add a 0 to bonuses), but the B12 is not going to give it to them.
If MWC adds a Texas school, likely to be UTEP; however, no rush. More of an invite to get to 12 if MWC cannot get BYU or SDSU (or to make 14 if it gets both).
LikeLike
UTEP is more a travel partner for New Mexico than for a team in Dallas or Houston ~ having driven it, that is one long stretch between East Texas and El Paso.
LikeLike
It will be quite interesting interesting to see what offer the MWC could put together that would be bad enough to get SDSU to turn it down. It would have to be worse than just “enter the MWC Western division on the same terms as everyone else”, since that would not be bad enough for SDSU to turn it down.
If they have to make an offer and cannot work out terms that SDSU will not, in the crunch, accept, then UTEP would be on the back burner as a 14th if BYU changes its mind on independence versus playoff access a couple years down the track and decides it wants in after all.
LikeLike
Mack –> Texas A&M say hello…
LikeLike
The SEC will let any member walk before providing special benefits. Evaluation was importance to where they are now, not where they were.
LikeLike
Of course, the regular benefit of being in the SEC is a bucketload more than the special benefits Boise State are receiving, and the gap is only going to get bigger in the year ahead.
LikeLike
All these unequal revenue arrangements make me yearn for a pro/rel system all the more, where every school is on relatively equal footing regardless.
LikeLike
Now that a precedent has been set, is there any possibility of BYU re-joining the Mountain West? They could have their “separate tv package” deal like Boise State has, and can benefit from the potential bowl births as well. It could also seem to be a better home for the non-football sports. Provided the Mountain West can sign off on some affiliation with BYUtv, it at least makes financial sense.
Of course it means BYU has to associate with Utah State 🙂
LikeLike
I suspect a big reason the MWC gave Boise the separate TV package was to send a message to BYU that they might do the same for them.
LikeLike
My guess is no. I think they legitimately like independence and there is still the issue of having to deal with Comcast for all the away games. They’d go for a deal like that with the Big 12, but I with Utah gone, I don’t think they’ll do it for the Mountain West anymore.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind is that even if BYU hits every bonus target, they would still make more money from their independent TV contract than as a member of the MWC under a Boise-type deal.
LikeLike
And its not like the prospect of the deal is likely to be a limited time offer, if they find that the limited access to the Access Bowls that the MWC Champion may enjoy is something they hanker after. They can afford to wait and see, now that the MWC looks like it will be either the or one of the two “Best of the Rest” conference(s) in the Middle Five.
LikeLike
They will only make 200k from the playoffs. The question is how much more they could make in MWC.
And the MWC and CBS Sports might allow them to keep their ESPN deal, at least for a time.
LikeLike
And if the MWC continues to do reasonably well in basketball, they may begin accumulating NCAA units, which do not have the flash in the pan impact on mid-major revenues of a BCS/Access bowl payment.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
BTW, unlike Frank, I can’t really blame Aresco or “Big East leadership” for not taking the TV deal from ESPN (though I could fault him for not strengthening the BE’s western flank with Fresno or AFA) as several key schools in the BE wanted to hold out for more money (I believe RU, G’Town, and Louisville, was it?) From the perspective of those schools (except possibly G’Town), it was rational as, if they were accepted in to another conference, they would get more money anyway, and if another conference did not want them, they likely would have gotten more money as a member of the BE out in the open market. For G’Town, financially, it may be a wash, as what they will get as part of a Catholic Conference is maybe the same as the basketball payout of the open-market BE contract.
LikeLike
Are you talking about the ESPN deal from the summer of 2011 (before Syracuse and Pitt left) or the one during the most recent negotiation window? Because those that voted down the prior deal (which helped push Pitt and Syracuse out the door) did include some of the schools you named. I’m not sure what the figures were for the most recent negotiation window. I never saw any reported.
LikeLike
Right, and ‘Cuse and/or Pitt were against that deal as well. Basically, the schools with drawing power were not looking out for the good of the league as a whole.
LikeLike
That is NOT true regarding Syracuse and the 2011 deal. It was Pitt, WVU, and Rutgers that were opposed to re-upping the deal.
LikeLike
My recollection is also that SU was for it. Pitt and Rutgers were against it. I don’t remember WVU’s position.
LikeLike
Thus the and/or. I couldn’t remember who was for or against besides Rutgers & G’Town (who were against), but do remember at least one of ‘Cuse/Pitt was against.
LikeLike
Pitt definitely was against it.
LikeLike
Thus I would not say ‘Cuse and Pitt were pushed out; they were as or more selfish as anyone else in the BE.
LikeLike
Frank talked about the exclusive negotiating window, which means recently. Last years offer clearly should have been taken now, but we had just ended a round of realignment without the Big East loosing anyone (even TCU). There was no reason for them to assume there would be that much loss, that quickly.
This years was different. Maybe the offer ESPN made wasn’t good enough to take, but it was always going to be at least somewhat risky letting it go to the open market, because if Comcast/FOX were less interested than ESPN the price (including ESPN’s offer) was going to go down. Maybe accepting then would have been a disaster too in which case we can’t blame them, but if that seemed evident, the west coast issue should have been solved immediately. They offered Tulane and East Carolina in a week. They could have offered Fresno, Air Force, and UNLV and had better luck two months ago I’d guess. Another defection or two would have been all it would have taken to in my opinion to stop a move of Boise going back.
LikeLike
These SEC teams are giving up an average of almost 30 points per game.
The defenses haven’t really been all that stout; there’s been some obvious playmaking by studs like Clowney, but on the whole, it hasn’t been a dominant bowl season for SEC defenses.
The offenses have bailed them out of some of these games (Georgia’s prolific offense and South Carolina’s last minute playmaking especially).
LikeLike
Also, this whole Louisville = football thing is going to work out well for the ACC. It’s like the Big 12 getting TCU.
LikeLike
Shocking win by UL in terms of perceptions of the all-powerful SEC and poor ACC.
Last year WVU was the Cinderella story after their win over Clemson. This year they beat Texas and lost to Ok by a single point (ranked 2 and 3 in Big 12) yet were badly beaten by SU. Another ACC vs. Big 12 upset.
LikeLike
Well the BE has won 5 of their BCS games since 2005. That’s 2 more than the ACC has won in the entire BCS period. The ACC, where good Big East football programs go to die.
LikeLike
No kidding. There’s certainly egg on my face for doubting the ACC.
LikeLike
They could tank when their coach leaves….the demographics for UL football aren’t that great.
LikeLike
They don’t face great QBs. Aaron Murray, Johnny Manziel (but who does more with his feet), not much else. You get one of those Baylor QBs-RGIII or Florence, and they will eat up a good defense most days. So their offensive failings show up when they can’t completely shut someone down. Bridgewater is good and had an excellent night. He was putting the ball in tight spots and the receivers were catching the ball (the opposite of NIU last night who still stayed with 7 points over 3 Qs). Florida has had offensive struggles all year. They scored TDs on a 4th down, a kickoff return and a long drive with 2 minutes left.
LikeLike
The SEC has had very good QBs, but for some reason, just not the last 2 or 3 years.
LikeLike
I think you mean Manziel does both (running and throwing) equally well.
LikeLike
By not much else, I’m saying other than Murray and Manziel.
LikeLike
So Manziel does more with his feet than, Murray? Sure. Manziel is equally effective with his feet and arm.
LikeLike
Clowney made a great play to be sure, but I think more than anything he helped Taylor Lewan’s draft stock – he had him wrapped up almost all game long.
LikeLike
RTR…and here’s to rolling over the Irish!
LikeLike
Go Irish!
The rest of the SEC hasn’t been impressive so far in bowls:
#3 UF 23-33 #23 UL
#7 UGA 45-31 #16 NE
#8 LSU 24-25 #14 Clemson
#10 SC 33-28 #18 MI
MS St 20-34 #20 NW
Vandy 38-24 NCSU
That’s 3-3 despite the SEC being a sizable favorite in most of them. The SEC defenses are giving up 29.1 ppg on average. None of that makes AL any better or worse, but it does give some perspective.
LikeLike
I have mixed feelings but ultimately can’t support the Irish. A strong ND in the heart of B10 territory taking top Midwestern and East Coast recruits from B10 schools is worse than a strong Bama taking top recruits from other southern schools.
LikeLike
Roll Tide………
LikeLike
I really wouldn’t put a whole lot of stock into some of these bowl games. In my opinion, there is a big difference in playing a regular season and championship games for a couple of reasons, than playing in some of these bowl games. In the regular season there is a lot more sustained “normalcy” in terms of how teams practice and prepare for games. That isn’t the case when there is a long layover between the final regular season game and the bowl game.
Plus (again in my opinion) the proliferation of the massive amount of bowl games has weakened the interest in not only the lesser bowls, but also some the bigger bowls. I believe that some of these teams are coming into these games flat, because they just are not motivated to be there. You see it all of the time in these bowl games. USC is a great example of that this year. I also think that had a part to play in the Sugar Bowl. When the UF fans don’t even show up to a Sugar Bowl game, that tells me that their probably wasn’t a whole lot of hype and buildup from the UF side of things either, which probably filtered down to the players. Plus I’m sure the fact that Muschamp being a second year HC and preparing his team for the first time to go to a bowl game, probably also played a factor because that team was in no way prepared to play that game.
I don’t see Bama falling into either one of those two traps. Saban and Bama have a lot of experience preparing for these big bowl games, and he has a “process” that he sticks to which provides some sense of “normalcy” during the layoff. Plus they will be plenty motivated for a BCSCG, and a chance to get into the “dynasty” discussions. Plus Saban tries his best to keep his players focused on concentrating on doing their jobs, and not to focus on the externals of everything else. Do the players always do that? No, but they do it more often than not.
When it comes to the overall SEC bowl record this year, I think there are a couple of points to look at. First, I think the UF lose had a lot to do with how Muschamp prepared them (or didn’t in this case). the team (and the fanbase) were not motivated or ready to play that game. In LSU’s case, their lose had a lot to do with some “questionable” coaching calls in the 4th qrt. If they would’ve just decided to run #33 in the 4th qrt, I think they would’ve won the game, but instead they decided to get fancy and try and pass the ball. Les is known for doing stuff like that, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t (which it didn’t in that game). Miss St should’ve lost that game because NW was the better team, with the better coach. That game was in no way an upset. But regardless, the SEC has crapped the bed so far this bowl season, i won’t argue with that.
But I don’t personally think what one or two SEC teams do in regards to their bowl games has any effect on what Bama does in theirs. If Bama’s recent history is any indicator, Saban will have his team prepared for this game. It’ll be interesting to see how much (or even if) the betting line moves on this game in the coming days. It wouldn’t surpise me to see it drop a little, but it would surpised me to see it swap to ND’s favor.
LikeLike
LSU was better than Clemson…..Les coaching and Boyd playing so great, and they were still fortunate to win.
LikeLike
Its always tough to judge bowl games because of the different motivations. Its why I think polls should pay less attention to bowl games and more to the regular season instead of vice versa.
Still, in Florida’s case, they showed more of what they did in the regular season. They struggled offensively. They stuffed the run. They covered well. But Bridgewater was able to thread the needle time and again. That was something they didn’t face in the SEC. Florida played a very tough schedule, but barely made it through, even against some of the weaker teams-Bowling Green, Louisiana-Lafayette, a depleted Missouri.
Alabama won’t have a problem with motivation, but might with overconfidence. And they aren’t facing a Bridgewater caliber QB. Oregon or KSU would give Alabama much more problems defensively. On the other hand, Notre Dame’s defense should keep the game close.
LikeLike
bamatab,
I wasn’t trying to imply those other games impact AL in any way except to show that perhaps their SEC competition wasn’t as tough as we’d been led to believe.
LikeLike
True….but Saban’s a different animal than all those SEC coaches other than the old ball coach…
LikeLike
The reason why the bowl games matter in judging the SEC, as opposed to other conferences, is that the SEC plays incredibly weak OOC schedules AND they don’t play nearly enough of the power teams in their own conference. So you end up with a bunch of xero-loss, 1-loss and 2-loss teams who (with the usual exception of LSU) have no more than 1-2 impressive wins on their resume.
This year, if Alabama had played Florida there would not have been the RIDICULUOUS discussion about both teams deserving to be in the NCS game. Anyone who watched that Georiga-Florida game, which was one of the sloppiest games of incompetent offense that I have ever seen, could easily see that neither of those teams was elite. And anyone who watched LSU struggle against Auburn, Florida, and Mississippi could see that the Bengal Tigers were not elite this season. The fact that S. Carolina blasted Georgia, yet was blasted by LSU and Florida, and almost lost to Wofford(?) further discredits the SEC claims to superiority this season. Yet, S. Carolina, too, strictly on the basis of that win against Georgia, was considered an elite team.
Bottom-line, until the SEC moves to a 9-game conference schedule, and stops playing cupcakes OOC, we will have to judge the conference based upon bowl games. You live by the sword (claim to be superior based upon post-season wins), you die by the sword.
LikeLike
Now the SEC is 5-3 after convincing wins by Texas A&M and Ole Miss (who is much improved).
LikeLike
Much improved? Ole Miss won by 21 over a jeckle & hyde pitt team that lost by 24 to Cincinnati, 14 to Youngstown St. and nearly beat Notre Dame. Nothing you do against such an inconsistent team says much about your team. Before that Ole Miss beat an overrated MSU team and lost 3 straight.
LikeLike
@Redwood86,
“The fact that S. Carolina blasted Georgia, yet was blasted by LSU and Florida…”
Really? That’s a fact? LSU won 23-21, at home. It was a nailbiter of a game. Since when is a two-point victory that goes down to the wire considered blasting?
Sorry, I just find it obnoxious when people stretch the heck out of the truth in order to defend their point. I actually agree with you that the SEC was overrated this year, but it isn’t appropriate to misconstrue the facts in order to argue that.
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t up to the legendary status that a 9-0 bowl record would indicate.
However, a likely 6-3 bowl result (with the ‘top 6’ teams winning 2/3 of their bowls and the middle 3 also winning 2/3 of their bowls) does point to them as clearly the best conference.
The Big 12 has had it’s status as a deep conference with only 1 bad team upheld (although Baylor started the season pretty bad before improving drastically), but the top 2 teams in the conference had 3 shots at teams that will finish in the top 10. They stayed close for awhile in each of those games before losing by lopsided scores. So the lack of bad teams is somewhat offset by the lack of top teams.
The Pac 12 has a couple of good teams at the top that will finish in the top 10, but the rest of the conference hasn’t held up.
The ACC got some respectability back with Clemson edging LSU (and GT beating Southern Cal), but we still remember Clemson and FSU losing to South Carolina and Florida. Those 2 can be in the mix with the top 6 SEC schools but that conference still isn’t great.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing for the B10 here.
The Big East had a nifty bowl season and will rank solidly, but certainly not above the SEC.
I think SEC schools like Mizzou and Tennessee, which just missed bowl eligibility in the SEC, could have swapped schedules with 2 middle Big 12 teams and done just as well in that conference as the teams they replaced.
LikeLike
UNLV cares too much about basketball. They said publically they would not go. Plus, why would the BE want them for football? They’ve been awful. Fresno cares about basketball. Its not certain they would have delegated bb to the Big West. SDSU was historically awful in basketball until the last 3 years or so. Only Air Force was worse. And Air Force wasn’t going because they couldn’t find a home for their other sports. They tried earlier in the year, but noone would take them. So there wasn’t going to be any other western team.
They worked that angle. I don’t think they can be blamed for that. Now the TV contract was all them. They had 2 chances and whiffed.
I think the ultimate problem was that the hybrid created too many mouths to feed and limited what they could do. ESPN confirmed they had a deal slightly better than the ACC’s deal at the time that they turned down. If they had 10-12 football programs and a better contract than the ACC, Pitt and SU don’t leave. But the bb programs tried to cram a half-hearted moveup by Villanova down their throats. I also remember the quote from a BE official when they were considering Navy as well as Villanova. Navy was a great program, “class, class, class.” Which totally missed the point. Navy brings some $ and class, but they loudly say that the conference doesn’t deserve an AQ. I think those two moves helped push Pitt to look. That along with the fact that Notre Dame was leading the expansion committee for football. All of those things only happen with a hybrid.
LikeLike
A BE deal better than the ACC deal frankly doesn’t pass the smell test. The best I had heard was $10M/school, which is still slightly worse than the ACC.
LikeLike
This is the 2010 deal. An ESPN article said they turned down $150 million (which came out to around $14 million per football school-ACC was $12.9 at the time). As I just posted, I didn’t believe that until the ESPN article. I think the most recent one they turned down was $10-$11 million.
LikeLike
I still think Pitt would have bolted. They were one of the four schools (along with Rutgers, G-Town and WVU) that were most opposed to the 2010 deal. And once Pitt jump ship, ‘Cuse would have followed.
LikeLike
But Boise State and SDSU would have stayed, and the C7 would have stayed. “Best of the Rest”, kind of by definition, will only lord it over ” the rest”. Any Major conference invite would still see the invited program gone.
LikeLike
Unless ESPN voided the deal/reduced the payout after Pitt, Syracuse, TCU and WVU left.
LikeLike
Even IF they had reduced the payout after Pitt, Syracuse and WVU left and TCU failed to enter. It wouldn’t have been reduce to the kind of payouts that the Little East is looking at now, negotiating as contract “among the best of the rest, maybe, contingent upon no further defections”.
LikeLike
I don’t know. The contract would have been reduced again (possibly even voided) after ND, Rutgers and Louisville bolted, so at most it would have been marginally more valuable than what they would be getting on the open market. And given that UConn and Cincinnati already have their bags packed for an ACC or Big XII invite (which might never come), I still the C-7 would have broken off, and Boise probably would have bailed as well.
LikeLike
I didn’t believe the stories that came out a few months after the 1st deal was rejected. TCU, Pitt, SU, WVU, UConn, USF, Rutgers, Cincinnati and Louisville were getting more per school than the ACC with FSU, Miami, Clemson, et.al. It was a really good deal for what they had.
LikeLike
If Chadd Scott is to believed, Nordgren at Pitt was a backstabber, convincing other BE schools to reject the deal because he wanted Pitt to go to the ACC.
LikeLike
Very surprised the Big East turned down that offer (ACC equivalent was the rumor), it’s what killed the conference more than any other.
LikeLike
The money was fair, but there were other factors. Mostly, it was the thought that the conference would continue to be buried on ESPN.
-ESPN had so many deals with other conferences that used up their time slots that they couldn’t give the Big East Saturday exposure even if they wanted to.
-When the Thursday night Big East games worked out very well for both parties, ESPN even took away some of those slots for other conferences.
-ESPN was having trouble getting carriers to pick up ESPN3. Since they had total control of the Big East games, they had a lot of ESPN3 exclusives (no local TV, no ESPN Gameplan) which pissed people off.
LikeLike
I rarely disagree with what Frank has to say, but I think the MWC does have a shot at Houston and SMU. The Big East is down to 10 teams with REALLY poor options for expansion. (UMass, Rice and Tulsa are probably the best options). If expansion is over, the 10 team Big East isn’t completely terrible, it’s roughly on par with the MWC now, but if expansion isn’t over, the Big East still has some teams ripe for the picking. If there Big East were to lose UConn and then etiher Cinci, UCF, or South Florida the Big East is very much diminished, with no good back fill options.
The MWC on the other hand offers stability in the fact that the Pac 12 and Big 12 are not likely to touch any of those teams, so what you see is likely what you will get unless there is another WAC style spinoff that created the MWC back in the late 90s.
The choice for Houston and SMU is to stay with the Big East with the prospect of the conference diminishing in the next couple years, or go to the MWC which will likely stay as it is for the long term.
LikeLike
I think there’s a good possibility UH and SMU go to MWC. As you say, who knows who is going to stay in the BE? And there is still no TV contract. BE makes slightly more geographic sense. But financially appears to be pretty much a wash. And the stability of the MWC is much better. As someone pointed out, UH made a statement and didn’t say a word about the BE in it. They didn’t say anything about leaving, but didn’t say anything about staying either.
LikeLike
I agree bullett and I think both should go to the MWC. Much more stable long term future and likely to be more lucrative over the long run.
LikeLike
However, roughly the same quality league in front of ten rather than five top fifty markets (whichever way Houston and SMU go, they bring a blip on the radar in two top fifty media markets) is going to be worth more ~ even if not the Major Conference values that the Little East was hoping for less than a year ago. If the MWC with three top 50 media markets was worth $9m, then the Little East should be worth $20m to $30m.
LikeLike
After the dreadful show the Big Ten put on yesterday, I reluctantly endorse raiding the ACC.
If that’s even possible now.
LikeLike
Well…..alternatively, schools like Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota could start taking football seriously………
LikeLike
As an example……….look at the energy, enthusiasm and resources UoL has put into football
compared to those 4….and UoL is a basketball school. l
LikeLike
Louisville is a Tier 3 university that has been desperately trying to sell themselves to any “higher-level” athletic/academic conference affiliation. Because of the Rutgers and Maryland moves, Louisville got their wish—at least until the slow death of the ACC—which is nearly inevitable given the nature of today’s beast. Louisville will be a player as long as they have the right coach in place, but it is NOT a destination job.
Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota are not destination jobs for football either. As a fan, I don’t know exactly what is said and done in the AD’s office and University President’s office regarding athletic spending/ university priorities/ etc. There is no doubt that each school’s priorities are different (that’s nationwide, not just in the B1G).
It would really be nice if some day the athletic arms of the universities would be broken off and called what they are— a farce — so-called amateur athletes making millions and millions for someone else. Make the high profile football, basketball, hockey, and baseball all semi-pro with NO college affiliation—pay the athletes, let them be developed for the pro leagues without the veil of amateurism and academics hanging over. This; in turn, would allow the colleges to do what they truly are supposed to do—provide higher education and research opportunities to the masses.
LikeLike
But “no college affiliation” is an impediment to putting the reform through.
An alternative is for the college affiliation to be via a franchise arrangement, where the program pays a franchise fee to the university plus a share of gross revenue ~ which also eliminates a lot of the incentive to gold plate, since the revenue athletics program would be permitted to run a profit for itself, and its not the University’s job to bail out the revenue athletics department if it runs a loss.
There might be an entitlement ~ rather than a requirement ~ for the contracted players to pursue a degree, as part of the quid pro quo in the franchise arrangement.
As far as which sports ~ its just football and men’s basketball.
LikeLike
Minnesota looks to be on the rise, and Indiana had Gunner Kiel before he chose Notre Dame.
It’d be interesting if he transferred.
LikeLike
The Big East is just a comedy of errors.
Larry Scott came into the Pac-12 and proposed a radically new idea, based on the whole economic picture of the sports TV industry, to capture as much value for the Pac-12 schools as possible for both the short-medium and long term. Mike Aresco didn’t have more of a plan than “all these BCS conferences are getting this much, and we’re a BCS conference, so of course we should get this much too, maybe more with NBC and Fox overpaying for everything! What do you mean we’re the runt of the BCS conferences, have been since Miami left, and everyone wants to kick us out?” Even more amazing, everyone else was so equally blind to the actual state of the landscape that it actually took someone linking them to a newspaper article for the Catholic 7 to realize what was really going on.
Houston and SMU, or any other school valuable to any other conference, should send a simple ultimatum to the others: Aresco goes, or we go.
LikeLike
When I first heard of TCU going to the Big East, the first reaction I had was “What?! TCU in the Big East? They belong with Texas schools.” This was when I thought regionalism still mattered in college sports. The SEC was about Southern schools, the Big Ten Midwestern schools and the Big East was supposed to be about Eastern schools. Yes, Miami was an outlier but at least they were East of the Mississippi. Otherwise, I still believed in this nebulous notion of camraderie, good rivalries, collegiality, all that nine yards. The last three years have been quite an education for me.
It just amazes the disunity amongst Eastern schools. If the SEC and B1G represent the elite, the Eastern schools represent the “Housewives of (pick a city)”, acting like being married to money gives them the right to look down at fellow institutions. BC looks down at UConn; Syracuse looks down at Rutgers; the basketball schools despise the football schools while the football schools blame the basketball schools for every single wrong. And then there’s that special case of Notre Dame, who looked down at everyone else and used the pull of the non-football schools to get what they wanted without even sacrificing a game on their football schedules.
Meanwhile, as they acted like children fighting over scraps as there was money to be made, the predators waited for the right opportunity to strike, the ACC in particular. Yes, I read about the decision not to invite Penn State more than 30 years ago but circumstances, then, were different. Nobody had an idea how college sports would have changed since then. However, the Eastern schools could have stuck together and continued to make it work. I guess the hybrid model didn’t work out in the long run, as the interests were diverging too far for the member schools to come to a reasonable compromise.
Such a shame.
LikeLike
The “disunity of the Eastern schools” is a myth. Just look at the disunity that caused the Southwest Conference to break up, and the disunity that caused the Big 12 to lose one-third of its schools. This problem isn’t unique to the Eastern U.S.
Yes, of course TCU belonged with the Texas schools. But in case you’ve forgotten, it was the bigger Texas schools that formed the Big 12 in the first place, and forced the smaller ones (TCU, SMU, Rice, and Houston) to find homes elsewhere. Naturally, TCU jumped at the chance to rejoin their old conference-mates as soon as there was an offer. But the decision wasn’t theirs to make.
What seems to be the “unity” of the Big Ten and the SEC is simply due to their position of strength. It’s easy to seem unified when you’re winning the game. If it ever happened that those conferences were no longer dominant, trust me, you’d find out how just how many disagreements between those schools lurk beneath the surface.
Even when it was at full strength, the Big East was lampooned as either the Big Least or the Big Easy. It was always the weakest of the major conferences. It was also the newest, and so there was essentially no culture holding the group together. It was an arrangement for monetary convenience only, and so it is no surprise that its members left, one by one, as better offers came along.
Conference re-alignment has accelerated over the last three years, but it is nothing new. Schools have always acted in their self-interest, as they should.
LikeLike
SWC was simple economics. 3 small private schools and 1 urban commuter school in pro sports markets along with 1 medium size private school that had good political connections + the 3 large state schools. All in 1 state. It didn’t make sense after the breakup of the CFA.
LikeLike
In the most basic sense, all of the big conference shifts have been a result of conferences being in stressed economic situations relative to the changes that swept across the economics of sports in the 90s.
Once the economics of college football started to become about TV deals and population metrics and the like, the end was neigh for some of these leagues.
The Big 8 for example never had the population base to sustain itself.
The SWC had no geographic diversity and too many schools in one state.
The ACC needed football power in the form of FSU and Miami.
While we can sit around and extol the inherent stability of the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12, the fact is that the stability is mainly based on the fact that they’re the 3 most homogeneous leagues in terms of featuring mostly larger state schools (fewest exceptions in those leagues) spread out over large, well-populated regions.
LikeLike
That and longevity. Not that you need to have longevity, but schools playing each other for years and years and years does help.
LikeLike
The B8 and SWC had longivity, but not a large enough market. The B12 happened the way it did because the SWC did not move fast enough to sweep up the best of the B8 and was in a weak position due to sanctions at the time. Once Arkansas left the die was cast.
LikeLike
prisoner’s dilemma, tragedy of the commons, etc. acting in one’s best interest is not always the best idea. maybe the B10 have just figured out that making a bigger pie is the way to go rather than fighting over the pie you have.
LikeLike
I think 1 thing it is saying is that brands matter more than markets. BE had no football brands after Miami left.
LikeLike
Pingback: Making Sense of the Big East’s Future — Sports Interaction Blog
add
LikeLike
Who here thinks the ACC is going to be hard to poach now that they’ve had a strong bowl season? Winning does matter. ACC diehards are gleefully celebrating Louisville & Syracuse’s big bowl wins, which puts the future ACC at 6-2 in bowl games. If Pitt and ND win – damnnnn! The future ACC looks very strong, far better, temporarily, than the BIG which blew upset opportunities: Wisky vs Stanford, Michigan versus USCa, Minny vs TTech. Does the ACC gain leverage from this unexpectedly successful bowl season? These sort of wins could cause a tide of collective strength to push for a better tv deal and maybe, stress “maybe” getting ND into the ACC as a full member. If this happens, ACC becomes second best conference & their future is permanent.
LikeLike
I would have to disagree, for two reasons. First, the comparative strength of conferences and schools is built up over decades. If the ACC could pull that off 10 years in a row, or perhaps 8 out of 10, then they’d be cooking. Conference alignment decisions are based on many years of consistent results, not one.
Second, strength is determined not by wins, but by fan support. What counts is TV ratings and empty seats in the stadium. I’m guessing the Sugar Bowl was a very low-rated and poorly-attended game, because it was perceived to be a mismatch. The fact that the perception turned out to be wrong, doesn’t matter. Trust me, the Sugar Bowl was not happy being forced to take Louisville.
To give the opposite example, three bad years under Rich Rodriguez didn’t seriously harm Michigan’s reputation as one of the best brand names in sports. Heck, Notre Dame is still money in the bank, despite two decades of mediocrity between Lou Holtz and Brian Kelly.
LikeLike
As far as Sugar Bowl attendance goes, let’s put it this way, a certain central Florida columnist has been calling for Gator Nation to be reduced to Gator Whistle-Stop…
In any case, you’re right, TV drawing power and ratings and matchups and the like are built up over decades of time and take a generation or two to change.
Miami is more of a TV draw than any of the ACC programs except Florida State as far as football match ups go. That’s just how it is; a couple of bowl wins by other programs in a single season don’t change that.
LikeLike
Agreed. It will take a while to change perception. This is a good step. Things are cyclical, and it was not that long ago that Miami and FSU were on top and VT was a national championship opponent. With just some of the programs on the cycle up, the ACC will look much stronger (if it holds).
As a side note, Louisville has been very impressive. You kind of wonder if they have untapped potential. It was not long ago they were not even in a BCS conference. In less than 10 years they have two BCS bowl wins, should get a lot more money by moving to the ACC, and are decently located geographically for recruiting purposes.
LikeLike
Louisville’s potential is money and the ability to build a pipeline to Florida (which they showed the had effectively last night given the playmakers they had from that state).
Whey they join the ACC and get full revenue shares, they should be the only department there over $100 million. Obviously, money isn’t a determinant of winning, but it’s not a coincidence that the strongest financial departments are the ones that have the strongest sports programs…
LikeLike
The ACC should thank the voters who put NIU ahead of Louisville; otherwise, it would have been a Louisvile vs. FSU Orange Bowl and FL vs. OK Sugar Bowl. Both would have been better attended and got higher ratings. You can be sure that the networks are telling the ones in charge of the new playoff that they cannot get the playoff money they want if this is allowed to happen again. The larger number of bowls and teams in the new setup will allow the access bowl damage to be limited.
LikeLike
If the “Group of Five” is in three tiers ~ MWC / Little East; C-USA / MAC ; Sunbelt ~ then the odds of the best ranked champion among the Group of Five being a team with an offensive line undersized for the MAC happening again is substantially reduced.
LikeLike
There was a perfect storm of teams ahead losing late, lots of 7-5 teams and the Big East getting overrated early. Rutgers lost to Kent and Cincinnati lost to Toledo. So the MAC got overrated late.
But the NIU/FSU game showed how narrow the margin of victory can be. FSU totally dominated NIU, NIU’s QB and receivers had bad days (off target passes and dropped passes) and it was 17-10 at the end of the 3rd. NIU hung in there and was in a position going into the 4th.
LikeLike
The Big East won a majority of its BCS games and has won most of its bowl games over the past 8 or so years.
That doesn’t really matter for the TV deal. The TV deals are based on ratings and the like…
LikeLike
Wins over Rutgers, Northern Illinois and a USC team that didn’t show up. Losses to Vanderbilt and Cincinnati. A good win over LSU. Not that much to brag about. Its been a terrible year for the ACC. Let’s look at bowl records so far and their significance on stability:
1. WAC 2-0 going out of business, lost 5 schools
2. CUSA 4-1 worst conference in the country, lost 6 schools-so far
3. Big East 3-1 lost AQ, lost 17 or 18 schools-hard to keep track of
4. ACC 4-2 lost Maryland, 8th in ooc record, worst ooc record for ACC in the 20 years I have records on
5. Big 12 4-3 lost 2 teams last year, 2 the year before
6. SEC 3-3 added 2 schools
7. Indies 1-1
8. Pac 12 3-4 added 2 teams
9. MAC 2-4, most stable conference out there
10. Sun Belt 1-2, lost 4 teams
11. Big 10 2-5, raiding everyone
12. MWC 1-4, just took Boise back from BE and may take SDSU, UH, SMU also
Other than the Sun Belt, it looks good to have a losing bowl record!
LikeLike
OOC vs FBS so far including bowls:
Conference W-L % ranking before bowls
SEC 36-11 76.6% 2(had more ooc so hasn’t dropped as far as B12)
B12 21- 7 75.0% 1
Ind 25-16 60.98% 4
B1G 28-19 59.57% 3
BEast 20-14 58.82% 6
P12 26-20 56.52% 5
WAC 15-18 45.45% 7
ACC 18-23 43.90% 8
MAC 18-29 38.30% 9
MWC 13-25 34.21% 10
SB 12-25 32.43% 11
CUSA 11-36 23.40% 12
LikeLike
that list is virtually meaningless since it almost totally ignores how good the OOC opponents actually were (the almost modifier is there since you at least excluded AA games).
LikeLike
It doesn’t differentiate when they are close like the Indies, B1G, BE and P12 because of the difference in schedules. But it does tell a lot with the big gaps.
LikeLike
again, only if you ignore schedule strength. if ~70% of one league’s OOC games are bodybags, and only ~40% of another’s are, that’s a HUGE difference. Schedule strength isn’t some random tiebreaker, it’s a vitally important aspect of evaluating the resumes of teams and leagues.
LikeLike
And the top conferences don’t have much difference except maybe Pac 12. The bottom conferences are similar to each other and play as body bags on the road a lot.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/69221/delany-b1g-bowl-lineup-likely-to-diversify
“We’re going to try and be national and try to have relationships on both coasts and maybe in areas we haven’t been before,” Delany said. “There will be more diversity in teams that get to go, so no one goes to Florida five times in six years or even three years in a row. I hope we would put together a slate of games where our alums live, where we recruit and against opponents that will test us every year. Those are the elements.
——————————————————————————–
They’ve met with 10-12 bowl reps.
Gator Bowl has stated publicly that they still want SEC-Big Ten matchups, but the Big Ten may only want to keep Cap One and Outback.
Pinstripe definitely seems like it’ll be Big Ten-ACC in the next round.
LikeLike
One thing I would love to see Delany do in conjunction with this is announce that BIg Ten teams will no longer face teams whose states have spring high school football practice in bowl games. None of the Big Ten states do; in contrast, Missouri is now the only state with an SEC program that doesn’t have at least some form of spring football practice at the high school level. (Oklahoma and Texas do likewise.)
I despise high school spring football because it weakens other spring prep sports. It’s probably the reason America is weak in track and field and is underperforming in baseball.
If Delany could get other conferences (notably the Pac, which is also at a competitive disadvantage) to follow that lead, SEC schools wouldn’t have as attractive a bowl schedule. It would be comparable to what happened in the ’60s, when many schools refused to play in southern bowl games because they wouldn’t accept black players. As a result, you occasionally had intra-SEC matchups such as Alabama vs. Mississippi by default.
LikeLike
It’s not really possible. The Big Ten needs the SEC for the valuable bowls like the Capitol One and Outback Bowls.
And the Orange Bowl deal shows just how closely aligned the Big Ten and SEC are in terms of the money issues at stake here.
LikeLike
Vincent – Spring high school football practice is such a red herring. In Louisiana, the LHSAA currently limits spring football to 10 practices. At my son’s school, a relatively small private non-football factory, spring practice doesn’t even start until after the state track meet. The late rounds of baseball playoffs do overlap, but I’m talking about quarters and semis, so it doesn’t affect many schools.
LikeLike
Delany says that no one will go to Florida five times in six years or even three years in a row, but that seems like a nearly impossible promise to make.
The Big Ten will most assuredly maintain its Capital One Bowl tie-in, and, barring a shocking change, will keep its Outback Bowl tie-in as well. While the Gator Bowl tie-in may be dropped, Big Ten teams could participate in the Orange Bowl as many as 9 out of 12 years, with an absolute minimum of 3 years:
– 3 non-semifinal years are guaranteed for the Big Ten.
– 4 years will be semifinals, any of which could easily feature Big Ten teams.
– 2 non-semifinal years, and no more than 2 years, will likely feature Notre Dame, but ND must have a strong enough season to be chosen ahead of available Big Ten & SEC options, yet not so strong that it finishes in the top four. Again, ND will in all likelihood get into the OB its two times, but it’s feasible the Big Ten or the SEC could get an additional team into the OB.
– 3 non-semifinal years are guaranteed for the SEC, the only three years out of 12 that are guaranteed not to feature a Big Ten team.
Additionally, it is not outside the realm of possibility for the NCG to be held in Tampa or Miami at some time over the 12 years of the new system. Big Ten teams could make it to one of those games.
Taking all those factors into consideration, how could Delany know that its most attractive brands (i.e., the kinds the Orange Bowl, Cap One, & Outback would pounce on if they’re available) wouldn’t go to Florida Bowls three years in a row? A Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, or Nebraska team that goes 10-2, 9-3, and 10-2 could very, very easily find itself in Florida bowl games very often. The formula would be simple. Nebraska, for instance would need only to have 3 or more seasons in a row where they have 2 or 3 losses, maybe even 4 losses, but not have any more or fewer losses than that; make sure they don’t win the league title; and finish far enough down in the standings not to finish in the top four nationally.
It just seems far too likely for a few Big Ten teams to be playing in Florida regularly for Delany to make sure a promise.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree with you.
Especially if Ohio State goes into buzzsaw mode and only loses 1 or 2 games a year while winning the Big Ten say 4 of the next 6 years.
If they’re taking top 4 slots/Rose Bowl slots; then you’re going to have teams like Nebraska and Michigan ending up in Florida a lot…
LikeLike
The Big Ten bowl pecking order, at the top, will look something like this:
(1) One of the two semifinals, provided a Big Ten team qualifies.
(2) Rose Bowl, OR, when the RB is a semifinal, the Fiesta, Cotton, or Chick-fil-a*
(3) Orange Bowl at LEAST 3 times in 12 years
(4) Capital One Bowl, vs. the SEC
(5) Outback Bowl, vs. the SEC
*The B1G managed to negotiate for the OB NOT to have access to the B1G champion in years where the RB is a semifinal, ensuring the B1G champion a spot in one of the three non-contract playoff bowl games instead. The move helps maximize the Big Ten’s chances of having two or more teams in the six semifinal/”major” bowl games
All those bowl games will have higher picks than any other bowl game the Big Ten could get. Any potential renewed or new tie-in–The Alamo, the Meineke (Houston) Bowl, the Alamo Bowl, the BWW (Sun Devil Stadium) Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, the Music City Bowl, the Belk (Charlotte) Bowl, the Poinsettia Bowl, the Fight Hunger (San Fran) Bowl, and the Pinstripe Bowl–would have a lesser choice for Big Ten teams than the semifinal/major bowl games and the two in central Florida. The Florida Bowl games have more money at their disposal and will be able to outbid other options for the rights to the higher choices.
I think it’s great and all that the Big Ten is spreading its bowl tie-ins across the country. They’re probably the only league that could pull it off successfully because its schools’ alumni bases are so large and spread out. But chances are that these games are going to feature teams with just 6, 7, or 8 wins. Maybe one of them would have a 9-3 team.
My point is that it is exciting in theory that the Big Ten could diversify its bowl lineup from being so Big 12 and SEC-heavy, but in reality, it is still going to feature two games in central Florida against the SEC. After that, 6-, 7-, and 8-win teams going against 6-, 7-, and 8-win teams from the Pac-12, Big 12, and maybe ACC. On top of that, the Big Ten would still face the reality that bowl games against the Pac-12 will be played in Pac-12 territory, or in Texas at best. Bowl games against the Big 12 will be played in Texas, or Arizona or California at best. Bowl games against the ACC will be in Florida or on the east coast, both of which are closer to most ACC schools than B1G schools. Bowl games against the Big East are… well, they might as well be against the MAC as far as motivating fan travel is concerned.
LikeLike
Betting the Big Ten will send someone to the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl in the next round. The Holiday would be too much “Rose Bowl lite” I think.
LikeLike
morganwick,
My concern would be that the bowl is too far down the order to have enthusiastic fans. SF weather isn’t great that time of year, either. That’s an expensive trip to expect fans to take for a lower tier bowl.
LikeLike
Right. Factor in travel costs with the low payout, and the school that goes will likely lose money.
LikeLike
Payouts depend on a number of factors and tie-ins can always be renegotiated. The only other option I see is for the Pac to send a team to… is it the Buffalo Wild Wings bowl? Or does that already have a Pac-12 tie-in?
LikeLike
I tend to agree with the idea that overvaluing the TV deal was a big factor in the Big East’s problems, but I don’t know that it was the only issue. I’ve been playing around with the theory that leagues become a lot more unstable after they admit members who are substantially worse than the norm. Some examples:
1) The WAC-16. All-timer of an example, they took in a bunch of new programs, none of which were really worth much, and completely fell apart less than 5 years later.
2) The Big East. A bunch of iffy adds, lowlighted by Tulane, which really did seem like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I wouldn’t be stunned if at the end of the day Tulane found itself either completely without a home or dumped in the Sun Belt or the like.
Part of the reason for this is that it’s REALLY, REALLY hard to fire a league member (only Temple has gotten kicked out of a major league in the last 30 years or so, and they weren’t even a full member); it’s actually a lot easier to fire half or more of a league (by a single school or a group of schools walking) than it is to ditch 1-2 members, which means that if a new addition doesn’t work out, or isn’t expected to work out (or both), it puts enormous stress on a league.
IMO the Mountain West may well be on the clock for this after taking SJ St and Utah St, though in fairness, most of the league’s programs aren’t worth much either.
In this context, I also worry about the Pac-12 having taken Utah, which filled a need (12th team for CCG) and clearly helped to blow up up the Mountain West, but the Utes REALLY haven’t worked out in football so far, and that was after 2 years of missing Oregon and Stanford. Larry Scott did a fantastic job of creating TV money, but the league definitely doesn’t need another have-not, which Utah may be turning into, especially since Utah is still a pretty small state and basically shared with BYU, though at least they’ve been growing pretty fast.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms “1) The WAC-16. All-timer of an example, they took in a bunch of new programs, none of which were really worth much, and completely fell apart less than 5 years later.”
Rice went 6-2 in both of the first two years of the WAC-16, beating both BYU and Utah. 4-4 in each of the next two years.
LikeLike
And yet, the programs weren’t worth much to TV (if I remember right the league expected big TV $$$ which never materialized), didn’t have large traveling fanbases etc. Short term success by ONE of the newcomers (and it really was just one) didn’t change the equation.
PS Rice went 6-2, 5-3 and 5-3 in the three WAC-16 years (there were only 3 years), and no other newcomer ever beat 5-3, and no newcomer ever won a division title. As a group, there really wasn’t much in the way of on-field success for the newcomers, which I’d guess only added to the perception that the additions were a big mistake.
LikeLike
The WAC was in a TV deal and thought it could re-negotiate. That was the mistake. So the deal got divided 16 ways instead of 10. The only increase was the ccg.
LikeLike
And for a ten team league, a CCG only requires (and costs, for a constant regular season contract payment) two new entrants. The four after that are redundant.
LikeLike
I’ve been playing around with the theory that leagues become a lot more unstable after they admit members who are substantially worse than the norm.
I’d say that theory needs a LOT of work. Only one league so far has folded because it over-expanded: the WAC. The Big East’s future remains undetermined, but what, exactly, were they supposed to do? They lost Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Louisville. Without replacing them, they’d have had no football league whatsoever.
Adding Tulane may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but that was only the last of a whole bunch of bad moves, including turning down Penn State, turning down TV deals twice, hiring weak commissioners, and so forth.
LikeLike
Considering that specifically adding Tulane was a bone of contention, maybe it would have made more sense to push harder for Air Force or try and grab someone else from the Mountain West. Or maybe give Tulane a football-only membership. Or maybe wait and see rather than take a school that apparently everyone thought was bad. Someones the right move can be no move, even when you’re in the middle of a very rough situation.
I agree that it was more of a final issue rather than an original sin, but it definitely seemed like a big problem that made it MUCH tougher to hold things together.
LikeLike
With the benefit of hindsight, sure, there’s a good argument that doing nothing was better than adding Tulane. It’s a far cry from that to the general theory you suggested, especially given that Tulane was merely the last in a very long line of unrelated mistakes.
Maybe a better theory is: don’t let fools run your conference.
LikeLike
Was there an add available that would be no worse in football than Tulane but better in basketball?
I agree with Frank that if there had been a time in building their Western Strategy when getting Air Force was a possibility ~ say, joining FB only at the same time as Navy ~ that would have been an extremely valuable move for a conference flirting on the “the least of the Majors / greatest of the mid-Majors” boundary. That could even have put Army as a FB-only program on the table. It certainly would have been more valuable than the moves other than Boise State that they ended up trying to make in the Western Strategy.
LikeLike
Making Tulane the scapegoat for the fall of the Big East and secession of the C-7 is a crock. It’s not like Tulane forced their way into the Big East, the Big East invited them. Tulane football has been down since Tommy Bowden left, and Tulane basketball hasn’t really recovered since the school invoked its own death penalty after the Hot Rod Williams point shaving scandal of the early 80s. But Tulane survived Katrina and a possible move to D-III, and it putting a ton of money into its facilities, including a new 5,000 seat baseball stadium that is the envy of many Single A teams, a new on-campus football stadium coming on line in 2014, and a completely renovated basketball arena. That’s over $100 million committed to athletics since Katrina.
Also, the Big East and the C-7 have feasted on New Orleans basketball talent since Dale Brown retired from LSU. Furthermore, Tulane is replacing Rutgers. How is Tulane basketball much worse than Rutgers?
Here’s a good article from the Tulane perspective regarding the C-7’s departure from the Big East.
http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/2012/12/tulane_reels_a_bit_with_news_o.html
LikeLike
Tulane is an excuse for the C-7 to use, that’s all. Tulane doesn’t change anything either way other than just being an addition.
LikeLike
The complaint by one or more of the AD’s seems to be that the addition of Tulane was pushed through the Presidents without the commissioner consulting the affected AD’s first. Of course, one can ask why the Presidents didn’t ask their AD’s on their own. Indeed, it wouldn’t be surprising if the AD’s posed that question.
LikeLike
What you need to decide about your theory is whether “leagues become a lot more unstable after they admit members who are substantially worse than the norm” or whether leagues that are unstable admit members who are substantially worse than the norm. I vote the second case.
LikeLike
@cfn Yes, Utah filled a Pac need – and they were the best option to fill that need. Scott couldn’t not go to 12 and without the big jump with half of the Big XII there was precious few options. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Utah would come in and be a “have” (at least sustained) of the Pac. Utah is a growing state that had recent FB success (2 BCS bowl Ws) with past success in BB – and a geographic match to CU, keeping the conference’s precious travel pair symmetry intact (sigh). I don’t mind the UU add though – it was the best play at the time.
They definitely cant afford anymore Utah-like additions though (which is why I will say everyday until I am blue in the face that the Pac screwed up royally by not taking OU and OkSt when they had the chance) in the ever growing expansion game. There is a strong chance however that the Pac will never expand again (much to Scott’s dismay). Sans the quartet of UT/TT/OU/OkSt coming, there is no desirable geographic match to bring on anytime in the next lets say…15 years.
Funny thing is that that may be exactly how the presidents want it. As currently configured, the Pac power brokers – CA schools and UW – will continue to wield power without risk of sharing or losing it. And has been mentioned many times – they are geographically isolated to prevent A) threat of being poached, and B) being left out of any future climate shifts (group exodus from NCAA or revenue splits as a power broker conference). Only caveat (as B1G can attest) is how aggressive any strategy changes due to P12 Network.
LikeLike
I don’t think Utah was a bad addition. They’ll build their program as they recruit better and SLC is not a tiny market. It’s only been 2 years. Give them time.
LikeLike
We Are
LikeLike
praying?
LikeLike
http://www.capitalgazette.com/sports/navy_sports/navy-still-considers-big-east-a-good-fit/article_731b2b39-613e-5b29-800d-f0067cc54798.html
Gladchuk supported that decision and applauded Aresco for not “caving in” to Boise State’s demands. Aresco kept the athletic directors of all current and future Big East schools apprised of the Boise State negotiations and none supported giving the Idaho school special consideration with regard to the television contract.
“What Boise State wanted was outrageous and unprecedented. It was not palatable to any of the other Big East institutions,” Gladchuk said. “In the final analysis, Boise wasn’t worth it. There is zero television interest in Boise along the Eastern seaboard. What it tells me is the Mountain West was desperate. Clearly, the Mountain West was willing to make whatever concessions necessary to keep Boise in the fold.”
LikeLike
Kind of a nasty comment.
MWC had a different situation. They were stuck in a lousy contract and did a deal that was a win for them, a win for Boise and a win for CBS Sports who gets Boise’s road games to choose from. Everyone gets more value.
Big East is doing a brand new contract.
Sounds like Navy still views Big East as much better than independence. That’s good news for the BE. They probably have more TV value than anyone left in the conference.
LikeLike
Yes ~ the Little East has all top fifty television markets with a substantial lack of compelling reason for people in those markets to turn to their games. When Navy plays, it adds some eyeballs in every one of those markets. Supposing Houston and SMU do join, adding a toehold in two top ten media markets, the best FB-only add to balance Navy would likely be Army, putting the Army/Navy game and one of the other two academy trophy games in the Little East contract.
LikeLike
This guy goes further than acaffery did on the GOR.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php
Because there is no evidence there would be a reduced payout to the league, the damages calculation is simple. The media deal for Conference A remains unchanged despite School X leaving, therefore there would be no damages for breach of grant of rights. The Big 12 grant of rights runs concurrently to media deals. So unless the networks change their strategy and go against precedent and start reducing the payouts to leagues, the only thing that binds these schools is money. Once the SEC starts its network there will be a new conference shuffle, and the Big 12 is still vulnerable.
LikeLike
Clay Travis makes Bleacher Reports look good.
LikeLike
He was the one who was claiming the SEC Network would get higher subscriber fees than the NFL network. I think he was claiming ESPN type numbers.
LikeLike
By Jason Hutzler
That a grant of rights prevents conferences from being raided is a myth. The Big 12 is still vulnerable because Texas and Oklahoma are still in play to be gobbled up in conference realignment. To give you some background, I am a contract lawyer in Phoenix. I litigate a lot of contracts. Some that have liquidated damages clauses and some that don’t.
For the record, Clay didn’t write this. Is Hutzler’s logic wrong?
LikeLike
Yes. A grant of rights is just an assignment of rights. Unless you can find a court to completely invalidate it (seems highly unlikely to me considering it’s an assignment as part of a group assigning rights for a shared TV contract), you’re going to end up having to negotiate to buy them back for hundreds of millions of dollars.
LikeLike
OU and/or Texas could have gone to the SEC anytime they wanted over the last quarter century. They don’t want to go there. They aren’t going there. Anyone who writes they will shouldn’t be read. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
LikeLike
But that doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily stay in the Big 12. If the handcuffs are escapeable, that makes a BIG difference to any power programs not in the B1G or SEC.
LikeLike
@zeek – his argument is that courts are reluctant to enforce it and are even more reluctant to do so when damages are easily calculated. Since ESPN hasn’t reduced contract values before and would be unlikely to do so the damages are much less. Are you saying he is wrong and courts will enforce it?
@bullet – He doesn’t actually say UT and OU will be absorbed by the SEC. He implies that the Big 12 is vulnerable.
LikeLike
I think what this author is saying is this: any team that has given their TV rights to a conference via a GOR can give their media rights to a new conference at any time, leaving their old conference two choices: either sue the offending member institution, or let them go. Assuming the old conference would sue the departing member, the courts wouldn’t likely force the departing school to leave their media rights. Instead, they would force the departing instituion to pay a simple, calculable damage. These damages would be easy to figure out – the court would look at the money that conference members lost by losing the TV rights. If the damages are minimal (i.e. ESPN/Fox/etc. don’t change their yearly payout), then there’s no overwhelming monetary damage to the conference, leading to a relatively cheap departure.
The illuminating concept to me in this article was that networks, because of their current contractual involvement with other conferences, have a vested interest to maintain status quo payments to member institutions to limit their exposure to lawsuits from the losing conferences.
It seems like this jives with other articles posted on here about Maryland’s exit fees, and the courts’ likely interpretation of their exit fee being unenforceable, with the courts likely requiring Marlyand to pay the actual damages resulting from their departure.
LikeLike
The damage logic may work for Baylor or ISU, but if TX or OK leaves you can bet on a big reduction in the network payout so there will be damages. The only reason the networks did not impose reductions when Nebraska left is that the market had outstripped the value lost from the old B12 contract.
LikeLike
It makes sense. A grant of rights is a school giving broadcast rights to a conference. Let’s hypothetically say Kansas leaves the Big 12 for the Big 10. To my knowledge, there’s no exit fee or waiting period. Kansas could leave quickly, somewhat like Missouri did. It’s not like all Kansas games would still be broadcast by the Big 12. More like is that Kansas would give them to the Big 10. This action would result in a whole host of claims, including breach of contract and tortious intereference with contractual relations. but the bottom line is, what are the damages? Unless the content providers (ESPN/Fox, etc…) reduce the money to the Big 12, then damages are hard to show or prove (but can go beyond pure media rights in theory).
LikeLike
If I am understanding what is being said, then the Big XII is vulnerable because their GOR isn’t long enough? If the GOR went beyond the current contract, then you can sue for potential dollars added; but with it going exactly to the end of he current media deal, and you knew the networks won’t change their payments, it would be very hard to claim damages because the previous assigned value of their rights was being left behind to the conference and its’ members.
If that is true then every GOR needs to be at least 5 if not 10 to 15 years beyond any media deal to have any teeth.
LikeLike
@Jericho
The damages are that the Big 12 owns those rights and has to be compensated for them.
It’s not much different from other forms of contractual TV rights are dealt with…
GOR isn’t a punitive measure; they’re a contractual assignment of something of value. You can’t just revoke it like that; at least that’s my interpretation.
I don’t think there’s any way a school would win a lawsuit to break a GOR; they’d likely be order to compensate the conference to the tune of the value of said rights (likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars range).
LikeLike
What conference is going to challenge the B12 GOR? The SEC was very lawsuit shy in going after A&M and MO. Does anyone think the P12 or B1G will damage their GORs by challenging the B12 GOR? That leaves the ACC and below. Not attractive moves from the B12.
LikeLike
To the PAC or B1G a GOR is not a tool to enforce conference stability. It is a way to more effectively market themselves and run a conference network. I’m not sure challenging the “handcuff” nature of a GOR would have any negative consequences for them.
LikeLike
But no, I don’t think they would initiate anything like that. If it happens it would be driven by those trying to escape the “handcuffs”.
LikeLike
@Jericho ~ there would be no particular reason for the B12 TO waive their rights, if no compensation is offered. If they wish to, they can just sit on them. These kinds of media rights tangles occasionally occur in other media rights areas, and sometimes the result is just a blackout until the term expires.
The conference would have ample incentive to simply sit on the departing school’s games until the poaching conference made what they considered to be adequate compensation.
As far as damages and exit fees, the Big East would seem to be on more solid ground, they’ve got the two ESPN offers for various league make-ups to put a market value on what the Big East was, and will have some sort of contract offer in the low eight figures per year to put a market value on what they will end up with. Maryland compensating the ACC for the opportunity to upgrade their football competition does seem a bit more tenuous.
LikeLike
I guess you’re making a distinction between property rights and breach of contract actions. Under a grant of rights, is it an assignment of goods (television games) for delivery or is an assignment of ownership of property for that period?
@ zeek – you say the Big 12 would have to be compensated for the lost television rights. But the point the article makes is that there is no loss. The Big 12 is getting paid x number of dollars for the next 13 years for all its television rights. If Kansas leaves, and the Big 12 still gets paid the same amount of money for less rights, then what was the conference lost? That’s the argument. Unless the conference gets paid less, how can the Big 12 show actual loss?
LikeLike
It would seem to be an exclusive grant of permission to create a specified form of copyrighted work on the school’s property and using the school’s intellectual property. The grant is being made well in advance of production, of course, but multiple media industries rely on the ability to gain permission to create a copyrighted work well in advance of the production.
Now, IANDL, but a decade between gaining book rights and making a movie is by no means unheard of. If a studio has the book rights in a simple term assignment of rights, does not greenlight the project, and some other studio wants to make the movie, that second studio either has to pay the first studio or wait out until the assignment of rights expire.
LikeLike
@Jericho
It’s a loss of something of value.
The rights to those home games for football and basketball are worth hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of 12 years. It doesn’t matter if the school is being replaced on the other end.
What happens if a court decides to say that the GOR is binding and that the Big 12 still owns the TV home game rights for as chool that bolted?
Even if you think the odds are only 25%, who takes a gamble on that?
There’s probably even a much higher chance that a court would say that. What then? Does the school try to buy back the rights for hundreds of millions? It’s just too big a can of worms in my opinion for any school to even think about gambling with that kind of risk.
LikeLike
And its a big can of worms for the conference taking them and the networks holding that conference’s TV rights as well. They could potentially lose games.
LikeLike
@ zeek
You keep saying the rights have value, but how do you define what that value is? If the Big 12 gets paid x dollars for tv rights for 10 school. And one school leaves and does not deliever their TV rights to the conference, but the conferences still gets paid the same, then the Big 12 still get paid x dollars just for 9 schools. That’s evidence that the Big 12 has not been damaged if they make the same money.
The crux of the article is based on three presumptions:
(1) The length of the grant of rights is equal to the length of the TV contract (this is true only for the Big 12 and may not true for other conferences). Any damages would be measured by the reduction in value of said television contract;
(2) No content provider has ever reduced the value of the television contract despite what would generally be considered a net loss in value of the content; and
(3) specific performance would never be ordered since it’s rarely used and only really applicable when montary damages cannot be calculated (and they can be calculated here)
The analysis generally make sense. But I am not saying its perfect. What I think can be an issue is if the grant of rights is not viewed as an assignment of goods under a contract, but instead an a license to specific intellectual property rights to the conference. In the latter, if any school changed conferences and tried to give their games to another conference, I suspect the Big 12 would seek injunctive relief to halt the broadcast of said games.
What I cannot comment on is the specific arrangement each school has with the Big 12 and how a court might interpret the grant of rights. It falls somewhere in between a supplier agreement (which would be a straight contract action) and the licensing of existing IP rights (which would be subject to an injunction). These are about future rights to something that has yet to be produced.
I also think no conference wants to get entangled in any such legal action (and concurrent tortious interference claims), which makes the likelihood of such a scenario slim. Nor does it account for the possibility of Texas or Oklahoma leaving. If either of those schools did depart the Big 12, that’s a game changer in terms of the value of the contract. Assumption 2 is likely wrong.
But I don’t discount the article completely.
LikeLike
My problem with that analysis is that the 3rd assumption is extremely questionable and doesn’t match any legal analysis I’ve seen on this subject:
(3) specific performance would never be ordered since it’s rarely used and only really applicable when montary damages cannot be calculated (and they can be calculated here)
Just look at #3 for the moment.
How is that a reasonable assumption? We’re talking about media rights. It has nothing to do with specific performance; there’s no way that a court is going to equate the turning over of media rights to requiring a party to perform a specific act in the future.
Once the media rights are turned over to the conference (already done in the past), the act is done. The rights aren’t owned by the school to turn over to anyone else
That’s where that article fails.
A school that’s turned over its media rights to a conference does not own the rights to sell its home games until the grant is extinguished.
The article assumes that the rights can somehow be assigned to a new conference that the school joins, and I’ve never heard of a media rights agreement where such a thing can happen.
LikeLike
@jericho
A specific performance would be requiring the Big 12 TV companies to give up the rights they have. A school leaving would have to have the courts force the voiding of the contract. That is one of the distinctive things about a grant of rights vs. simply leaving a conference. I think it was Bruce pointing out rights to make things into movies. You can’t force the company to give up those rights. They may sit idle for years.
LikeLike
Specific performance, in this instance, would be forcing any school to give their rights to a conference.
Part of the issue is how those rights are generated. I don’t think this is analogous to a pure intellectual property scenario. Movie rights was mentioned as an example. Let’s say I have the exclusive rights to make a certain book into a movie. No one can force me to exercise those rights (i.e. make the movie) and I can bring an injunction to stop anyone else who tries. That is not in dispute.
The question is how that fact scenario relates to a grant of rights for a school’s games. Let’s use Kansas as an example. Let’s say they leave the Big 12 for the Big 10. No one disputes that this can be done. The only question is if Kansas can give the Big 12 any of its tv rights. It has previously granted those rights to the Big 12.
But how are those rights generated? Who is providing the actual cameras and generating the content? How is the game produced? If Kansas is suddenly in the Big 10, how is the Big 12 supposed to get on campus to film the basketball or football games to put on the air? If Kansas decides that it does not want to allow access to whomever to film their games, I don’t suspect a court would order them to force such action to take place. It’s possible a court could. Certainly Kansas tv rights are a unique product no one can obtain anywhere else. But money should suffice.
I think the difference between this and the movie analogy is that I can always make my movie. What anyone else does will not prevent me from doing that. However, the Big 12 really needs cooperation and coordination with Kansas to generate the television games to broadcast. That seems to make it not so much a pure property right, but a contract to work together to deliever a specific product. In which case a contract could be broken. And while an injunction could be sought, it seems there IS an adequate remedy at law. Money.
I’m not saying the above analysis is 100% correct. I’m just pointing out the complexity of the issue and how it does not seem so clear cut to me.
LikeLike
@Jericho (and bullet)
Here’s where the movie analogy works for grants of rights.
Let’s use the case of Marvel (now owned by Disney) and their Spiderman/X-men franchises.
Marvel when they were in a disadvantageous financial position and in need of cash assigned the rights to make Spiderman movies to Columbia and X-men to Fox in exchange for a small cut of the proceeds from the movies and some cash. The rights remain with Columbia and Fox respectively as long as they continue to produce movies in a certain time frame of their most recent releases in the franchises (the time period is believed to be 5-7 years although no one’s published those details).
For all intents and purposes, the media rights for Spiderman and X-men are owned by Marvel. But given the rights agreements, Marvel can’t make movies for those two franchises until the rights transfers are extinguished by lapse or they outright pay several hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps in the billion range) to buy them back.
I think you’d see a grant of rights viewed the same way. The media rights of Texas football games may belong to UT, but for all intents and purposes, the media rights are assigned to the conference for the next 12 years.
You bring up some interesting points about production, but the basic rights to those games are what’s at issue.
LikeLike
Zeek – in your movie analogy, the consideration for handing over the rights is evident – MONEY! I’m not a contract lawyer and don’t pretend to be an expert of conference grants of rights, but the consideration in such a deal doesn’t really jump out at you like handing over a wad of cash.
Whether a conference has exits fees (ACC & Big East), GOR (B1G, P-12, B-12), or no legal ties binding the conference together (SEC), the network contracts are based on quality and quantity of content.
LikeLike
@ zeek, in your Marvel scenario, I would presume that Marvel received compensation in exchange for the rights to the movie up front. If Marvel were to break this contract, they would have to pay the money they received up front back to the buyer plus damages. However, with the rights to these B12 conference games, member institutions that want to leave the conference wouldn’t need to “buy them back” because they are paid for the rights as they are used (presumably yearly), so future rights haven’t technically been “sold”. Assume that Kansas receives a check for their 2013 TV rights on January 1, 2013. If they decide to leave on July 1, 2013, then I would assume KU would be on the hook for paying back money for the rights from July 1 – December 31, 2013, and any damages resulting from their withdrawal, not KU’s portion of the future, unpaid rights.
LikeLike
@ zeek
I don’t disagree with you analysis of the Marvel scenario. But I do think there are factual difference between that scenario and a grant of rights. Factual differences alone do not mean that legally someone (a judge or jury) would come to a different conclusion, but they could.
The issue with the Marvel example is that nothing prevents either Sony or Fox from making X-Men movies. No matter what Marvel does, Sony or Fox really needs nothing from Marvel. But the Big 12 does need cooperation of the schools to record and boradcast games.
Here’s the polar opposite example. Let’s says I contract with you to deliever 100 widgets per year at a specified price for the next 13 years. I make full delivery for 3 years without incident. Then I suddenly stop. The moment I stop making deliveries, I’ve breached the contract. That is not in dispute. You can sue me for your damages, except the courts will tell you that you should mitigate your damages. Or in other words, try to buy widgets from somewhere else. If you find a second supplier that sells you the same widgets on the exact same terms without any delay, you’re back in the same position as the original contract. There are no damages. There was a technical breach, but no actual harm. However, if you can only find widgets at double the cost, then you can sue for the difference in price. In that case there is something to sue over.
I don’t think a grant of rights is exactly the same as the above scenario. But you can see some similarities. Each school essentially “delievers” their rights to the conference each year. In some ways, its akin to an installment agreement. What Alan states is interesting in that any contract must have consideration. The question becomes how there “grants of rights” are structured and how the deal is laid out.
LikeLike
@Jericho
Kansas has already handed over their rights. So that is not specific performance. They’ve already done it. Kansas would have to take an active step, locking ESPN and Fox cameramen out of the building. So its not simply failing to deliver widgets. Kansas doesn’t have anything else it needs to do (other than play the games-which it will). It simply needs not to interfere.
So the GOR is about as ironclad a guarantee as you can get. What college will lock ESPN out of their building?
LikeLike
I think the problem here is that you’re saying that the rights are delivered each year.
That doesn’t seem to be what actually happens with a GOR. My view is that the rights are delivered when the GOR is signed.
Look at Fox’s deal to buy 49% of YES; the Yankees transferred an extra 5 years of TV rights (2038-2042) to YES as a part of that deal which means that YES owns the rights to air Yankees games until 2042.
Just like the Yankees have no way out of that, neither does a Big 12 (or Big Ten or Pac-12) school.
I think the schools are basically at the mercy of the conferences to whom they’ve transferred those media rights.
How the service is provided (camera crews and production personnel go on campus to tape games) doesn’t change the fact that the media rights themselves have already been forfeit.
LikeLike
@Jericho ~ except that the primary focus of the contract in these cases are not performance, but permission. Permission is not needed to produce a movie based on a Marvel character. However, since any movie based on a Marvel character is a derivative work, COPYING and DISTRIBUTION of a derivative work requires permission of both the derivative work creator and the original work creator. It would be making money off of the production that would be blocked, without Marvel’s permission.
Permission is needed to broadcast/narrowcast a football game, since the broadcast production is a derivative work. The joint product problem has been resolved by the institution of vesting the original rights for a college football game with the host school.
Nothing requires an original work creator to grant exclusive permission, or to grant an exclusive permission over an extended period, but if they do so, then a later grant of permission within the term of the prior grant would be invalid.
There certainly are performances required of both school and broadcast/narrowcast producer in the media contracts between the conferences and the various networks, and performances required of each school as part of the bylaws of the conference organization, but the economic institution at the core of the media contract is not personal or real property, but copyright.
In the Kansas scenario, any grant of rights by Kansas to the B1G that overlaps the prior grant of rights to the Big 12 would result in an encumbered media asset unless (and until) a court has ruled to invalidate the original grant of rights in some way, or else unless (and until) the B1G has negotiated an agreement with the Big 12 in which the Big 12 would grant the permission to the B1G for the Kansas home games.
The broadcaster/narrowcaster is not going to pay on the basis of those encumbered rights until the permissions have been cleared up. Unless there is some flaw buried in the details of the grant, it seems that the B1G would have to negotiate with the Big 12 for the rights.
LikeLike
A better movie analogy is probably Prof. Tolkien’s work which languished for years because the people who had the rights to make the movies didn’t own the rights to distribute them. So yes, it was technically possible for them to make the films it was also impossible on a practical level as they had no way to monetize them.
LikeLike
Excellent example. There is a case of a documentary of some kind of stage production where the stage hands were watching a Simpsons episode back stage, and Fox did not grant permission to use that audio/video, so they had to find a way to scrub it out before they could release the documentary. You need all permissions sorted out before you can legally distribute.
And a grant of broadcast media rights is not a promise to give permission at some future date, where the school might fail to perform as promised when the time comes ~ it is granting of permission OVER the term, at the time that the contract is completed. The contract IS the action of giving permission, so there no issue of damages should a promised future action not occur would not be salient for the grant of rights as such.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8809652/notre-dame-fighting-irish-orange-bowl-share-1375-million-new-format
ACC gets a boost when it hosts ND in the Orange Bowl as an opponent.
ESPN will pay an average of $55 million annually for the bowl, sources said. If the ACC plays an SEC or Big Ten opponent, both conferences would each receive $27.5 million.
However, if Notre Dame is the ACC’s Orange Bowl opponent, the Irish only receive $13.75 million and the ACC $41.25 million.
ND can appear a maximum of twice. Big Ten and SEC must appear minimum of 3 times each.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame doesn’t qualify for the Orange Bowl, the national semifinals or one of the six major bowl games, the Irish will still receive an average of about $4 million annually during the 12-year contract, sources said.
————————————
More on ND’s part of the deal.
LikeLike
The rules are getting way too complicated. B1G and SEC champs won’t go to the Orange Bowl in years Sugar & Rose are playoff games.
LikeLike
Well, that answers the question as to where the extra money goes when ND makes it. Makes sense that the ACC gets it, they are the OB anchor tenant. ACC OB payout basically goes up $2.3M a year over the 10 year deal, assuming ND makes it twice.
LikeLike
Er, 12 year deal.
LikeLike
Assuming ND makes the Orange Bowl twice, then the average ACC payout increases by $3.5M per year for each non OB semi-final year. That closes the conference payout gap between B12 & ACC (from $40M/$27.5M to $40M/$31M)…which helps mitigate the financial lure of jumping from the ACC to the B12.
The bigger story of the Orange Bowl deal is how it institutionalized the B1G and SEC in a unique class. The Orange Bowl deal actually helps B1G & SEC the most.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is in the ACC’s bowl rotation. I’m wondering if their lower payout is because they get a share of the ACC’s $27.5 million in the other 6 years.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Now that a day of everyone talking about how great an addition Louisville is going to be for the ACC has gone by, I have a question.
Everything I have seen has said that exit fees must represent actual damages, otherwise they are punitive and won’t hold up. How exactly is the ACC going to argue that trading Maryland for Louisville hurts the conference at all, let alone to the tune of $50mm?
LikeLike
Yeah, I think we’re all wondering that as far as that exit fee goes. It seems as if the ACC will likely negotiate it down although who really knows, they really don’t want to set a precedent that any school can leave with a one time $20 million payment…
LikeLike
The ACC has a bit of a problem. Taking Maryland in isolation, the damages are probably zero: Louisville is arguably an upgrade. But there aren’t many Louisvilles left. The next time they have to replace a school, it will probably be a big downgrade.
Hence, the ACC would likely argue that the exit fee is needed, not because the loss of any one school can’t be overcome, but because the perception of instability ultimately leads to other schools leaving, one by one.
The reality is, this case will settle. The ACC knows that $52 million probably wouldn’t hold up, but they need to get as much as they can, because otherwise the barbarians will be pounding at the gate.
LikeLike
Cincy and UConn are offended.
LikeLike
Whether or not the Bearcats and the sled dogs should be offended depends in part on whether they are replacing NC State and GTech, or FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
You are looking at the situation after the fact. The enforceability will be determined mainly by when the “contract” was formed. Liquidated damages are meant to reasonably estimate damages when they are hard to calculate. The questions is whether the $52 million was reasonable at the time it was put in? If that loses, then the ACC would need to prove actual damages. But if you are constructing an argument, if probably starts with the fact that the Big 10, a noted “better” conference, chose Maryland over Louisville. If Maryland is more valuable to the Big 10 and the Big 12 passed over Louisville for West Virginia, then there is evidence Louisville is not as valuable. Still does not put any specific dollar figure, however.
LikeLike
The B12 passing on Louisville for WVU has no bearing on the question of whether UMD or Louisville is more valuable. Also, conferences may not take the most valuable school (in terms of TV value) if they think they are a better institutional fit. Furthermore, 2 schools may be equally valuable and one is chosen because of better institutional fit. UMD may be the better institutional fit yet Louisville and UMD are equally valuable in which case the penalty for damages should be zero.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130102/penn-state-lawsuit-analysis/index.html
SI’s legal expert takes a look at PA’s lawsuit against the NCAA. I’d say he leans towards the NCAA winning, but decide for yourself.
LikeLike
Who are these refs? 3 tackles well out of bounds and a helmet to helmet by Oregon just in the 1st half with no personal fouls. They ALWAYS call those late tackles. You may miss the helmet to helmet. This could get really out of hand if they keep letting them get away with it.
LikeLike
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/01/a-conference-by-conference-look-at-bowl-success/#comments
Conference All Bowls ’00-’12 BCS Bowls ’00-’12 All Bowls 2012 BCS Bowls 2012
Big East 42-24 (63.6%) 8-5 3-1 1-0
SEC 62-42 (59.6%) 14-6 3-3 0-1
MWC 31-22 (58.4%) 3-1 1-4 0-0
Big XII 51-49 (51.0%) 8-9 4-3 0-0
Pac-10/12 38-37 (50.6%) 12-5 3-4 1-0
ACC 45-49 (47.8%) 2-11 4-2 1-0
C-USA 31-37 (45.5%) 0-0 4-1 0-0
WAC 19-25 (43.1%) 0-0 2-0 0-0
MAC 19-27 (41.3%) 0-1 2-4 0-1
Sun Belt 9-13 (40.9%) 0-0 1-2 0-0
Big Ten 37-57 (39.3%) 8-14 2-5 0-1
The WAC numbers are off in the BCS (the conference is 2-1 I believe), but as a Big Ten fan all I can say is ugh.
LikeLike
frug,
The raw numbers don’t reflect the degree of difficulty, though.
Take the BE for example:
#1 – BCS at large
#2 – ACC #3
#3 – ACC #5
#4 – B12 #7*
#5/6 – SEC #8/9
#5/6 – CUSA #1 or SEC #8/9
#7 – CUSA #4
* – homefield advantage
Gee, I wonder why they have such a good record.
ACC (8/14):
Higher seed – 3
Equal seed – 1
Lower seed – 2
Non-AQ – 1
Home edge – 1
Road game – 1
B10 (8/12):
Higher seed – 2
Equal seed – 5
Lower seed – 0
Non-AQ – 1
Home edge – 0
Road game – 7
B12 (8/10):
Higher seed – 1
Equal seed – 2
Lower seed – 4
Non-AQ – 0
Home edge – 5
Road game – 2
P12 (7/12):
Higher seed – 2
Equal seed – 2
Lower seed – 0
Non-AQ – 3
Home edge – 2
Road game – 1
SEC (10/14):
Higher seed – 0
Equal seed – 2
Lower seed – 6
Non-AQ – 1
Home edge – 6
Road game – 1
Notes:
1. Being a higher seed is an advantage, but conference size is also a factor. Being #6 of 8 is very different from being #6 of 14. There are times when the lower seeded team is in a higher percentile in their conference.
2. AQ conferences are not equal. The B10 plays the SEC and B12 3 times each and the P12 and MAC once each. No ACC or BE games.
3. The home/road edge is important. The following data are for 2002-2011 for conference play by all AQ schools.
Home W% – .577
Road W% – .435
4. Based on the opponent’s conference and seeding plus game location, the B10 plays the hardest bowl schedule by far.
5. The B10 needs to do better. They’ve been close in a lot of games recently, but need to get over the hump.
LikeLike
I guess that’s why Chip Kelly doesn’t care about time of possession.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
A Penn State source said the numbers have yet to be finalized, but O’Brien and his staff are expected to receive significant raises.
——————————————————
Big news for Penn State with BOB staying and holding together a pretty good recruiting class all things considered as well as the personnel already in the program.
Interested to see this part about significant raises though; probably will bring them up to the levels being paid by OSU/Michigan?
LikeLike
PSU certainly has the resources to do so.
LikeLike
Pegula (the Sabres owner who funded the ice hockey program start) apparently chipped in the extra cash to give O’Brien and the staff raises.
As for PSU having resources, they do, but there’s also a lot of money committed to other purposes (like $12M/year to the NCAA) that doesn’t exist at other comparable schools. And attendance has fallen with the sanctions so revenue is down.
LikeLike
spaz,
PSU had a net income of over $31M in 2010-2011 according to their DOE report. Even with their fines, they can afford raises.
LikeLike
Go Buckeyes.
LikeLike
OT – Colorado just got robbed of a victory at Arizona during their first Pac-12 basketball game. A player got off a 3-point shot at 0:00.1 seconds which went in. The replay was very definite. However, Pac-12 officiating at work again. They waived the basket off. Arizona went on to win in overtime.
LikeLike
The latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry — a primer on the conference, and who fields what in where — is at http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/1230.html.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading your posts, just not commenting. I figure you get enough of my opinion here.
LikeLike
Hope you like them.
I personally was shocked to discover all 12 current Big Ten institutions field wrestling teams. It didn’t seem like something that, say, Indiana or Purdue would do. And as in the ACC, more members field women’s soccer programs than men’s, although unlike the Big Ten, not every ACC member has women’s soccer (I think Georgia Tech is the lone holdout).
LikeLike
Wrestling is huge in the midwest and plains states.
LikeLike
Good stuff on those posts.
I’m wondering what’s going to end up with lacrosse when Maryland and Rutgers join. 6 women’s teams will be good to go for a league for that, but the men’s side will be at 5 unless something else changes.
LikeLike
Zeek-
All the other Big Ten schools except Northwestern field club level men’s lacrosse teams. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue and Wisconsin are in the Men’s Collegiate Lacrosse Association or MCLA (see http://www.laxpower.com/update13/binmen/rating05.phpa).
If one of those schools promotes those programs to varsity (and adds a women’s lacrosse program to boot due to Title IX) and/or Northwestern adds men’s lacrosse, then you could see the B1G having the six clubs minimum to form a league.
If North Carolinia, Virginia or Duke join the conference as part of a 16- or 18-team conference, then that’ll give the B1G the six teams minimum as well. Georgia Tech has a MCLA club team.
LikeLike
Given how important lacrosse is becoming for recruiting East Coast students (an express goal of Michigan’s promotion of its men’s and women’s programs to D-1), I’d expect to see Michigan State look into adding it considering that Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State all have it and Michigan State is the closest to those 3 in terms of athletics profile.
LikeLike
MSU dropped it years ago. Maybe they can add again someday. Or maybe those guys can just learn to skate and play real hockey. JK
LikeLike
Yeah jj, dropped it in the mid-90s.
But the only sports that Michigan has that Michigan State doesn’t are water polo and then men’s/women’s lacrosse which Michigan just added in the past year or two.
So it’s not that much of a stretch to think that the incentives have changed enough for MSU to reconsider (I know Michigan State’s recent talk about recruiting East Coast students more heavily matches up with what Brandon was saying was the reason for adding lacrosse as a way of bringing in more East Coast student athletes).
Timing just seems right for Michigan State to go back to lacrosse.
LikeLike
I think the impact of lacrosse is overstated.
The atttendance for lacrosse games is on the level of women’s volleyball (or less).
Plus, they play & follow hockey in the Northeast as well.
LikeLike
Every non-revenue sport is an incremental addition; what I mean in terms of student recruitment is simply that it’s another 70-80 students every 4 years from the East Coast for a school that has both men’s and women’s versions.
LikeLike
Also, they’re high quality student athletes as far as socioeconomics go.
It may be a bit crass to say this, but you’re talking about student athletes from largely well-to-do backgrounds that typically are high performing students from high quality high schools.
LikeLike
But would that be a disincentive? Many of these schools aren’t trying to recruit more white upper class kids.
LikeLike
Yup, that’s crass.
LikeLike
Zeek:
All B10 schools already get plenty of high-performing kids from good high schools. Lots who come from rich families as well. Why not a math whiz or a kid who looks to be a promising researcher (from the East Coast) rather than a lacrosse player? Especially since the lacrosse player would cost a scholarship while the other 2 wouldn’t.
Also, what’s 70 kids in a school with 50K students? Unless the non-revenue sports bring kids who want to be fans, it’s simply not a cost-effective way to increase enrollment.
LikeLike
Richard:
You’re missing his “crass” point. Many of those high level math/whatever academic speciality kids may have been a high achiever in lacrosse/whatever sport in those eastern elite private schools. Many may not have what it takes to succeed at D1, but will give it a shot. Once in school they will need to decide to transfer to a lower level to play, or stay at a strong academic institution, be a supporter, and possibly play club. Walk-ons and partial scholarships make up the bulk of sports not named FB or BB. Plus eastern BTN exposure will be considerable broadcasting lacrosse.
LikeLike
And I maintain that the popularity of lacrosse is oversold. I lived in the Northeast, and outside of Long Island and the Chesapeake region, lacrosse is a niche sport even in its heartland. I would be shocked if lacrosse got ratings as high as even volleyball or wrestling on the BTN.
LikeLike
One thing about lacrosse scholarships, most of the athletes are going to be on partial scholarships (if any); there’s only like a dozen scholarships spread out over 30-40 athletes for your average men’s or women’s program (men’s typically has a couple more athletes); and we’re talking about out-of-state rates on those students.
Richard, the popularity isn’t really oversold; it’s the fastest growing youth sport.
The BTN aspects may be oversold, but lacrosse could be like soccer; a huge future as a youth sport.
A big reason why Northwestern added women’s lacrosse when it was looking for a sport to round out its Title IX requirements was that (besides not needing a new pool or stables for horses or something), the female student athletes really fit the mold of what they wanted.
You may think of 70-80 students as a drop in the bucket, but it’s incremental; the athletics department has over a thousand students at many of these schools, and to get these “high quality” student athletes is always going to be seen as a good thing.
It’s why women’s lacrosse is the fastest growing D-1 sport; so many new programs of late.
LikeLike
ccrider55 is basically right as to what I was getting at…
My point is that if you’re Michigan or Michigan State and you’re looking at recruiting East Coast students, lacrosse is a cheap and effective way to grab 70-80 “high quality” student athletes for your student body.
That’s really the only point I’m making here.
LikeLike
Lacrosse may be fun to talk about here. But its a big gigantic zero in terms of driving B10 expansion.
I’ll let this deadspin URL do the talking:
http://deadspin.com/5927068/seven-times-as-many-people-watched-rambo-in-spanish-as-watched-major-league-lacrosse-sports-tv-ratings-in-context
LikeLike
I didn’t even know there was a Major League Lacrosse…
As far as lacrosse goes in these discussions, it’s really just about whether schools individually want to add it and whether the Big Ten wants to add AQ men’s/women’s leagues.
LikeLike
MSU’s AD Mark Hollis was quoted here about MSU going varsity in Lax:
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/michigan-athletic-director-dave-brandon-comments-on-lacrosse-program-including-state-of-funding-faci/
Hollis said the Spartans have no immediate plans for adding a lacrosse program, but there is a long-term possibility they would do so.
“I just can’t do it without having revenues in place,” he said. “What you’ll do is deplete the programs that you already have in place. Never say never, but it’s probably not going to happen tomorrow.
“We love to add sports, but it’s resource-driven. (Expansion is) not in our short-term plans.”
Michigan’s addition of lacrosse does not create an incentive for the Spartans to follow suit, Hollis said.
_______________
My assumption is that we will see a few Big Ten schools add lacrosse in 2-4 years, when schools can actually see another decent bump in conference revenues. Maybe the combination of Maryland and Rutgers adding TV sets to BTN combined with the new Bowl Alignments will be enough. If not, I’m sure that the new TV contracts that begin in 2016 will be more than enough. Either way, I would expect that by 2017 MSU has varsity Lax, and perhaps a couple of other schools, too.
LikeLike
Yeah Cliff, basically a school has to be able to find around $4 million per year (growing with inflation naturally) to be able to fund the scholarships and coaches and the rest of the costs of men’s and women’s lacrosse programs. It’s not that expensive, so as soon as the next big bump ups in payments come (most likely the 2017 TV deal will make it considerably easier), we should start to see it.
LikeLike
Zeek:
If sport A grows from 100 players to 150 players and sport B grows from 300 players to 350 players, sport A will be “faster growing”. That doesn’t mean that Sport A is more popular, has grown more, or will ever become more than a niche sport.
LikeLike
Richard, we’re talking about 70-80 potential lacrosse student athletes at each of a handful of Big Ten universities.
http://www.uslacrosse.org/TopNav/NewsandMedia/PressReleases/USLStudyRevealsContinuedGrowth.aspx
The growth of high school lacrosse is what matters:
US Lacrosse Annual Participation Survey (Varsity, JV, Freshmen and Club Players)
Year HS Boys HS Girls Total HS Players
2006 96,777 65,244 162,021
2007 112,496 74,550 187,046
2008 131,092 87,731 218,823
2009 136,710 90,914 227,624
2010 149,400 105,914 255,314
2011 162,416 112,865 275,281
Again, you’re right that the numbers aren’t that large in absolute terms, but the growth is significant and the trend is strong.
Dave Brandon’s been calling lacrosse “the sport of the future.”
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But the numbers are there and the trend is there.
LikeLike
Richard,
Lacrosse is considered to have a similar growth curve (in youth programs) to soccer in the 1980s. The major difference being that Lacrosse doesn’t have the stigma that soccer had of being played by foreigners. ‘Murica!
And compared to hockey, it will be easier to grow in new regions, as there aren’t barriers like the cost of ice time and actually learning to skate.
You’re right that it may never become more than a niche sport, but it’s certainly not a reach to believe that it’s popularity will overlap with hockey and soccer in the US in the next 20 years, as far as youth participants, high school and college teams, and attendance. I’m sure they will hit NHL TV ratings or attendance for a professional sport, but using other metrics, I’m not sure what’s stopping it from approaching soccer’s pro level here.
Also, looking at NCAA Championship attendance, they are regularly getting 40K+ for the Final Four. http://www.laxpower.com/common/NCAA-Attendance.php
LikeLike
*Meant to say that Pro Lax WILL NOT reach the NHL levels of TV ratings and attendance.
LikeLike
@zeek
I live in a passionate lacrosse region where kids are playing league games by the age of 7. The area (Annapolis, MD) is very upscale, family salaries high, and many kids go to private high schools. They play lacrosse because it is fast, physical and requires lightning instincts. I admit that ice hockey is a great sport, but this region (like the Long Island and Syracuse areas) exports kids all over the country to lacrosse programs. Enrollments would to institutions such as UNC, Duke, UVA, Johns Hopkins, Cornell or Syracuse. Many kids will go to places with partial scholies just to get more of a “free ride.” The National Championship for the NCAA has been moved around a bit, but M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore is where the consensus “best place to play” is located. It is essentially central along the Eastern corridor, and is acceptable to schools like ND. Lacrosse is popular here and always will be. There are even lacrosse groups (like the Gray Beards) who are former standouts who still gather on Sundays and play on Club teams. And, we’re talking about guys in their 40s.
I think the Big Ten might well want to consider lacrosse because football is starting to get viewed under the microscope by the NFL because of all the stuff about concussions. I think it is inevitable that rule changes will be demanded and the game is not the one that was played only a few years ago with all the rule changes.
Lacrosse is more physical than soccer but obviously less so than football or ice hockey. If the B1G wants to get more Eastern eyeballs on the BTN, I can tell you that a B1G lacrosse league would draw viewers. Even those with a casual interest follow the NCAA championship closely, and the last few years has been almost a sellout at several large stadia for the Final Four.
LikeLike
I would love to see an official Big Ten lacrosse league, but unless the B1G adds Notre Dame, UNC, or Virginia, I fear that it will remain a 5 school unofficial league with no automatic NCAA berth for the foreseeable future.
I think the main problem that most Big Ten schools face in terms of adding lacrosse is not money, but recruiting and the lack of elite high school talent within the current Big Ten region. Lacrosse is growing rapidly, however it still is heavily concentrated in the mid-Atlantic states and New England. If you look at the top division 1 programs today, be it Syracuse, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Virginia, Cornell, etc., all are located in those areas or recruit heavily in those areas. In the Big Ten region, only Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Chicago, have high school lacrosse that is anywhere near comparable to that found in DC/Baltimore, New Jersey, Upstate New York, Long Island, and New England. To compete at a high level, every school in the Big Ten not named Penn State or Ohio State would have to recruit predominately out of state, and even those two with solid local bases struggle to sustain success.
Keep in mind, the socioeconomic background of a high school lacrosse player is a lot of different from that of a high school football, basketball, or even baseball player. Lacrosse is for the most part played by affluent kids in affluent areas. While there are technically pro leagues, you can’t really make a living doing it, meaning there is no lacrosse after college. When I was in high school, my assistant lacrosse coach was Roy Colsey, (at the time one of the best lacrosse players in the world,) who played professionally. Yet he was still a high school history teacher/assistant coach on the side. Therefore, potential college lacrosse players (more so than football or basketball players) are looking for the best schools to attend. So if given a choice between Duke and Wisconsin, I would think the elite high school lacrosse player is going to choose Duke 10 out of 10 times. If you were to give the elite high school football player the same choice, he would probably choose Wisconsin 10 out of 10 times, largely because of the NFL track record of the Badgers.
Now, Notre Dame’s lacrosse program has been on the rise to elite status, playing for the title in 2010 and reaching the final four in 2012. The reason ND has been so successful isn’t because of the high school lacrosse talent in Indiana (if it even exists.) It’s because ND is a national school with great academics that can recruit anywhere. The only schools in the Big Ten region that I see with similar qualities capable of experiencing similar success are Michigan and Northwestern, national schools with great academics. Michigan has just started its program. NU recently started a women’s team that has since run roughshod over the rest of the NCAA. There’s no reason a men’s team couldn’t be successful given the location in Chicago and NU’s reach on the east coast. Unfortunately, the Wildcats have no plans to add men’s lacrosse.
After that, I don’t think any other schools have the same national reach, and they would routinely lose those critical recruiting battles. Perhaps Illinois, Wisconsin, or Purdue could do it with their respective proximities to Chicago and the strong academics of those schools, but I think that’s a stretch. Michigan State would be a possibility since it once had a team, but MSU isn’t a national school and would face similar recruiting issues.
LikeLike
Tom:
Academics matter, but proximity to talent matters a fair bit too. The last 7 schools to make the men’s title game are Loyola, Maryland, Virginia, Duke, ND, ‘Cuse, & Cornell. You can argue that Duke, Cornell, ND, and maybe Virginia are better academically than Wisconsin. Hard to make that argument with regards to Maryland, Loyola, or ‘Cuse (though they are definitely closer to talent).
On the general point, however, I do agree with you, Tom. If Wisconsin has $4M extra to spend, spending it to boost football assistant coaching salaries to be competitive makes more sense than starting up a lacrosse program.
LikeLike
Lacrosse is very popular as a preppy sport, but unless something happens to make the ball more visible on TV it will never become popular as a TV-friendly spectator sport.
LikeLike
Bring back the glowing puck technology? But skip the tracer effects…
LikeLike
So, the upshot is, no change to the 3 existing men’s Lacrosse programs at OSU, that school up north and Penn State, and Maryland & Rutgers need to find a place to play. One option would be for the C7 to start a lacrosse championship with Maryland & Rutgers as associate members, as they work toward six NCAA lacrosse programs at six members. Dayton might be possibility there, as they have had some success as an MCLA club.
More like, everyone tries ~ but between Rutgers, MD, and the lacrosse schools among the C7, possibly not everyone succeeds ~ to get into lacrosse-specific leagues that already have AQ.
Eventually, if the occasional women’s lacrosse games start attracting a small following on the BTN, Northwestern adds a men’s Lacrosse program (and some additional women’s sport to provide the scholarship balance currently provided by the women’s Lacrosse program), and the Big Ten sponsors a men’s lacrosse championship.
LikeLike
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-01-01/big-ten-bowl-games-michigan-wisconsin-nebraska-conference-expansion-texas-oklaho
LikeLike
Sounds like a guy who doesn’t understand the factors and details in conference expansion at all. Either that, or he’s playing ignoramus to rile up the 75 IQ fan and get page views.
LikeLike
At ALL costs? No. But given how we’ve been willing to accommodate FSU, if OK is the cost of Texas, I’d be all for it. Sure would piss off the PAC-12, though.
LikeLike
Accommodate FSU? When did they join?
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Lol. “We” as in the Royal We, as in the Collective Readers of this Blog, as in Frank the Tank (see the title of the last blog post). “We” certainly don’t speak for TPTB…
LikeLike
Since when does OSU have any great hatred for MSU?
LikeLike
No idea when MSU become the second most hated school in Ohio ~ must have happened after I left Licking County. Maybe he heard “I don’t give a damn for the Whole State of Michigan” and thought it applied to the Spartans and that damn team up north in equal measure.
LikeLike
Teddy Greenstein reporting that Northwestern may be switching divisions.
LikeLike
NW in the East with Illinois, Iowa, Wisky, Neb in the West is a configuration that wasn’t one of the three listed in the BTN survey. So not a straight East/West. I’m hopeful that its NW/SE.
LikeLike
NU definitely want to play Iowa annually.
East promises OSU, Michigan, and the East Coast, but UNL and Wisconsin to NU are as big as those 2. Iowa and Illinois tip it towards the west.
Looks like Sparty’s desire to visit Chicagoland is trumping all again.
If NU goes east, who goes west? The IN schools?
Almost all the major metropolitan areas would be in the East, then, including Chicagoland and greater NYC.
LikeLike
“NU definitely want to play Iowa annually.”
Of course. Why would they want to give up a gimme win?
LikeLike
Or are they putting Wisconsin west and splitting Illinois/NU?
Then it’s even worse, with the top 5 schools I care about playing most (Iowa, Illinois, UNL, Michigan, and Wisconsin) all in the opposite division.
LikeLike
Richard,
Obviously they haven’t said anything, but it sounds like they may mean this:
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, MD, RU, NW
W – WI, NE, IA, IN, PU, MN, IL
That sucks all around.
LikeLike
If the Buckeyes can only have three of the traditional Big 10 in its conference, that does indeed suck, but given that, we could draw a worse trio than MU, MSU and NW.
LikeLike
Doh, ninja’d!
LikeLike
Teddy Greenstein @TeddyGreenstein
Chi Trib learns B1G interested in putting #Northwestern in East. Cats want to stay West w/rivals #Illini, Iowa, Wis, Neb. Better 4 fans.
LikeLike
Can someone explain the rationale behind moving Illinois to the West and Northwestern to the East?
I guess Northwestern is a more East Coast centric school than Illinois, but I’m not getting the angle. Is it Chicago?
LikeLike
That is likely the angle. The B1G would probably want both Michigan and Ohio State in the East, to maximize media exposure where those schools have a lot of alumni. So that leaves you with the following:
Definitely East: Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, UM, OSU
Definitely West: Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb., MichSt
Others have pointed out, that in an East-West alignment, Michigan State has to go west, as otherwise the divisions are too unbalanced. So the question is, which school(s) go east to compensate for that. It sounds like the divisions they’re thinking of are something like the following:
East: Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, UM, OSU, Indiana, Northwestern
West: Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb, MichSt, Purdue, Illinois
The protected cross-divisional rivalries would then be…
UM-MichSt
Indiana-Purdue
NW-Illinois
…and some combination of the others, such as…
Neb.-PSU
Wisc-OSU
Minn-Rut
Iowa-Maryland
I’m not a fan of protected rivalries, but if you go East-West, there’s no way to avoid it.
LikeLike
B12 North redux. Perception is greater than reality.
LikeLike
That and I have to really wonder whether some of these other schools want to be in a group with Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
Would anyone but those 3 ever stand a chance of winning that division?
LikeLike
You’re thinking like a fan, rather than an athletic director. Yes, those schools would love to have Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, on their schedule very year. They’re thinking, “How can I sell out the stadium?” not “How can I play against more pitiful opponents?”
LikeLike
Well, in the case of Northwestern, I think they legitimately prefer to be with Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, etc.
It may not be as marquee a schedule, but the school’s been more closely associated with the Western half of the Big Ten as far as football scheduling has gone in the past.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say I care more about MSU or Minny than a generic B10 school. Definitely want to play Iowa & Illinois often. Wisconsin, Michigan, and UNL are in the next level of importance.
LikeLike
Teddy Greenstein later tweeted:
@scottkier Yeah, you break up IU/Purdue. Life goes on. W: Wis, Iowa, Neb, Minny, Ill, NU, IU. E: Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, Rut, Md, Purdue.
So Teddy is calling MSU to the East. That’s probably the pull to get Northwestern to go East because Michigan State, and to a lesser extent, really all of the other schools. Maybe Delaney sees Northwestern as more of a national identity than Indiana or Purdue (in football) for association with Rutgers and Maryland and Penn State.
Having spoken to some of my Northwestern friends, they agree that the West makes much more sense for them.
But man, long term, the Eastern Division is loaded in football, and has much more fertile recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
@cliff
That alignment would really suck for Illinois. Losing annual games with the Indiana schools and the Illibuck.
Of course I doubt these divisions last more than 3 years anyways, so I can’t be to upset. Plus any alignment that forces them to change the division names can’t be total failure.
LikeLike
Cliff,
Thanks for finding that tweet.
“Teddy Greenstein later tweeted:
@scottkier Yeah, you break up IU/Purdue. Life goes on. W: Wis, Iowa, Neb, Minny, Ill, NU, IU. E: Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, Rut, Md, Purdue.”
Those divisions suck all around, too.
Other than him being a Chicago guy, how is that really better than sending NW to the east?
LikeLike
frug,
How does any new alignment force Delany to change the divisions names?
LikeLike
Longterm, I really doubt the B10 stays at 14.
LikeLike
@Brian
I guess nothing would force them to change the names, but it is really hard to imagine them keeping the current names if they go to an East/Wast alignment.
LikeLike
frug,
“I guess nothing would force them to change the names, but it is really hard to imagine them keeping the current names if they go to an East/Wast alignment.”
If NW is going east, how is this an E/W split? That was their argument against geographic names last time (WI out of place).
LikeLike
I was talking about the Greenstein tweet.
LikeLike
frug:
No alignment gives Illinois everything it wants. Go East, and Illinois loses Iowa & Wisconsin.
There’s no realistic division alignment scenario that gives Illinois all of OSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, & the IN schools.
LikeLike
@Richard
Iowa isn’t really loss. Yeah, they are border states, but neither side really cares. In fact when the conference was coming up with the schedules after the division split they realized one (and only one) inter-divisional matchup would have to wait four years to be played and they picked Iowa-Illinois because they felt nobody would miss it (they were right).
Wisconsin would be missed, but it ranks well below Northwestern, Ohio St. and Purdue on the list of games I (and I think most Illini) care about most.
LikeLike
frug:
Tell Frank that the Iowa game doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, just that there wouldn’t be too many tears shed if it was gone. Illinois ranks (at best) a distant fourth on the games that Iowa fans really care about behind Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska, and I seriously doubt that most Illinois fans would place Iowa too much higher on their list of favorite opponents (I know I don’t).
LikeLike
Also, and this is not meant as an insult, but I find it amazing that the football program that everyone is fighting over in divisional realignment is Northwestern.
LikeLike
OK, but if you’re going to split the MI schools, why split the IN and IL schools as well? For TV purposes? The East would already get the East Coast all to itself. Giving the west only half of IL seems like even more of a disadvantage.
If this happens, I would want to expand to 18 sooner rather than later.
Even if you split MI, IL. And IN, why can’t Illinois move east? They have the Illibuck and like to play Michigan, after all.
LikeLike
Also, MSU wants to visit Chicagoland.
LikeLike
Yeah, Michigan State and Northwestern seem like they’ll be in the same division.
LikeLike
It sounds like the divisions they’re thinking of are something like the following:
East: Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, UM, OSU, Indiana, Northwestern
West: Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb, MichSt, Purdue, Illinois
Swap Indiana and Purdue, and that might work, although MSU is going be ticked off it’s lost its annual game with the Wildcats.
LikeLike
Well, that’s it in a nutshell: there is no alignment that gives every school the annual games they want. Even with 12 teams, divisional alignment was an over-constrained problem, and they wound up with a solution that many people are unhappy with. With 14 teams it only gets harder.
LikeLike
(I don’t like either) BUT prefer the one with Purdue in the East and Indiana in the West.
LikeLike
MSU would take the East over the West in these scenarios in a heartbeat. The NU talk is a bit overblown. Also, they better not do 8 games with a cross-division lock. That is unacceptable for everyone, I would think.
LikeLike
Unless we’re going to 16/18 after 2 years of this anyway. Then it doesn’t really matter.
LikeLike
I really don’t get it either. If east-west is how they are going then there aren’t a lot of scenarios that make sense to have Northwestern in the east. I don’t think they’d put the Illinois schools in the east and Indiana schools in the west (puts an already population disparity problem and makes it bigger), so my only guess (in an east-west framework) would be Marc Shepherd’s suggestion. I don’t really get the appeal in that over putting the Indiana schools in the east (at least then one big population state is entire in the west).
LikeLike
Eric:
I think moving Northwestern to the east makes perfect sense if you assume Penn State is not going to be able to be highly competitive due to the recruiting sanctions it received from the NCAA and this divisional alignment is going to be in place for a handful of years.
A straight East-West split that has been outlined before has Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State together with Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana and Purdue. Those last four programs are very mixed with RU perhaps being the best of a rather meh bunch right now. If PSU can’t compete at a high level, then this division might be wholly dominated by UM and OSU in the time period.
So what do you do? Swap out one of the Indiana schools and put them in the west (which geographically speaking is Purdue) and replace that team with a better one, i.e. Northwestern. It’s a compromise between the primary drivers (geography/demographics) with getting a better competitive balance between the two divisions.
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue
East – Northwestern, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
There may be other reasons why Northwestern goes to the east that we’ve touched on before, ie. alumni distribution, getting the BTN on basic cable in NY/NJ/DC/Balt, etc. But I think another consideration behind this is what the conference thinks will happen to Penn State in the short term. On a side note, Maryland and Rutgers fans would probably enjoy that road trip to the Chicago area somewhat more than West Lafayette, IN. 🙂
If the conference goes to 16 or more members with the additional teams coming from the mid-Atlantic region, then Northwestern likely head back west or is put in a pod with Illinois. If that’s the case, then the NW fans may see their Wildcats in the east for only a short time period.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I think moving Northwestern to the east makes perfect sense if you assume Penn State is not going to be able to be highly competitive due to the recruiting sanctions it received from the NCAA and this divisional alignment is going to be in place for a handful of years.”
Those are two huge assumptions, and I’ve seen no evidence the B10 is making those assumptions. PSU fans expect to keep having winning seasons the whole time. Only bad leaders would assume expansion that hasn’t happened yet. It takes two to tango for any business deal, and expansion is more emotional than a typical M&A scenario. None of the most talked about candidates are automatic yeses like RU was.
“A straight East-West split that has been outlined before has Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State together with Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana and Purdue.”
That’s not a straight E/W split. The pure split would be RU, MD, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU and IN vs PU, NW, IL, WI, MN, IA. and NE.
“There may be other reasons why Northwestern goes to the east that we’ve touched on before, ie. alumni distribution, getting the BTN on basic cable in NY/NJ/DC/Balt, etc.”
How would putting NW in the east help get the BTN on basic cable in the east? NW has a small alumni base that already wants the BTN. It’s not like NW games draw a huge national audience.
“But I think another consideration behind this is what the conference thinks will happen to Penn State in the short term.”
Based on what? PSU won 26 games from 2000-2004 without sanctions and still were treated as a king. Are you saying they can’t average 5 wins per year?
LikeLike
I’m as big a Northwestern fan as there is, but I don’t think Northwestern really changes competitive balance by being shifted.
I mean we just won our 3rd ever 10 win season (and 2nd ever bowl game). Obviously that doesn’t mean that Northwestern’s next 20 years won’t be a lot more like the last 5 than historically, but I don’t think Northwestern should be moved from the West as a competitive balance kind of move.
LikeLike
Determining divisions currently is probably a fruitless exercise, as I’d expect #15 & #16 to be joining relatively shortly.
LikeLike
Shortly, perhaps, but probably not by 2014, which is the date Maryland and Rutgers are expected to join.
LikeLike
Changes to the NCAA transfer rules may be on the horizon.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/01/03/new-transfer-model-would-reduce-eligibility-consequences.htm
“In summary, the principles establish a model where:
■Athletes would still need to get permission to contact another school before transferring. But permission would be tied to practice and competition, not athletics aid. So even if permission was denied, the student-athlete would still be able to receive a scholarship.
■Athletes who qualify for the transfer exemption in the APR would be permitted to play immediately at the new school. That would make a 2.600 GPA the magic number to play immediately.
■Athletes who do not qualify to play immediately at the next school would still receive an extension of their five-year clock so they can use all their eligibility.
■Tampering with an athlete by another school would be considered a severe breach of conduct, a Level I violation, the highest in the NCAA’s new enforcement structure.”
LikeLike
Let the age of college free agency begin! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s already begun in college basketball.
LikeLike
The Cotton Bowl has basically become the Big 12’s version of the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl.
Bob Stoops has to thank his lucky stars for that match up with UConn a few years ago in the Fiesta Bowl.
Without that, all I’d recall of him the past decade is a lot of big game losses…
LikeLike
Yep. The B12 is 1-9 in the last 10. Big Game Bob has certainly lost his luster in big games.
Stoops in BCS bowls: 2 Ws, then 5 Ls, then 1 W (also 1-0 in the Cotton before tonight)
The oddity is that OU never caught the same amount of flak as OSU for big game losses.
LikeLike
True. Anti-Big10 bias?
Tressel & Stoops actually had very similar BCS championship trajectories: one title win early in the career, then 2 losses in a row later. OSU did come in ranked 1st in both their title losses, however.
LikeLike
I actually think it’s because OU had UT winning some big games to prop the B12 up while nobody else in the B10 was winning big games either. Since OSU beat MI in the 1/2 game, big game wins have been few and far between for the B10. OSU beat OR in the Rose and AR in the Sugar. MI beat VT in the Sugar. Big game losses have been plentiful, though (regular season and bowls).
LikeLike
Yes, Texas competing at a high level (winning that NC and then going up against Alabama) along with winning other games sort of balanced off OU’s losses in the public mindset.
OSU was pretty much alone trying to win in the biggest games as far as the Big Ten was concerned between Michigan’s last loss in the Rose Bowl and their win in the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
I think the major difference is that OU was the underdog in its 3 NCG losses, while OSU was ranked #1 in both of its losses.
Also, Stoops catches a lot of flak for coming up short in bowl games (at least in Big XII country).
LikeLike
Frug:
OU was actually ranked #1 in 2 of it’s 3 national title game losses.
LikeLike
They were number 1 in the BCS in 2003 and 2008 but number 2 in the AP in both years, and Florida was 5.5 point favorites in 2008.
LikeLike
Now that I think about though, I do think OU was favored against LSU in 2003, so they would have been underdogs in 2 of their 3 losses.
LikeLike
OU catches a lot of flak for losing in big (non-Red River) games. They don’t sarcastically call Stoops Big Game Bob for nothing.
LikeLike
It didn’t start off as sarcastic.
LikeLike
To be fair, Big Game Bob was originally sincere based on his early success.
Now though…
LikeLike
BTW, I still thinks Stoops has done a good job at OU. By all right, they should be as successful as Michigan (king program bordering a state with rich football talent but still has to beat out the king in the neighboring state and/or other kings elsewhere a fair amount in recruiting in order to contend for a national title) while Texas should be as successful as OSU (king program in a state with a ton of talent that should be able to contend for a national title solely, in the case of Texas, or almost solely, in the case of OSU, by corraling the best in-state talent, where they should have a sizable edge).
OU has appeared in 8 BCS bowls & 4 national title games, going 3-5 & 1-3, respectively.
Michigan has appeared in 5 BCS bowls (going 2-3) with no title game appearances.
I think 5 BCS bowl appearances & 1 title game appearance should be expected from programs in the situation Michigan and OU are in.
OSU has appeared in 9 BCS bowls & 3 national title games, going 6-3 & 1-2, respectively.
Texas has appeared in 4 BCs bowls & 2 national title games, going 3-1 & 1-1, respectively.
I think 7-8 BCS bowl appearances & 2 title game appearances should be expected from programs in the situation OSU & Texas are in.
OU has overachieved while Texas has underachieved.
Michigan & OSU are close to par (Michigan a little under and OSU a little over).
LikeLike
FWIW, there is way more talent in Texas than Ohio, so it is easier for Texas to support two elite programs at the same time.
LikeLike
Also, since Texas is so much larger geographically, it can make it harder for UT to assert home field advantage. The Cotton Bowl is located almost exactly halfway between Norman and Austin to the mile, so Oklahoma can still compete on even footing for kids in DFW who want their parents to be able to attend their games, and of course anything North of Dallas is actually closer to Norman.
LikeLike
There is so much talent in Texas that UT did not offer a scholarship to the last two Heisman winners despite being the first choice out of HS for these players. UT talent evaluation not the best at QB.
LikeLike
Frug,
The argument that Norman is closer to some parts of TX than Austin can’t really be used as an excuse as talent-rich NE Ohio is almost as close to Ann Arbor as it is to Columbus. TX should still have a home-state advantage over OU.
I’ll grant that TX does have a lot more talent than OH (though MI also has more talent than OK).but if anything, it reinforces the case that OU has overachieved while Texas has underachieved.
LikeLike
I’ll give you that Michigan has probably underachieved, but I have a tough time buying that Oklahoma has really overachieved since their performance in the BCS era is right in line with the rest of their post WWII performance. Oklahoma (at least since WWII) has always treated north Texas as “in state” for recruiting purposes and the amount of talent in north Texas + Oklahoma is still larger than Michigan + NE Ohio (especially since UM has to share Michigan with MSU and ND).
LikeLike
Actually, I think Texas (with more inherent advantages) has underachieved more than Michigan.
OU has to share northern TX with OKSt., A&M, TTech, and a bunch of other TX schools as well.
The point remains that Texas, which should have an edge on OU in recruiting in most of TX, is also a king, and has a vast financial advantage over OU, should be doing better than OU, not worse.
LikeLike
Given their king status, money, and in-state recruiting grounds, I’d hold UF, UGa, ‘Bama, and LSU to the same standards as OSU & Texas.
I’d hold PSU, ND, Tennessee, USC, and FSU to the same standards as Michigan & OU. PSU, ND, & Tennessee because they’re like Michigan & OU, being kings with money who are close to rich recruiting grounds but still have to get plenty of out-of-state talent. USC and FSU because they have the recruiting grounds and brand but not as much money.
So how have they done?
Superkings:
UF in 7 BCS (5-2) & 2 title games (2-0)
UGa in 3 BCS (2-1) & no title games
‘Bama in 5 BCS (2-2 so far) & 2 title games (2-0)
LSU in 5 BCS (4-1) & 2 title games (1-1)
Maybe I should just count the number of wins, in which case the superkings would be expected to have 4 BCS wins and 1 national title in the BCS era. By that metric, Texas, LSU, & ‘Bama currently are about par (though another national title by ‘Bama would raise them above par). UF and OSU are above par. UGa is below par.
Regular kings:
PSU in 2 BCS games (1-1) & no title games
ND in 4 BCS games (0-3 so far) and 1 title game
Tennessee in 2 BCS games (1-1) & 1 title game (1-0)
USC in 7 BCS games (6-1) and 2 title games (1-1)
FSU in 7 BCS games (2-5) and 3 title games (1-2)
I expect these teams to have 5 BCS bowls, win 2-3 BCS bowls, make 1 title game and win 0-1 title games.
Counting only wins, FSU and Tennessee (thanks solely to their championship) are par. PSU is below par. Michigan is a little below par. ND is well below par right now but jump to par if they win a national title (I’m weighing national titles as 3 times more valuable than a regular BCS win). USC is well above par.
If you count appearances, USC & FSU are above par, Michigan is about par, and PSU, ND, and Tennessee are all below.
LikeLike
Oh, and OU has been above par as well.
LikeLike
I’ll step in for Alan here. LSU has actually been in 3 title games going 2-1. They beat OU in 2004 & OSU in 2008, and lost last year to Bama.
LikeLike
While Georgia does has money and in state talent they lack the same level of prestige as the other schools on you list (except for Tennessee). The expectations at Georgia are still lower than than those at other superpowers.
Also, I would bump USC up to the top tier. While they don’t have as much money as Texas, Florida, LSU and ‘Bama, the competition for recruits in Southern California isn’t as fierce as it is in Texas and the Southeast, and unlike the Big XII and SEC the PAC doesn’t have any other superpowers so the Trojans don’t need as much money to dominate.
LikeLike
Bama:
Noted, thanks.
Frug:
Good point about USC. SoCal doesn’t have the per capita talent of the southeast, but there are so many people there and so little competition (plus LA is an attractive location to 18 year-olds from anywhere), USC does always seem to easily get a ton of talent, so I’ll bump them up.
On UGa, I disagree. I think they have underacheived. Yes, they are not a traditional king like ‘Bama & their state isn’t as big as UF’s, but there’s no reason why LSU should have done better than them (well, besides oversigning). Still, tOSU doesn’t oversign either, and GA produces as much talent as OH (& and UGa should be able to get as many of the top GA recruits as OSU does the top OH recruits), so there’s no excuse for UGa to have done considerably worse than tOSU has.
LikeLike
KSU’s upset of OU knocked Texas out of one BCS game. Seems like there was another year someone got upset and Texas got knocked out. Mainly its just that OU & Texas were so good at the same time in the BCS era. Otherwise, both would have been in more BCS games. Texas was 2nd in win % in the 2000s behind Boise. OU was 3rd. Ohio St. 4th. Texas Tech was 3rd in Big 12 at 19th. Nebraska was 4th in Big 12 at 20th. OSU’s next competition was Wisconsin, 2nd in Big 10 at 18th. Michigan was 3rd in Big 10 at 22nd. SEC had Florida, Georgia and LSU in top 10 with Auburn at 14, so their appearances were thinner than they would have been without the competition.
Big Game Bob gets his teams in the big games and stops. Mack’s done pretty good in bowls. He’s 10-4 and has won 9 of the last 11, 6 by a TD or less with late rallies.
LikeLike
Beating up patsies more than other schools just isn’t that impressive when you have the money, brand, and in-state recruiting of Texas; you’re expected to be top 3 in winning percentage, as you have more money than anyone else, as much in-state talent as anyone, and you’re a king. Being top 3 by BCS metrics should be expected as well, however.
LikeLike
Yes, I guess Mack has been beating up on patsies in bowl games.
Oregon St., Cal, Ohio St., Arizona St., Iowa, USC, Michigan, LSU, Washington and MS St. Noone of any note.
LikeLike
Just not enough BCS appearances (due in large part to not enough RRR wins).
With the vast financial advantage Texas has over OU & home-state recruiting edge in TX, Mack should be beating OU 2/3rds of the time, not losing the majority of RRR games to Stoops.
LikeLike
How many kings lose 2/3 of their games in a regular series? That’s ridiculous.
Texas/OU has been a streaky series with each side having periods of domination. Mack won his 1st 2. Lost 5 straight. Won 4 out of 5 and now has lost 3 straight. Longhorn fan’s complaints are that 4 of his losses were routs and 2 others were really ugly.
LikeLike
Bullet;
Have you seen the record for the OSU-Michigan series or the USC-ND series or the OSU-PSU series during the BCS era? I don’t think you’d find anyone who would say that Michigan, ND, and PSU are not kings, yet they each have lost about 2/3rds of the games in their biggest rivalry series to their rival with better in-state recruiting grounds.
Texas is the only king in a regular king-king rivalry series with the in-state recruiting advantage who is not only not beating their biggest rival 2/3rds of the time, but is actually losing to their rival with worse in-state recruiting grounds almost 2/3rds of the time during the BCS era.
LikeLike
Hmm, you’re right. 1 win by the B12 in the last 10 SEC-B12 Cotton Bowl matchups. The only 3 times the B12 has beaten the SEC in the last 13 Cotton Bowl meetings, the B12 team was ranked far higher (at least 10 spots better). 2 other times, the B12 team was that much more highly ranked than the SEC team and still lost.
Also right about the Rose; B10 is 1-9 in their last 10 appearances (all but 2 losses to the Pac, though this was during USC’s awesome run. B10 was 7-1 before that (all vs. the Pac).
Looking back, there had been some really long runs of dominance by one conference or the other in Rose Bowl history. Pac was 16-2 from 1970-1987 (mostly beating up on OSU & Michigan, who were 2-12, with USC (7-1) and UCLA (4-0) doing most of the damage. Of course, they were essentially playing a home game. Before that, the B10 was 12-1 vs. the PCC from 1947-1959, with over half the conference (6 different schools) getting in on the fun.
Over the 52 year Big9/10-PCC/Pac exclusive period, the 2 conferences were 26-26. Pac is 7-3 in Pac-B10 matchups since then.
LikeLike
If you keep harping on this Andy will be in here telling us how great Missouri is since they won that 1 of 10. Before that the Big 12 won 4 out of 5.
LikeLike
Hah.
As it is, it just seems as if the Big 12’s #2/3 teams that get slotted there just don’t seem to win it. Their #1 teams have done fine.
LikeLike
This Longhorn says congrats to aTm. If college football wasn’t so ridiculously screwed up, the Ags might be the favorite to win an actual national title. Seems clear that by the end of the season they had improved and become the best team in the SEC (sorry Bama, you shouldn’t get mulligans every year, try winning on your own field.) If I had to rank teams right now, it would be 1-aTm, 2-Stanford, 3-ND, 4-Oregon, 5-Bama, 6-UGA, 7+ who cares.
But this seasons and the bowls illustrate how neither a 4-team nor even an 8-team playoff is enough to assure college football’s best team is declared the national champion. You see aTm doesn’t make it in an 8-team system, and pollsters have once again proven they don’t know shit. I’m starting to rethink my belief that 8 is enough. Maybe 12 with 1st round byes for the top 4 conference champs plus 8 wildcards.
LikeLike
So Alabama doesn’t deserve a “mulligan” because they lost at home, yet aTm deserves 2 “mulligans” even though they lost 2 games and both of those games at home?
Regardless, Bama is playing in it and going to 3 national championships in 4 years! Here’s to the possible Bama dynasty & RTR!!!
LikeLike
Bama is the best team in the SEC and was completely deserving.
LikeLike
That SI simulation put A&M in the top 8. In trying to get to 4, they picked the top 2 and then figured out the top 8. It was Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, Stanford, Georgia, A&M, LSU. It was KSU that got left out.
LikeLike
http://www.eersauthority.com/new-years-expansion-update/
More realignment news from The Dude. What is most noteworthy to me is the change in his tone; he is making far fewer actual predictions and instead making it clear he is simply passing on information from sources (including stuff he doesn’t agree with).
As for his actual points, he says his sources are telling him G-Tech and UVA are heading to the Big 10 if UVA’s president can get enough support from the Board, that FSU has agreements with both the Big XII and Big 10, that K-State and ISU were spooked by the FSU to Big XII rumors and now back expanding the conference, that the Big XII now favors Miami to Clemson, and (my favorite part) that ESPN is pleading with the Big XII to take UConn.
He does close with this nugget;
The only thing I’m 100% confident about is the ACC’s days are numbered and only Jim Delany knows when their clock strikes midnight.
LikeLike
If FSU had offers from both the B10 and B12, it’s easy to predict what their choice would be. I doubt they have a B10 offer, though.
LikeLike
My Brian-like take on some of the Dude’s comments:
My understanding, from talking to several people around the SEC and ACC, is that UVA is #16. I’ve had my doubts as sources can be wrong. Dr. [Teresa] Sullivan was basically fired by UVA’s board this past summer and then brought back.
Dr. Sullivan’s problems with the board seemed to originate from her intentions to buck tradition at UVA and modernize the university in terms of employment and tenure. So her willingness to cast aside tradition for the sake of economics certainly fits the profile of someone who would be willing to move her school from the ACC to the Big 10.
I live in Charlottesville (was transferred there this fall), and while he’s generally accurate on the problems Sullivan had with the Board of Visitors (her prime antagonist, Helen Dragas, is now up for renewal by the General Assembly), if athletics had anything to do with the flareup, it certainly wasn’t made public. Not that he was saying it did.
I will add this, however: UVa may not be able to go to the Big Ten unless there are assurances that Virginia Tech will be taken into the SEC. And while Slive might like to add the Gobblers, how would that affect his chances of landing UNC? Would SEC officials go beyond 16 members if Chapel Hill required NCSU and/or Duke to join as well?
Here’s where the mystery comes in… recently Dennis Dodd of CBS sports wrote a story that claimed the Big 12 would feature an annual payout of $31 million per team beginning in 2014 and if we take what we know we are two million short at our arrived at $29 million.
The difference could be a Big 12 championship game. The public estimates of seen have a Big 12 championship game at $1.5 to $2 million per school. Add the $2 million and the Big 12 is at $31 million per annum.
(By the way my source at WVU tells me the Big 12 must have a championship game by 2014 if no other reason than the formula for selecting playoff teams will severely hurt the Big 12 without one.)…
My friend at WVU continues to say that the Big 12 has an agreement in place with FSU to be the Big 12′s 11th member with Miami or Clemson as #12. …
I realize that some of this sounds contradicting and confusing. It’s not clear if the Big 12 has invited FSU or Clemson or FSU and Miami. It’s possible the Big 12 will skip 12 and hit 14 and has already invited FSU, Miami, Clemson and one other.
Perhaps ESPN is pressing the Big 12 to make #14 Connecticut, although some in the conference would prefer Cincinnati or even the Mormon Moby Dick of Brigham Young.
LikeLike
We’re definitely in the “throw crap at the wall” phase of college expansion.
LikeLike
This is going to be an ongoing crap fest until the last two teams are announced. I think wih all the smoke coming out the actual B1G about further expanding, “insiders” are going to throwing out new stuff just for the hits and attention. Hopefully this all stops once everyone hits 16…….at least for a few years.
LikeLike
He made a comment recently that he realized some of his contacts had agendas and they told him stuff with those agendas in mind or left out things with those in mind. He’s definitely come up with stuff that made no sense whatsoever.
LikeLike
The ACC’s days aren’t numbered. Their current and admitted members now stand at 15. Let’s assume the worst realistically imaginable case: they lose 4 schools to the Big XII, 2 to the SEC, and 2 to the Big Ten. They would replenish with UConn and Cincinnati, and would be at 9 teams, with 8 full-time football members.
The remaining core would still be better than the Big East circa 2006, and they could easily get back to 12 schools in football by adding just about any combination of remaining Big East schools they wanted (e.g., Navy, Temple, UMass, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, etc.).
This combination clearly wouldn’t be as good as the ACC of yore, but it would be stable, simply because they’d have nothing left that the conferences higher in the food chain would want to poach. And mind you, this is the worst case: rumored expansion is usually far more dramatic than the reality.
LikeLike
???
Worst possible case is that the B10 takes 4, SEC takes 2, B12 takes 6, leaving BC and Wake to invite UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, maybe Memphis, maybe ECU, and whoever else to form a new CUSA. You’re right, though. The ACC’s days may not be numbered; the BE’s could be.
LikeLike
Actually the worst case is they lose 10 and are left with Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse and BC, 4 private schools. Not telling what would happen then. Duke, Wake and SU might even drop to FCS and join the Catholic 7. ACC would disappear in that case.
LikeLike
For the ACC to go away, almost all the schools will need to leave in the same year. Otherwise, it higher payout will allow it to restock from the BE. If everyone wants to leave at once a vote to dissolve the conference gets rid of exit penalties.
LikeLike
I agree with Mack. For the ACC to dissolve, everyone will have to get offers and leave almost instantaneously. I don’t think that happens. So the ACC will add UConn&Cincy (and maybe Memphis & ECU) if/when the NC&VA schools go, will add UCF&USF if/when FSU&Miami go. May add Navy and/or Tulane at some point as well.
LikeLike
Worst case for the ACC is it gets demoted in a few years to the “best of the rest” conference like what is happening now to the BE (if it maintains that status against MWC). If that occurs it will be a bad outcome for Wake Forest and others left behind in the “BE2”.
LikeLike
1. The scenario you describe is no where near the worst case scenario for the ACC. It’s conceivable everyone but Wake could end up elsewhere.
2. Even if the ACC were to survive, it could be regulated to second tier status, meaning its days as a power conference are numbered.
LikeLike
Much of the ACC’s fate depends upon whom it loses. I can’t imagine UNC wanting to stay aboard a sinking ship, but its decision where to land — Big Ten or SEC — will set all the other wheels in motion. An SEC UNC would be far more of a wild-card in all this, especially were it to demand conference exclusivity in the state. In that scenario, NCSU has to wind up in the Big 12 (assuming the Big 12 even wants the Wolfpack), and longtime Tar Heel rival UVa has to determine whether it wants to tag along with Chapel Hill (thus probably forcing Virginia Tech to the Big 12, too), or go on its own to the Big Ten. And if all that came into play, Duke has to hope Delany would take it as a fallback option with either UVa or Georgia Tech.
All of the above assumes that the Big Ten, SEC or Big 12 would refuse to expand beyond 16 members. (Would the Big 12 leap from 10 to 16? Not likely, but if Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State were available for growth to 14, there’s no reason why the Big 12 wouldn’t follow its two rival conferences in expanding to 16 — Pittsburgh and Syracuse, perhaps?)
But while Delany, Slive and Bowlsby may initially argue over which cuts of the ACC carcass to claim, in the end it probably will go like this:
To Big Ten: Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia. (At the end, a win for the administrators over the T-shirt fans. The Big Ten is probably the only conference of the three that can realistically expand beyond 16, and there certainly is synergy among three of the ACC “old guard” and Georgia Tech, which likes to think of itself that way. Note all four have been part of the Coastal Division since the ACC divided for football.)
To SEC: North Carolina State, Virginia Tech. (NCSU isn’t as bad a “consolation prize” as some may think; it has more of an SEC-like fan base than UNC does. And Tech has the football-oriented mentality to fit in with the SEC from day one.)
To Big 12: Clemson, Florida State. (The burnt orange honchos will reluctantly give in and return to a CCG. If it works, the conference could expand to 14 — Pitt and SU would provide the league some exposure in the Northeast, and complement West Virginia in the same way Maryland and Rutgers will complement Penn State in the Big Ten.)
If the Big 12 only expands by two, the ACC is then left with Boston College, Louisville, Wake Forest, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame (non-football). Add Cincinnati and Connecticut, and you have eight football members, nine overall. Not a top-tier football conference, but a reasonably competitive one that’s probably within the means of its members.
And I fully expect when the time comes, the ACC will fall on its sword so that all of this can be resolved rapidly and the survivors can get on with their new lives. The Big East’s Camille-like expiration has shown the perils of uncertainty.
LikeLike
The B12 is more likely to go to 14 if the B1G stops at 16 since that provides the B12 a southeast block of 5 schools (w/WVU) by taking the two that do not get a B1G or SEC invite. Any two (or none) of Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse could get a B12 invite.
LikeLike
14 is a really bad number for the Big XII since it forces the conference is split the Kansas schools.
To be honest, everyone in the Big XII besides ISU would probably favor going to 16 than they would 12 or 14.
LikeLike
I think TX and OK want to make sure that expansion does not decrease their take. That is a tall order after adding 2 to get a CCG. The B12 will only get what the B1G and SEC do not want from the ACC. That is probably FSU and Clemson, but could include VT and NCSU if the SEC gets NC. Will the B12 pass on any of these 4? Making a case for any of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, and Louisville is harder.
There are other B12 division options besides splitting the KS schools. Might ship one of the TX privates (TCU/Baylor) to the east. Not likely these schools will quit the B12 even if they are unhappy with the division split. Some schools (but not OSU or MI) will be unhappy with the new B1G split. If NW gets put in the B1G east they may not like it, but will not quit the conference.
LikeLike
@Mack
They don’t have to leave if they don’t like the division; they could just vote against expansion. Texas has already made it clear they are against any expansion, so it would only take 2 more schools to shut the process down.
LikeLike
The weak members of the B12 will not want to leave quality football schools (FSU, Clemson, VT, NCSU) from the ACC free-floating where they may be willing to make MWC BSU like offers to attract TX and OK, who will drag along TT, OkSt, and WVU (TCU experienced this in the SWC). Like the PAC, ACC, B1G, and SEC if the B12 expands to 12 or more schools, the division alignment will be settled after expansion.
LikeLike
Mack,
“Some schools (but not OSU or MI) will be unhappy with the new B1G split. If NW gets put in the B1G east they may not like it, but will not quit the conference.”
What makes you think OSU and MI automatically won’t be unhappy? OSU doesn’t want to be in a harder division and have to play 2+ kings annually and have to play both newbies annually. MI would share some of those concerns if not all of them.
LikeLike
It may not be perfect, but OSU will still play Michigan every year.
LikeLike
Mack,
That doesn’t mean OSU will be happy with the outcome.
LikeLike
@Mack
They may well be perfectly willing to leave good ACC schools floating around if they don’t like the impact on the divisions. Colorado, Utah, and the AZ and No. Cal schools killed the addition of the Oklahoma schools to the PAC because they weren’t willing to give up annual games in LA.
Right now KU, KSU and ISU all get two games annually in Texas and the last thing they want is a return to the Big XII North and South Divisions.
Also, they have no reason to fear Texas jumping ship since Texas is the school happiest with the current alignment. That and the GOR.
LikeLike
Right now KU, KSU and ISU all get two games annually in Texas and the last thing they want is a return to the Big XII North and South divisions.
Have to disagree. All three fielded competitive teams during the divisional format — heck, ISU came close to winning the North a few times — and I don’t think they’d be averse to going back to divisions. However, a lot would depend upon whom they’d partner with. Would a WVU/Clemson/FSU combo satisfy them? Maybe, maybe not.
LikeLike
All three fielded competitive teams during the divisional format
They were so competitive they won a combined 1 Big XII championship.
I don’t think they have a problem going to divisions… I think they have a problem going to divisions that is Texoma and Other.
Right now KU, KSU and ISU all get two games in Texas and a home game against either Oklahoma or Texas every year, if they are put into a Northern/Eastern division those both go away. That is why I think it would probably be easier to get support for a 16 team conference since it would mean KU and KSU could stay in a division with the Texas and Oklahoma schools. Then they could either buy off ISU with the promise of a couple extra million dollars in conference distributions (they could say it was to cover the extra travel expenses they incur by being placed in an Eastern division) or just tell the Cyclones they should just consider themselves lucky in be in any Big XII division.
LikeLike
TX and OK are not going to be held hostage by KS, KSU, ISU, TCU, or Baylor. Texas will do what it takes to keep its conference better or equal to the P12. That may involve limited expansion if the B1G and SEC raid the ACC. If these schools do not go along, the B12 will get dissolved (solves the GOR and NCAA credits issues). TX/OK/TxT/osu are already tightly linked. Add WVU and one or two of the 5 above and the conference is no more.
If the B1G and SEC only split NC/Duke/VA/GaT then Texas can create a new conference with:
East: WVU, FSU, Clemson, VaT, NCSU, one of (Pittsburgh, Louisville, Miami)
West: TX, OK, TxT, osu, two of (TCU, KS, KSU, ISU, Baylor)
The B12 now provides equal shares of tier 1/2 TV money. KS was #1 in tier 3 money but is now #2 behind the TX LHN money.
LikeLike
I’ll clarify that I’m not saying the Big XII wouldn’t expand by just two teams (especially if they were willing to adopt some sort of modified zipper instead of purely geographic divisions) but I think everyone aside from ISU and maybe Texas would prefer 16 to 12 (or 14 for that matter).
LikeLike
@frug
I hear a lot of that talk, but it really doesn’t make a lot of sense when you look at what a schedule would actually entail.
If they keep the 9 game schedule in a 12 team conference, divisions are pretty minor. You play all but 2 teams a year. If you assume Miami and FSU get added and 8 games with Texoma/other divsion split, ISU/KU/KSU get a game in Florida every year AND a game in Texas every year with a Florida & Texas team at home every year as well.
LikeLike
@bullet
What makes you think they would stick at a 9 game schedule if they expanded? With 12 teams they could still meet their inventory requirements with an 8 game schedule and Texas biggest objection to returning is that a CCG makes it harder to reach the NCG so they might insist that the conference drop back to 8 games so they could schedule another creampuff.
Plus, FSU made clear they weren’t happy at all when the ACC decided to expand to a 9 game schedule, and later forced the conference to scrap the plan all together.
LikeLike
@frug,
FSU and others who play annual SEC rivals only were able to convince the ACC to go back to an 8-game conference schedule when Notre Dame joined. ND will count as a non-conference game for football. During the years in which ND is on the schedule for FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, they’d have had 11 games pre-determined: 9 ACC games, their in-state rival, and Notre Dame. Inevitably, those three would have had six home games, when their budgets require at least seven.
I think if FSU was in the Big 12, playing 9 conference games plus Florida, that might be more acceptable.
LikeLike
Mike:
Unless ND gets the same deal from the B12.
All:
I’m mystified why everyone puts Louisville so low on the pecking order.
Personally, I think that if the B12 expands by 2, it will be FSU+Miami (Everyone in their division gets to visit FL once a year & everyone gets to visit FL pretty often).
Then Clemson+Louisville
Then it becomes harder to justify expansion, but 2 divisions of 8 _is_ easier to split than 2 divisions of 7, so they could had Pitt+Syracuse (B12 bball definitely would be improved)
LikeLike
@Mack
the B12 will get dissolved (solves the GOR and NCAA credits issues). TX/OK/TxT/osu are already tightly linked. Add WVU and one or two of the 5 above and the conference is no more.
Why would WVU agree to that? They already applied to the SEC (and ACC) and were turned down. Why would any the other 5 agree to that? Who would give them a better deal than they have now? And what makes you think they could dissolve the conference with a simple majority vote? Major conference decisions require 7 or 8 votes.
Plus, UT’s BOTs made it clear that they will not sign off on any deal that doesn’t guarantee the survival of the LHN (that’s why the UT BOT declined Bill Powers request for the same unilateral authority to pursue realignment that the presidents at A&M, Mizzou, WVU, Oklahoma and Okie St. were granted) and no other major conference is willing to take it on (Texas checked).
The fact is, with equal revenue sharing, a GOR and a need for a home for the LHN has left Texas without the same ability to bully around the other members.
LikeLike
This is not TX joining another conference, but creating a new conference like the PAC8 was created out of dissolving the PCC (less 2 members). It will only occur if the B1G/SEC take at least 4-6 from the ACC and destabilize it. The little 5 will not be cohesive. They know that even if they are, the GOR will still expire and for their stand, most will get relegated. This is just a possibility. I think the reality is that some of the little 5 will “volunteer” to join the east division to keep this from happening if the B12 goes back to 12 or more.
If you are WVU would you rather hang with TX, TxT, OK, osu, FSU, Clemson or KSU, KU, ISU, Baylor, and TCU? And if you pick the first group you probably get another east team such as Pittsburgh or Louisville if the B12 is dissolved.
Do not know if this was changed, but when the P16 was proposed it was reported that a simple majority was required to dissolve the B12 conference. Even if it is 2/3’s 7 members will provide that.
Any new conference will have the same TV deals as currently in the B12, equal for tier 1/2, schools have control of tier 3, so no LHN issue.
LikeLike
AAWU was the 5 team offspring of PCC formed in ’59. A year later WSU rejoined and a couple years after OR and OrST becoming the PAC 8 officially a few years later. Not exactly analogous the proposed situation.
LikeLike
If the B12 goes to 16, I think the best option is to put TCU in the East with WVU and make Baylor/TCU the only fixed rivalry.
Yes, they won’t be happy with that but they were the last in and were going to join the Big East until the Big 12 opportunity arrived.
LikeLike
If the ACC anchors choose to ride it out the ACC will remain in the conference power structure. While they may currently look to be withering they are no where near the B12’s situation a short time ago. They haven’t lost 4 powers, 3 that have won a NC. They haven’t lost a king and 3 princes (granted, CU as a bit off right now). If the ACC anchors feel that the combined weight of the mid Atlantic is greater than that of Texas, the ACC survives.
LikeLike
If the ACC anchors choose to ride it out the ACC will remain in the conference power structure.
Well that’s true of every conference. As long as the top teams stick around they don’t lose ground.
LikeLike
cc, a lot will depend on how big the revenue gap grows between the ACC and other conferences — and that will almost unilaterally ride on football. Eventually, UNC and the other ACC anchors (Duke, NCSU, UVa) will reach a point where their precious basketball revenue can’t come to the rescue…and that will hold true even after Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville (as well as possibly Cincinnati and Connecticut) join the conference. There’s a difference between being proud and being foolhardy, and the tipping point is coming sooner than the ACC might want to admit.
LikeLike
Frug:
My point is that the B12 did lose 4 (3 1/2) top teams. ACC lost Maryland.
LikeLike
That just speaks to the power of Texas. Big 12 loses four top notch programs and their TV payout doubles or triples for each team in the league. ACC loses Maryland and all of a sudden everyone’s in a wild scramble to find a new home. Larry Scott screwed up big time not compromising on a few issues to get Texas.
LikeLike
C in Wylie:
I guess the PAC feels if they have a conference that UT can join or not, that’s their choice. However, they aren’t in a position to need to acquiesce, as the B12 has been.
I still question whether one admittedly large and athletically strong state really of more worth than multiple mid Atlantic states. If so, then UT should go independent.
LikeLike
I agree, as long as the PAC is happy with 12. If, as many on here have suggested, 16 team power conferences is the end game, then I still say they made a major mistake. They could have yielded a bit on the LHN (grandfather UT in, so to speak) and made a ton more money for each school. Instead, they’ll have to severely compromise on their academic and secular ideals and let in a BYU or UNLV or Boise State to get to 16.
LikeLike
@ccrider
Texas already looked into independence but ruled it out because they couldn’t find an acceptable home for their non-FB sports. (Big East wasn’t strong enough for them even before all the defections)
LikeLike
C in Wylie:
Or stay happily at 12 with a 100% conference owned network (income equal to BTN will generate aprox double for PAC ), maintain rivalries, and deal with the egos they already know.
Frug:
I actually have come to believe UT doesn’t wish independence, even with a great home for non FB sports. What use is being a King if you have no kingdom?
LikeLike
ccrider:
“income equal to BTN”
Which I think is a giant assumption. I don’t think PTN income will be close to BTN income.
LikeLike
That’s a terrible worst-case scenario. There’s a reason why they all left the Big East.
LikeLike
More rumoring about BYU returning to the MWC.
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013/1/4/3835688/reports-byu-close-to-returning-to-mountain-west
Interesting that there is also a non-denial denial from Gonzaga about rumors they’re talking to the C7.
LikeLike
My review of bowl season:
Basically reinforced the stereotypes that have been developing over the past couple of years:
1) SEC still elite at the top although clearly not to the tune of 6 of the top 10 (which was inflated due to how bad the bottom 5-6 SEC teams were this year resulting in the top 6 going 30-0 against the other 8 = easy way of producing a lot of 10+ win teams). Defenses overall seem to have taken a bit of a step back. Some of the offenses are more legit like A&M and Georgia, but some of the others are still messes (Florida/LSU). Still has the most flashy playmakers (and that won’t change for the foreseeable future).
2) Big 12 has the depth of 4-5 top 25 teams although the next 4-5 ended up a bit overrated. The two losses at the very top (KState and OU) reinforce the notion that it’s not yet producing the most elite teams capable of running the table (also needs to start winning the Cotton Bowl). OU has to start showing up in these really big games though and figuring out how to fix a defense that’s been broken for years…
3) Pac-12 has been riding the eliteness of Oregon and Stanford (big 2, little 10 syndrome) heavily over the past couple of years and this year shows that (Oregon in 4th straight BCS game, Stanford in 3rd), and they’re getting the wins there now. But the depth was largely overrated due to early season wins against Big Ten and Oklahoma State. Looks like a big 2, little 10 after this bowl season. I’m not sure what USC and UCLA were doing in their practices or whether they even cared to show up. Arizona State put up a ton of points on Navy but I’m not sure whether that shows anything. Rest of the conference did poorly.
4) ACC got the two wins that it needed most (FSU avoiding embarrassment and Clemson over LSU). Also got good news with the Louisville win over Florida which will be talked about in the same way as TCU winning Rose or WVU defeating Clemson and then going to Big 12; some goodwill will go with Louisville to the ACC as a result of that win. The Georgia Tech win didn’t mean that much to me (other than pointing out how overrated and unmotivated USC looked), but I’m wondering if there’s some concern with Virginia Tech’s performance this year on the whole and looking forward; ACC can’t really afford a Virginia Tech slump with the issues at Miami and UNC.
5) Big Ten is still down (obviously) as Wisconsin goes 0-3 in 3 straight Rose Bowls and the Big Ten goes 1-4 on New Year’s Day. Clearly, the Big Ten has to turn around the Rose Bowl losses and New Year’s Day losses in general; and sending a 4-4 Big Ten team to Pasadena hopefully never happens again. Only Ohio State (didn’t bowl) and Northwestern come out of the season looking to be in great shape. Bielema supposedly believed that next year’s Wisconsin team will be much better, and it will have to be if they’re going to overcome Ohio State and win a BCS game. Michigan had a silver lining in that they held their own against South Carolina until losing in the last minute as SC made plays at the end; Michigan’s recruiting has been stellar the past couple of years under Brady so we’ll see what they look like in the next year or two. Nebraska’s defense was a disaster in their losses (50 points given up or something like that in their losses); I’m concerned as to whether their recruiting has kept up enough to produce the defensive playmakers that anchored much better defenses that they had in Pelini’s early years. But Nebraska’s advantage in the next year will be that their schedule eases considerably compared to their main competitors in the division. Michigan State loses some great playmakers and we’ll have to see if they can reload to make a run back up to 10+ win seasons. Minnesota was very well coached in their bowl game but Kill’s health is going to be a factor. Purdue had no business even being in a bowl game. Penn State kept BOB but won’t be a factor in bowls for years; they’re hoping to just not fall into a total rut of 0-4 win seasons over the next 5 years…
LikeLike
FWIW, the gaps between the conferences look much smaller than during the past couple of years.
It’s no coincidence also that it seems to also be a year in which the differences between the top of the top 25 and the bottom are the narrowest they’ve been.
LikeLike
The top is weaker than its been in a number of years. I don’t think Alabama or Notre Dame would beat any champion of the BCS era. And not many runnerups. There seems to be a little gap around #14, but not large. And there doesn’t seem to be much difference from 15 to 35.
I pretty much agree with your (Zeek’s) earlier analysis of the various conferences. SEC has a lot of 10-2 teams with records inflated by a weak bottom of the conference. Their #6 team may well be better than anyone else’s #3 team, but not by much, and those #3 teams all have 4 or 5 losses. Florida got dominated by UL and Florida didn’t look like a team that failed to show up (see USC). They looked like a team whose weaknesses got exploited. Certainly didn’t hurt having a former Florida coach running Louisville.
LikeLike
The gap between 1 and 2 is large. Bama, Georgia, A&M, USC, and LSU beat OU and KSU decisively if they play and would all challenge to run the table. Florida would likely lose one or two because of their offense but could also beat OU\KSU. Ole Miss is competitive now with all but the top 3.
LikeLike
Bama, A&M, Georgia, SC, and probably Florida will all be top 10. LSU probably just outside. SEC will still likely finish 6-3. If Les Miles hadn’t made such questionable calls at the end against Clemson then the SEC would have gone 7-2. No other league came close.
LikeLike
I watched all of the SEC’s games except Vandy/NC State.
The only team that went wire-to-wire impressively was Texas A&M of the 5 top 10 teams to play thus far.
Georgia was in a close game till the 4th quarter against a Nebraska team that was demolished from the first quarter against Wisconsin.
South Carolina won on a last minute set of plays against Michigan.
Florida was thoroughly outclassed by Louisville (which incidentally was basically only the 2nd dynamic offense they’d seen all year despite playing 8 SEC games) but made it appear closer than a blowout with some garbage time scoring. Also sets a record for biggest favorite to lose a BCS game I believe.
LSU lost on a final set of downs for Clemson.
Mississippi State lost. Vandy won. Ole Miss seems likely to win.
You analysis fails a basic eyeball test. The SEC was favored to get 9 wins until Vegas switched the line to favor Northwestern by 2 over Miss. State.
LikeLike
SC and Georgia won, they won’t drop in the polls, and they were already top 10. Florida was #3, they may drop 7 spots but I doubt it. Fact is there will be at least 5 SEC teams in the top 10 in the final rankings. Your eyeballs may disagree but that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
LikeLike
Yeah, you’re right. Alabama, Georgia, A&M, South Carolina, and Florida will be in the top 10. Probably in that order.
Order of finish:
(1) Ala/ND winner
(2) Ohio State if ND wins; ND if Ala. wins
(3) Ohio State if Ala. wins; Ala. if ND wins
(4) Oregon
(5) Georgia
(6) Stanford
(7) Texas A&M
(8) South Carolina
(9) Florida
(10) Florida State
Clemson, Louisville, LSU, & K-State not too far behind.
LikeLike
@Michael
Pollsters get excessively influenced by the last game. Your top 5 are probably right, but I think 6 to 15 will be
6 A&M
7 Stanford (not big enough win)
8 FSU
9 S. Carolina
10 Clemson
11 Florida (ugly loss)
12 Louisville (being in BE probably keeps them from jumping FL)
13 KSU
14 LSU
15 OU
So that’s 4 SEC, 2 ACC, 2 Pac 12, 1 B1G, 1 Indy in top 10. Top 15 should be pretty predictable. After that its hard to tell what they will do. There are a bunch of 2 loss non-AQ schools. Northwestern is the only 3 loss Big 5 school. Oregon St, Texas, Nebraska and Vandy only 4 loss Big 5 schools.
A sign of the weakness of the bottom of the SEC-Vandy lost to 4 top 20 teams, beat 7 non bowl teams and beat a 6-6 Ole Miss team that went to a bowl. They won 5 SEC games and Ole Miss was their best win.
LikeLike
Depends on where Florida goes.
I think there’ll be plenty of voters who put Florida after Clemson and Louisville. Will it be enough to keep them out of the top 10? I don’t know.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/21495201/with-move-toward-stipends-plan-shows-more-gap-between-haves-have-nots
Discussion of full cost of attendance scholarship and NCAA split issues.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
The B12 is over rated – and the bowls seem to indicate this :
B12 vs NAQ = 0-1
– 6-6 Iowa State loss to 10-3 Tulsa (CUSA) by 14 points in a game in Memphis
B12 vs ACC = No games played
B12 vs B1G = 2-1
+ 7-5 Oklahoma State beats 6-6 Purdue by 44 points in a game in Dallas
+ 7-5 Texas Tech beats 6-6 Minnesota by 3 points in a virtual home game for Texas Tech
– 7-5 TCU loss to 6-6 Michigan State by 1 point in a game in Tempe
B12 vs BigE = 0-1
– 7-5 West Virginia loss to 7-5 Syracuse by 20 points in a game in New York
B12 vs IND = No games played
B12 vs PAC = 2-1
+ 7-5 Baylor beats 9-4 UCLA by 23 points in a game in San Diego
+ 8-4 Texas beats 9-3 Oregon State by 4 points in a virtual home game for Texas
– 11-1 Kansas State loss to 11-1 Oregon by 18 points in a game in Glendale
B12 vs SEC = 0-1
– 10-2 Oklahoma loss to 10-2 Texas A&M by 28 points in a game in Arlington
Granted, the teams went 4-5 but the top teams in the B12 were dominated by the top teams in the PAC and SEC. 3 of the other 7 games were decided by less than a touchdown. The only B12 blowouts were OSU over the Boilers and Baylor over the Bruins. No way to spin this as the B12 was the #1 conference in the country according to Sagarin and #2 by the rest of the media.
Here are the records by conference :
Conference :::: All Bowls 2012 :::: BCS Bowls 2012
AQ conferences
ACC :::: 4-2 :::: 1-0 – no games left, won Orange Bowl
B 12 :::: 4-5 :::: 0-1 – no games left, lost Fiesta Bowl
BigE :::: 3-1 :::: 1-0 – 1 game left, won Sugar Bowl
B1G :::: 2-5 :::: 0-1 – no games left, lost Rose Bowl
IND :::: 1-1 :::: ?-? – 1 game left, plays in MNC game
PAC :::: 4-4 :::: 2-0 – no game left, won Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl
SEC :::: 4-3 :::: 0-1 – 2 games left, lost Sugar Bowl, plays in MNC game
non AQ conferences
CUSA :::: 4-1 :::: 0-0 – no games left, yay Rice!
MAC :::: 2-4 :::: 0-1 – 1 game left, lost Orange Bowl
MWC :::: 1-4 :::: 0-0 – no games left, no BCS bowl games
SunB :::: 1-2 :::: 0-0 – 1 game left, no BCS bowl games
WAC :::: 2-0 :::: 0-0 – no games left, no BCS bowl games
.
The B1G may have gone 2-5 however;
+ 3 of 7 games were against SEC, 2 were close till the end
+ 3 of 7 games were against B12, 2 of which were close
+ 1 of 7 games were against the PAC, and was decided by 2 FG’s
+ Ohio State and Penn State were top B1G teams but unable to go to bowls
+ No bowl games were played in the B1G footprint so they were all “away” games
LikeLike
I’d still say the Big 12 is the 2nd best conference this season.
Pac-12 lost the important games that would have showed top 25 depth beyond Oregon and Stanford.
The gaps aren’t that wide though between the conferences as they appeared to be earlier on in the season.
LikeLike
Big 12 was the underdog in 5 of those 9 games. They lost 5 of 9.
KSU and OU lost to higher ranked teams. Unranked underdogs Texas (in AP) and Baylor beat ranked Pac 12 teams (BU by 30). In the bowls with teams who shouldn’t be in bowls (a bunch of 7-5, 6-6 teams), favorite Okie St won by huge margin, Texas Tech won close w/o a coach, TCU lost close, WVU lost by large margin. Underdog Iowa St. lost to a 10 win non-AQ team they beat earlier in the season.
Since they performed right with expectations (and ISU was an underdog against someone they previously beat), its hard to read that as overrated. And you talked about KSU being the only one ranked right all season, OU being slightly overrated but the rest being way over-rated. Looks like Texas and Baylor were under-rated. Okie St. might slip into the top 25 as well. As for KSU, I’ve felt all season Oregon was the best team in the country. They don’t deserve to play Monday night since they lost their biggest game, but they are very good.
LikeLike
@ bullet
Tell me again how the non B12 schools were favored at the end of the season because the data sure shows the opposite. From pollstalker week 15 – last updated 12.03.2012 :
here is link – http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,45/p_1,45/r,F/r_1,F/s,21/s_1,21/t1,0/t1_1,0/t2,0/t2_1,0/v,0/v_1,0/w,15/w_1,15/
12.27.2013 – Holiday Bowl : PAC was favorite – got hammered
7-5 Baylor, listed in 8 of 10 polls – highest spot #23 (Sagarin)
9-4 UCLA, listed in 9 of 10 polls – highest spot #16 (Massey)
12.28.2013 – Meineke Bowl : B 12 was favorite – squeaked by with 3 pt win
7-5 Texas Tech, listed in 8 of 10 polls – highest spot #32 (Billingsley)
6-6 Minnesota, not listed in any poll
12.29.2013 – Pinstripe Bowl : B 12 was favorite – got hammered
7-5 West Virginia, listed in 8 of 10 polls – highest spot #21 (Sagarin)
7-5 Syracuse, listed in 3 of 10 polls – highest spot #41 (Harris Interactive)
12.29.2013 – Alamo Bowl : B 12 was favorite – squeaked by with 4 pt win
8-4 Texas, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #14 (Sagarin)
9-3 Oregon State, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #13 (BCS standings)
12.29.2013 – BWW Bowl : B 12 was favorite – lost by with 1 point
7-5 TCU, listed in 8 of 10 polls – highest spot #24 (Billingsley)
6-6 Michigan State, listed in 6 of 10 polls – highest spot #38 (Sagarin)
12.31.2013 – Liberty Bowl : CUSA was favorite – hammered Iowa State
6-6 Iowa State, listed in 5 of 10 polls – highest spot #35 (Billingsley)
10-3 Tulsa, listed in 6 of 10 polls – highest spot #29 (Harris Interactive)
12.31.2013 – Dallas Bowl : B 12 was favorite – hammered Purdue
7-5 Oklahoma State, listed in 8 of 10 polls – highest spot #19 (Sagarin)
6-6 Purdue, not listed in any poll
12.31.2013 – Dallas Bowl : B 12 was favorite – got hammered by Oregon
11-1 Kansas State, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #3 (Billingsley)
11-1 Oregon, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #3 (Harris Interactive)
12.31.2013 – Dallas Bowl : B 12 was favorite – got hammered Texas A&M
10-2 Oklahoma, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #8 (Billingsley)
10-2 Texas A&M, listed in 10 of 10 polls – highest spot #9 (Harris Interactive)
I love how you defend Sagarin et all the whole season then switch to the bookies / Vegas to defend your point in bowl season. Again, I am not saying the B12 is not good just saying they are not the greatest thing since sliced bread or the second coming of Jesus. My point has been all season that 80% to 90% of any conference in the Top 30 – Top 40 is suspect and the bowls have proved just how suspect they are. If you have 90% in the Top 35 you should be winning all your bowls and have at least 1 team in the MNC game. I stand by my premise that they have been over rated since losing Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Missouri. Even playing 3 OOC cupcakes could not help them win the most important games in the end.
Kansas State and Oklahoma deserved Top 25 status all season but they were probably the only 2 B12 teams that should have been there. The more accurate breakdown probably should have been :
Top 25 = Kansas Sate and Oklahoma
Top 50 = Baylor and Oklahoma State + 1 more
everybody else would be between 50 – 100
LikeLike
duffman,
“I love how you defend Sagarin et all the whole season then switch to the bookies / Vegas to defend your point in bowl season.”
By definition, favored refers to the betting line. Try to let facts seep through your giant wall of B12 hatred on occasion.
LikeLike
Duffman. I’m sorry. On this one matter you have totally flipped out! You post stats showing the Big 12 as lower rated and the underdog and claim the Big 12 is the favorite. Alamo, Liberty, Cotton (Sagarin has A&M #3 in his predictor, OU #8-even he doesn’t take his ELO BCS ratings seriously) and Fiesta (along with Holiday) Big 12 was underdog. Almost noone expected Baylor, Texas, KSU or OU to win. I expected Baylor, Texas and KSU to lose, although I did think OU would win.
And I have repeatedly said Sagarin over-rated the Big 12 teams. I never defended Sagarin at all. Again, you are totally flipped out on that. Noone on here ever defended those Sagarin ratings this year. I’ve said the Big 12 was over-rated on Sagarin last year (more so than this year). But the human pollsters have not over-rated the Big 12.
And on your last, I’m laughing. Baylor and Texas beat top 16 teams, but neither are top 25-ok maybe not Baylor. Texas might not be top 50? Who is your top 50? Toledo, Kent, Ball St, Arkansas St and Western Kentucky?
And if you have 90% in the top 35, you probably won’t be in MNC game because you will have too tough a schedule. Now just because I have Sagarin pulled up, Alabama is #35 in schedule strength and Notre Dame #27. USC is #13, A&M is #14, Stanford #16. A team with a schedule like LSU last year that gets in a 2 game BCS title game is the exception. Its a lot easier to go 12-1 if you are #125 like Northern Illinois.
LikeLike
I defended the Sagarin ratings, but I’ve mostly given up on debating Duff.
LikeLike
I don’t think Sagarin is totally out of line, but his models over-value winning and so the Big 12 teams were over-rated this year. But the gap between the Big 12 and SEC and the rest in his model was about 4 points, so it didn’t invalidate the overall ranking. Just the gap was over-stated.
I believe this is his pre-bowl average:
Big 12 81.49
SEC 81.05
Pac 12 76.36
B1G 75.88
Ind 73.64
BE 70.60
ACC 69.91
WAC 64.93
MAC 62.80
SB 62.21
CUSA 62.06
MWC 62.05
LikeLike
@bullet
Sagarin’s models right in line with virtually every other objective model. Most have the Big XII and the SEC basically tied, followed by drop to the PAC at #3 and another drop to the Big 10 at 4.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why the conference ranking discussion around here focuses solely on Sagarin. I’ve linked to the Massey computer ranking compilation numerous times and everyone seems to ignore it. The most recent version has 132 rankings. Eyeballing it, more than half of the rankings have B12 #1.
The overall conference mean rankings:
B12 36.05
SEC 37.24
P12 44.63
B10 48.81
BE 60.83
ACC 63.55
WAC 76.48
MWC 79.72
MAC 80.59
SBC 81.40
CUSA 90.27
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
LikeLike
Sagarin is easy to find. Look up USA Today.
I had no clue there were 132 computer models out there in public until you linked that a couple weeks ago.
LikeLike
greg,
“I don’t understand why the conference ranking discussion around here focuses solely on Sagarin.”
Because they’ve been around a long time, are familiar to most people, and are archived.
“I’ve linked to the Massey computer ranking compilation numerous times and everyone seems to ignore it.”
Do you have any idea of the validity of the various models in that compilation? Their methodology? How many are essentially the same model? What background the various modelers have?
LikeLike
Do you have any idea of the validity of the Sagarin model? The Sagarin methodology?
I’ll take a huge sample size with some possibly problematic rankings rather than a single ranking system that is much more likely to have a systemic flaw or bias built into it.
LikeLike
greg,
“Do you have any idea of the validity of the Sagarin model? The Sagarin methodology?”
Yes, I do.
“I’ll take a huge sample size with some possibly problematic rankings rather than a single ranking system that is much more likely to have a systemic flaw or bias built into it.”
Good for you. That was the BCS approach. But more data isn’t always helpful, especially if many of the polls use the same basic math.
I’d rather reference just one model that everyone knows about. Nobody’s claiming his model is absolutely correct.
LikeLike
brian, thanks for continuing to be obtuse, obstinate and argumentative, which is why I avoid interacting with you. I think I’ll stick with that.
LikeLike
greg,
You asked and I answered. If you didn’t want answers, then don’t ask the questions.
LikeLike
Tell me again how the non B12 schools were favored at the end of the season because the data sure shows the opposite
You do realize that Alabama is favored over ND don’t you?
LikeLike
For the SEC
Vandy 7 point favorite won by 14
UGA 10 point favorite won by 14
S. Carolina 5 point favorite won by 5
A&M 4.5 point favorite won by 21
MSU 2.5 point favorite lost by 14
Florida 13.5 point favorite lost by 10
LSU 4 point favorite lost by 1
LikeLike
For the Pac 12
AZ 8 point favorite won by 1
ASU 15 point favorite won by 34
Stanford 7 point favorite won by 6
Oregon 9 point favorite won by 18
USC 11 point favorite lost by 14
UCLA 3 point favorite lost by 23 to 30 (depending on whether you give them that last play non-touchdown)
Oregon St. 1 point favorite lost by 4
Washington 8 point underdog lost by 2
Favorites in 7 of 8 but only 4-4
@Duffman, you should be looking south or west for over-rated conferences, not southwest.
LikeLike
Wait, how you perform vs. the line determines a conferences rating? What? So if you are favored to win by 14 but only win by 7, that somehow lowers the value of the win? Excuse me if I’ll continue to look at actually outcomes and evaluate those results by computer rankings or polls. The line is set to drive betting action first and foremost.
There was a lot of premature evaluation of the SEC bowl results the first six games. Now that A&M and Ole Miss have bumped the record to 5-3, well, lets just say some “justification” is going on. Bama beating ND pretty much ends the debate altogether.
LikeLike
You are totally misreading the discussion. The discussion is about conferences being over-rated. If you are a favorite in 7 of 8 games and only win 4 that indicates you are over-rated. Pac is still clearly better than ACC even if they are over-rated.
LikeLike
Not sure UT winning basically at home and trailing (a 3-9 team previous year) until the end should be considered an example of PAC being over rated. USC started the year way over rated. People forgot they were beginning their actual penalties, not the ornamental bowl ban. UCLA? Which team shows. The one vs Cal, or vs Stanford in CCG. Two LA stinkers really is the difference between matching expectations or not. I saw 6-2 as the high side expectation for them.
LikeLike
To use your argument, UCLA getting killed basicallly at home, shows they are over-rated.
One game doesn’t prove anything. Its only an indication. But two of their teams were big favorites and won big, one was a big favorite and had a huge comeback to win by 1, one was a 7 pt favorite and struggled to win by 6. Really Washington (who after Pitt was the 2nd in the Jeckle and Hyde poll) was the only one who outperformed expectations. The rest were favorites and lost. Most underperformed. That’s a trend.
LikeLike
Cal crushed UCLA. Bruins must be in the Jeckle and Hydy running.
One over perform, two way underperform, the rest’s results, whether impressive or not, were about as expected. Are you suggesting that a reversal of one of the stinker losses would mean the PAC is underrated?
LikeLike
So you are suggesting all the results on the field should be totally ignored? You can argue that, but it makes any discussion impossible.
LikeLike
No, I’m saying that to say they were expected to win seven of eight is intentionally setting the bar unreasonably high. Even 6-2 would have been a surprising result. So, yes they underperformed the 5-3 in bowl games I thought they would achieve, by one. I’m not sure a single bowl game difference from expectations paints the conference as a whole as overrated.
LikeLike
MWC could look like this:
BYU (?)
Boise State
Utah State
Wyoming
San Diego State (?)
Fresno State
San Jose State
Hawaii
Nevada
UNLV
New Mexico
UTEP (?)
Colorado State
Air Force
Houston (?)
SMU (?)
LikeLike
MWC made a colossal mistake in taking San Jose St. That school just has too many challenges to be successful on an ongoing basis. And now if they get BYU, they will either have to expand to at least 14 or not take back SDSU – which is much stronger in its market than SJSU can even dream about in its market.
Your 16 teams seem plausible and workable, although I quibble with the pods. However, I would take Tulsa over UTEP.
LikeLike
They didn’t really have much choice at the time. To get to 10, it was Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, Texas St. or San Jose St. And it looked like Air Force or others might join the BE.
LikeLike
Give them credit for being bold enough to go to 10 and wait rather than backfill the whole way like C-USA.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll go to pods this time. The WAC-16 experience has spooked them out of it. They’ll go to 2 divisions of 8 if they expand to 16. Front Range schools would prefer to play against each other every season, plus a couple of Texas teams. BYU and Boise might get put in separate divisions so that there won’t be too much on an unbalance either way.
West
BSU
Haw
SJSU
SDSU
UNR
UNLV
USU
FSU
Mountain
BYU
Wyo
CSU
AFA
UNM
UTEP (?)
SMU (?)
UH (?)
Hawaii might go all-in, under this scenario. BYU gets access to Texas recruiting, which would alleviate any concerns about not being in a division with Calif. schools.
LikeLike
Someone please explain how the LDS church leadership has suddenly decided to rejoin a conference similar to the one they just left. Is there evidence the move out is not serving the purpose intended by the church? While not impossible, the decision would not be based on money or simple competitive issues other schools schools study. While BYU is not ND, they are similar in some regards (BYU possibly being even more extreme in some ways).
I’ll be surprised if they join any conference voluntarily any time soon. I think they revel in the attention every time they are included in a rumor. It feeds the #1 purpose of going independent. Increased visibility of the school, and thus the church.
LikeLike
The Redwings have been in the Western conference with Anaheim and San Jose for twenty years, and have somehow endured. The funny thing is, even with a new geographic split in the B1G, I think Delany & Co. will want to keep the ‘Legends and Leaders’ names. At least until they go to 16.
I also think VP19’s divisions are correct
East: Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, UM, OSU, Indiana, Northwestern
West: Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb, MichSt, Purdue, Illinois
I’m sure Purdue will beg to be in the east, but Indiana basketball will trump Purdue’s wishes.
LikeLike
Basketball will have nothing to do with football divisions. I seriously doubt the Big Ten will split into divisions for hoops.
Purdue makes more sense in the East, as it has more of a rivalry with Ohio State and Northwestern than Indiana does, whereas IU has a rivalry with Illinois.
LikeLike
Firstly, if they go to twenty, which I think they will, these football divisions will also become basketball divisions. They’re not going to create new divisions for basketball. Indiana, in the East, creates many more attractive BB match-ups (and contrary to the prevailing opinion of the FTT Presidential Fan Club, BTN considerations are….considered.)
I am curious wonder why you chose Indiana in the East, if you think Purdue is the obvious choice?
LikeLike
Or that could just not have BB divisions at all…
LikeLike
I disagree. At 20, there is actually less reason for divisions than at 14. The only purpose of divisions in basketball is for round robin play and if you do that at 20, you are essentially never playing the other division (round robin in a 10 team division is 18 games). At 20, I’d assume the conference would probably have 20 conference games (19 vs. each other and one home and home).
LikeLike
I like the round robin, but you might be right.
LikeLike
Between the two, I’d rather Purdue than Indiana, even if Purdue is sometimes a pain in the derriere for the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Switch Purdue with Michigan then. I don’t want to be in the East. At all.
LikeLike
Your AD does.
LikeLike
He is an uncouth fellow and I have nothing good to say of him.
LikeLike
We’ve discussed the Wings before. It sucks being the West and no other fanbase would put up with it.
LikeLike
The trade off would be losing Chicago, and I can’t do that. I mean, I miss pummeling the Maple Leafs, but the Blackhawks are our first and true rivals.
LikeLike
Leafs is the better rivalry in my opinion. No question. Perhaps this is why I feel more “Eastern” and you “Midwestern”.
LikeLike
BTW, it appears the lockout is over and we’ll have a truncated season a la 1995 or last year’s NBA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2013/01/06/nhl-lockout-owners-players-reach-tentative-agreement-on-cba-framework/
Can NHL players currently in Russia and elsewhere make it back to North America for the start of the season, or are they locked into those contracts?
LikeLike
I’m equal parts happy and still angry about this. This league needs serious help going forward.
LikeLike
Did this new deal really fix their underlying problems? I don’t see enough changes to think so. They eliminated some of the most ridiculous contracts and adjusted the salary cap. Is that enough?
LikeLike
@ Brian
Not at all. From what I see, you are correct, they tried to stop creative contracting and tinkered with the money. While those may or may not be good ideas, they need a long, hard look at how to improve the product. In my view, 100 zealots would be better than 1,000 meh fans in terms of spreading the word, so to speak.
The winter classic and return of Winny were the only really good moves I’ve seen in awhile. Some of the last round of rule changes were ok, but they need to: (1) drop the trapezoid; (2) eliminate the center red line; (3) go back to one referee; and (4) sit down and rebuild the divisions. Items 1 and 2 would lead to faster and more interesting play in my view. I think they could stand to lose a few teams as well, but that’s not likely.
LikeLike
On a related note, I see some similarities in the arguments over the NHL divisional alignments with the Big Ten discussion. The Red Wings (or at least their fans) seem to very much prefer to switch over to the East, but the problem from an overall NHL perspective is that would be making a league that is already disproportionately tilted way too much to the Eastern Conference with brand names and fan bases even worse and effectively make the West completely worthless from a TV value perspective outside of Chicago. NBC didn’t televise a single regular season Western Conference game last year that didn’t have Chicago and/or Detroit participating. In fact, there were only 4 Western Conference teams outside of Chicago and Detroit that appeared on NBC at all (one time each and only regional coverage in all instances): St. Louis (vs. Chicago), Los Angeles (vs. Chicago), Minnesota (vs. Boston) and San Jose (vs. Detroit).
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=72801
That’s why the NHL has resisted moving Detroit to the East so much (and rightly so since the West is already close to non-existent TV-wise as shown by the NBC schedule above). Now, Red Wings fans need to remember that Blackhawks and Blues fans hate having to see non-Canadian western teams at the expense of more games against the tradition-rich NHL franchises just as much as people in Detroit do, so the “4 conference” proposal that seemed to be agreed upon last year would be the best realignment compromise.
LikeLike
The problem with the NHL’s expansion isn’t the expansion itself, but how little the NHL has done to make it work – they seem to have believed “build it and they will come”. This may have to do with Gary Bettman coming to the NHL from the NBA with no hockey background and scratching his head at the lack of southern and non-Canadian Western teams and the large number of teams in small markets (especially in Canada).
As I’ve said in the past, looking strictly at a list of markets no one would dispute the need for the southern expansion or the moves of the Jets or Nordiques, two markets that make Green Bay seem major league. Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, and Miami are larger than any Canadian market not named Toronto or Montreal, Raleigh is not that much smaller than Vancouver, and even Nashville might be larger than the other four Canadian markets. Even Anaheim, as much as it was a power play by Disney, makes some sense in the sense that if there’s going to be a second multiple-team market, you’d pick LA over Chicago or Toronto.
The problem is that nothing was done in any of these markets to build any sort of hockey fanbase, which is why no one mourned the Thrashers when they left Atlanta despite not only Winnipeg being a tiny fraction of Atlanta’s size, but also the fact the Calgary Flames were in Atlanta before Bettman came along, suggesting Atlanta was too large a market to ignore no matter what. If Bettman never became commissioner, I’d still bet on expansion teams in Dallas and Atlanta at the very least. I believe Steve Lepore of Puck the Media fame has suggested NBCSN doubleheaders to give West Coast teams more exposure, even if that amounted to a “National Avs Game of the Week” at first. In other words, NBC’s obsession with the “NBC Seven” (the US Original Six teams plus Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Washington) has been a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a more logical east/west split would be more feasible if the NHL had done a better job of building fanbases for the Sharks, Ducks, Coyotes, Stars, and others in their home markets to begin with, rather than rely on a small number of popular teams to hold up their popularity.
LikeLike
My daughter missed the Thrashers. They did try hard to promote them in the community.
Problem was they got in the playoffs something like 1 or 2 times in 10 years. Kind of like getting a 10 on a a,b,c,d multiple choice test.
LikeLike
morganwick:
I’m not sure how much good promoting hockey in the Sun Belt could have done. As an example, the NFL could promote the heck out of American football in London, but it would still be regarded as a sideshow played by non-natives ranking in the sports scene far below rugby, cricket, & F1 and far, far, far below soccer. This would be true even if the NFL put a franchise in London. Kansas City would still have more NFL fans than London despite metro London having 6 times more people than metro KC.
I feel that’s roughly the situation with regards to hockey. Atlanta may have 6-7 times more people than Winnepeg, but there are still more hockey fans in Winnepeg than Atlanta.
Note that Nielsen once figured out that less than 3K people in greater Phoenix actually watched a Phoenix Coyotes hockey game on TV there.
LikeLike
There’s some anecdotal evidence that hockey is catching on in parts of Florida. It’s not like the northern and southern US are completely separate countries separated by an ocean like the US and England. Heck, Canada is virtually the 51st State compared to Europe.
What’s a good Winnipeg-size town or city in England and what level is their soccer team on?
LikeLike
I agree with that. In the bruiser days (pre Avalanche rivalry) the Toronto rivalry was bitter, but Chicago is the one constant.
LikeLike
For the record ‘I am curious’ and ‘I do wonder’.
LikeLike
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013/1/5/3838120/san-diego-state-mountain-west-expansion
“San Diego State removes Big East logo from website”
———————————————————————
Could be happening soon.
LikeLike
Its a done deal by 1/31.
LikeLike
With the B1G’s new division alignment due this spring, will we know schools 15 and 16 by then? Seems to be consistent projections that its Ga Tech and Va. I cannot help thinking NC and Duke will be making the B1G 18 at some point.
LikeLike
I think it’ll be UVA and GT, then UNC/Duke will have to decide whether to become 15&16 for the SEC or 17&18 for the B1G. If they go SEC then I think both leagues stop at 16. If they go B1G then the SEC will have some decisions to make. Do they take VT and NCSU? Do they stay at 14? Do they raid the Big 12 more? Right now they’re trying their best to position themselves to get UNC and Duke and stop there.
LikeLike
I don’t think we’ll know nos. 15 and 16 by the spring. Re-alignment will remain on the back-burner until everyone finds out how much Maryland will have to pay to get out of the ACC.
LikeLike
Big Ten to 18?
Teddy Greenstein (Tribune’s sportswriter generally plugged into Big Ten/Northwestern)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0106-northwestern-football–20130106,0,244829.story
“Some sources within the Big Ten believe the conference won’t stop expanding until it hits 18.”
Clearly that’s a reference to UVa, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech; the 4 AAU that most obviously pass the academic smell test I would guess.
As for divisions,
“The Tribune has learned that in preliminary chats, Big Ten officials have inquired as to whether Northwestern would be open to pairing with the Eastern block of schools.
The thinking is Northwestern is a national university with large alumni bases up and down the East Coast. And if Northwestern went east, the western division could be tidy: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue and Wisconsin. That would leave an eastern division of Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers.”
——————————————————————
So the Big Ten’s plan is to move Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue to the West in exchange for Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern moving to the East.
LikeLike
It sounds to me as if the scenario that they posted in their survey is their East-West split with the tossup of splitting the Illinois schools or the Indiana schools
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana (or Northwestern)
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Rutgers
Maryland
Northwestern (or Indiana)
————————————————————————–
This matches up to that East-West split scenario.
Issue seems to be who to split off from their in-state partner (Indiana or Northwestern).
I’d imagine that Michigan and Michigan State are pushing for Northwestern to go East with them (so they keep their Chicago visits every other year).
As much as I hate it, I doubt Northwestern has enough say to overcome Michigan and Michigan State pulling Northwestern to the East.
LikeLike
zeek,
If it helps, OSU wouldn’t particularly want them either. They’d much rather have IN or PU or IL.
What it sounds like to me is IN, PU and IL have all said they don’t particularly want to go east. Thus, the B10 is asking NW since they have more alumni out there.
LikeLike
Competitively this will unbalance the divisions in my opinion.
Northwestern for Indiana is the one trade up (from Northwestern’s football point of view) that I can safely assume given the past 20 years.
And anyone who thinks Wisconsin/Illinois for Michigan/Michigan State isn’t a trade up as well isn’t following college football.
The Western division looks awfully weak beyond Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin. And I have long-term questions about whether Iowa/Wisconsin will be able to stay “up” for long periods of time given recruiting constraints.
I think Michigan State and Northwestern need to remain in the West with Purdue and Indiana staying in the East.
LikeLike
Er meant that in reverse I think with Michigan/Michigan State replacing Wisconsin/Illinois being a trade up competitively (you get what I mean).
LikeLike
zeek,
The E/W split is always unbalanced. It’s a fundamentally flawed idea.
LikeLike
Were that to happen, would there be guaranteed crossovers?
If so…
Ohio State-Illinois
Michigan-Minnesota
Northwestern-Iowa
Penn State-Nebraska
Michigan State-Wisconsin
Maryland-Purdue
Rutgers-Indiana
LikeLike
Well, they’re splitting up Illinois/Northwestern or Indiana/Purdue so the question is whether those are important enough to keep crossovers for…
LikeLike
vp19,
I’d have to think they’d favor NW/IL over OSU/IL and NW/IA.
LikeLike
Then make it Northwestern-Illinois and Ohio State-Iowa. (In this setup, I’m pretty certain Maryland and Rutgers would draw the Indiana schools.)
LikeLike
vp19,
That could happen. On the other hand, the B10 may want to keep MSU/IN like they did last time.
OSU/WI
MI/MN
PSU.NE
MSU/IN
NW/IL
RU/IA
MD/PU
Or maybe they want to keep OSU/PU, making it MD/WI and RU/IA.
The point is, there are lots of choices.
LikeLike
@vp19, if Penn State and that school up north is in an Eastern division with OSU, together with MSU, and they end up with locked cross-division games, I’d think OSU/WI, OSU/IA and the Buckeyes against the Illini are all more likely locked crossovers for the Buckeyes than Indiana. That is, when the Buckeyes were pushing back against:
OSU / TSUN / Rutgers / MD / Penn State / Purdue / Indiana.
… as giving a less then exciting conference schedule, it wasn’t that school up north and Penn State that they were focusing on there.
LikeLike
Bruce, I think the B10 cares more about fairness than excitement (or rather, they don’t want to hear about complaints from fans), and matching OSU with IU (who, after all, is in your fight song) when Michigan gets Minny is more “fair”.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Bruce, I think the B10 cares more about fairness than excitement (or rather, they don’t want to hear about complaints from fans),”
Based on what? They locked MSU/IN to keep the most minor of rivalries despite the obvious lack of fairness.
“and matching OSU with IU (who, after all, is in your fight song)”
IU is not in any standard lyrics to any song an OSU fan would consider the OSU fight song (we have 2 of them).
LikeLike
Brian:
“Based on what? They locked MSU/IN to keep the most minor of rivalries despite the obvious lack of fairness.”
I’m talking about fairness with regards to locking in rivals. The fairness doctrine says “every school should have a locked rival if OSU & Michigan have one”, so that actually proves my point. In other words, I don’t see the B10 making special rules for some schools instead of others.
“IU is not in any standard lyrics to any song an OSU fan would consider the OSU fight song (we have 2 of them).”
OK, this is the one I heard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Field
“Indiana” was in the ending of the Burger Kings commercial that played this song. Evidently, Indiana was one of the possible alternate endings in the original lyrics.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I’m talking about fairness with regards to locking in rivals. The fairness doctrine says “every school should have a locked rival if OSU & Michigan have one”, so that actually proves my point. In other words, I don’t see the B10 making special rules for some schools instead of others.”
OK, I agree that’s been the B10’s M.O.
I thought you were referencing the difficulty of locked opponents, since Bruce responded to vp19 proposing OSU/IN by suggesting OSU vs WI, IA or IL as better choices because they are more appealing games. You responded by saying the B10 preferred fairness over excitement, and suggested OSU/IN to pair with MI/MN as being more fair. That’s why I mentioned MSU/IN as an example of the B10 choosing an unfair pairing.
““Indiana” was in the ending of the Burger Kings commercial that played this song. Evidently, Indiana was one of the possible alternate endings in the original lyrics.”
Yes, there are old variants but nobody uses them anymore.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt they’d keep the instate rivals split, but in east-west I hope they don’t have other crossovers. As much as I want to keep the Illibuck regular (and I care more about that than any game besides Michigan), there should as few of locked crossovers as possible between divisions.
LikeLike
Eric:
Regardless of what you may want, that simply isn’t happening.
LikeLike
With Ohio St and Michigan in the east, your 2 top teams are in the East. Sorry, but they must be in In different divisions. How about Ohio St, Penn St,Rutgers Maryland,NW,Indiana add Purdue in the East . Michigan ,Michigan St, ILL,Min,Iowa,Wisconsin and NEB in the west.One x over game and two more with other div . for a total of 9 division games.You would play everyone every 3 years .
LikeLike
Why would they split up the Illinois or Indiana rivalries rather than just put the Illinois teams in the West and the Indiana teams in the East? How would either one be preferable to the other? Are Illinois and Indiana great and powerful pipelines of high school talent?
LikeLike
One could argue that almost everyone wants access in or near Chicago, thus splitting NW and IL.
LikeLike
Why split the Indiana teams then?
LikeLike
So IN/PU is the only locked crossover game, and every one else can play each other more often.
Let’s say OSU is with IN, and there are 8 games, only IN/PU is locked.
IN vs 6 in division and PU – 100%
IN vs rest of other division – 17% (1/6)
OSU vs 6 in division – 100%
OSU vs 6 in other division – 31%
OSU vs PU – 17%
Now lock 1 game for everyone:
OSU vs division + rival – 100%
OSU vs 6 in other division – 17%
That’s almost double the frequency of games against the other division in exchange for no locked rival and playing PU or IN less often.
LikeLike
zeek,
It’s a terrible plan. Why do TPTB insist on trying to ruin the B10?
LikeLike
Michigan and Michigan State are extremely likely to go East now in my opinion. It seems as if their presidents and ADs really want the East Coast exposure.
There’s no way the Big Ten doesn’t ask Northwestern these questions if Michigan/Michigan State are almost committed now to going East.
LikeLike
FWIW, I think MI in general, at least the Southeastern part where most of the urbanites live, is more culturally “eastern” than “midwestern.”
LikeLike
jj,
Be careful not to confuse midwestern/eastern and urban/rural. Cities are always different from the surrounding area, but that doesn’t always mean they lose regional flavor.
LikeLike
@jj
I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion at all. I mean, I’m truly struggling and I live on that side of the state.
LikeLike
i guess it just depends on your view of the topics. When I’m in MN, IA, IL and IN, they just seem a bit different. I think life gets more “midwestern” the further west and more rural you go.
LikeLike
From growing up in Central Ohio, visiting our relatives in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Michigan over the years, and living in Northeast Ohio, Central Ohio is substantially more midwestern than Northeastern Ohio. It must be the corn: in Ohio the cornbelt goes from being states to being counties, most of the state on the western border, narrowing down to a strap near Columbus that stretches east to the PA border. The parts outside the cornbelt to the southeast are part of Appalachia, and the parts outside the cornbelt to the northeast are more “Inland Northeastern”, like Upstate NY.
LikeLike
Bruce:
Culturally, NE Ohio is part of extended Yankeedom (like MI & upstate NY as well), having originally been part of CT’s Western Reserve and originally settled by Connecticut Yankees.
Southern OH was settled by Virginians and other folks from the Appalachians while the rest of central & northern OH are part of the Midlands that epitomize the Midwest.
LikeLike
The only place in Michigan I’ve felt a distinctly eastern vibe is AA, where it’s unmistakable.
LikeLike
Yeah, the East wouldn’t have enough large markets in a straight geographic split. Adding Chicago seems like a good idea. And the West gets total control of Indianapolis!
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s another reason why I think Northwestern will stay in the West.
Nebraska at Northwestern was one of the highest rated games of the year in Chicago and the fact that it took place in Evanston is likely why…
LikeLike
How?
LikeLike
Interesting read.
Somewhat unusual that Teddy would diss “Legends” and “Leaders” so openly, as he’s kinda of a BIG corporate guy. Leads me to believe there’s widespread support for new divisional names amoung the ADs/Presidents/administrators.
As an IU guy, I have no particular objection to IU and Purdue being in different divisions, as long as they play the last game every year….doing it that way increases the odds that an Indiana(state of) college football fan could see any particular school he wanted to in a given year. That said, the East would be a bear as MICH and OSU are set to dominate the league for the next 10 years.
LikeLike
The idea that Northwestern has a ‘large’ alumni base anywhere is amusing to me.
LikeLike
Well, I assume he meant a relatively large percentage of NW’s total alumni.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/1/4/3831566/penn-state-lawsuit-tom-corbett-ncaa
Nice overview of Corbett’s lawsuit against the NCAA (unless you are a Corbett fan in which case it is not so nice)
LikeLike
I’m so glad they let co-eds into A&M.
LikeLike
Alan, to embed that youtube video, did you just copy & paste the embedded string? I’ve never tried to post a video (or picture for that matter) to this particular blog.
LikeLike
Bamatab – I just copied and pasted the embedded string and the video popped up after I hit “post comment”.
LikeLike
The C7 could double their TV rights?
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8817624/fleeing-big-east-schools-working-towards-lucrative-tv-deal-basketball
LikeLike
There’s gotta be some way ND can horn in on this………..
LikeLike
$500 million over 12 years for Catholic 7????
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8817624/fleeing-big-east-schools-working-lucrative-tv-deal-basketball
The seven Catholic schools that plan to leave the Big East to form their own basketball conference expect to double their money off a television deal, according to sources.
Sources say that Fox, whose Fox Sports 1 channel is set to launch in August, has an initial high offer on the table of more than $500 million for a 12-year deal. Fox Sports 1 will replace the network’s motorsports channel Speed, already in 81 million homes. Sources say officials with Fox are scheduled to meet with those representing the interest of the “Catholic 7” in New York City on Wednesday. A Fox spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. A high-ranking source at NBC Sports Network, which has so far engaged in preliminary discussions with the “Catholic 7,” declined comment. ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz also declined comment on the network’s interest in the “Catholic 7” games.
LikeLike
My only concern here is this part about those 7 taking $5 million and then offering only around $2.5 million to the other 3-5 schools that are going to join from the A-10 (which are only making $400k right now).
I would hope it’s a situation like schools joining the Big Ten or Pac-12 and that they all are eventually taking the same amount of money by the end of that contract.
LikeLike
Yeah, hopefully it would just be a buy in like TCU and Utah, but if the C-7 believe that they will always be the only non-football playing power conference in the country they may be tempted to keep unequal distribution and just assume no one will ever be able to find a better home.
LikeLike
C7 setting up a conference of unequals?
It is believed the “Catholic 7” would divide their share of the television rights evenly and split the rest among what ideally will become the other three to five schools that they add to form a 10- to 12-team conference. One source said it is likely the new schools wouldn’t share the same amount as the “Catholic 7,” which would allow the former Big East basketball schools to earn in the $5 million range. It’s thought that free agent schools such as the ones in the Atlantic 10 would be fine with making less than half of that on an annual basis because they currently pull in $400,000 a year.
LikeLike
As I said above, I really hope that this is a short term thing and that the “unequals” get scaled up rapidly to the “more equals” so that they’re all earning the same amounts down the road.
Hope it’s temporary/short-term and not a permanent fix…
LikeLike
Agreed. Uneven revenue sharing is never a great building block for a conference. There’s no real need to do it, and if schools like Butler or Xavier join, they can easily “outearn” on the court most of the C-7 schools.
LikeLike
I don’t think unequal revenue sharing itself is a problem, but a set-up which directly states schools 1-7 receive this and schools 8-12 receive this seems more open to issues.
LikeLike
I agree as well. Perhaps uneven sharing could make sense for a few years, but it’s a formula for disunity. Butler and Xavier could make 3 times the number if national TV appearances, make the NCAA tournament AND advance in it, and by themselves boost the initial value of the contract. Yet Providence, Seton Hall, and DePaul could earn double in league distributions, even if they’re rarely on TV and never in the NCAA tournament?
I also don’t see how the C7 schools can make the argument that those who are added to them need to “buy in.” It was totally different for Nebraska in the Big Ten. The 11 members of the B1G had put up millions of their own money to fund the startup costs for the BTN. Nebraska’s lesser payments from the B1G are a way of buying equity into that network. The C7 schools, on the other hand, have no network for which they will be paying startup costs. They do not even have a league yet!
LikeLike
If they are the ones with the contract offer, and it turns out they end up with the Big East name, which is strong in basketball and sullied in football, they do have assets to justify a buy in, even if they form the conference, sign the contract, then immediately do the invites.
In part it depends on whether they are leaving their NCAA units income behind with the conference currently slated to receive it, or negotiate an agreement for the present “Big East” to forward unit revenue to the new conference.
If they are leaving their NCAA unit income behind, with no or only partial pass through, then a buy-in period of 6 years would allow total conference revenue to rise via NCAA tournament appearance income to rise as total conference revenue becomes spread more evenly.
LikeLike
They may well be talking about the NCAA units which they take with them.
LikeLike
this could be a way to even it out.
LikeLike
A pretty arrogant move by the Catholic 7, as some of the other potential members being discussed would bring more to the conference table than the likes of Providence and Seton Hall.
LikeLike
Well, that’s an interesting development. The C7 hasn’t even decided on a name and they’re already on the verge of signing a lucrative contract. More evidence of how the Big East was undermined by its own members. The funny thing would be if ESPN is shut out completely of the C7 by Fox.
If Fox does this for the C7, imagine the impact if they take all of the Big Ten’s rights for first tier.
LikeLike
I’d like to back up the division talk and consider the main point of dissent.
Putting OSU and MI both in the east is better for the B10 than splitting the kings equally.
Pro – It will help attendance for RU and MD.
Con – 6 old B10 members won’t see OSU or MI much, hurting their attendance and exposure.
Pro – It will help the 3 kings see their alumni in the east.
Con – If the 3 kings cared about their eastern alumni so much, they would have been playing there before now. OSU has never played MD or RU. MI hosted MD 3 times from 1985-1990 and has never played RU. PSU played at MD in 1993 and gave RU a 2 for 1 in the early 90s. That’s it since 1920.
Pro – It will get RU and MD more national exposure.
Con – Imbalance means the three kings beating up on each other and dragging all of their reputations down as they win less than normal.
Pro – It brings the 3 kings closer to the media.
Con – OSU and MI get tons of media coverage already. This will put even more focus on them to the detriment of everyone else.
Maybe – Interesting games in NYC and DC could build the CFB fandom and drive more interest in the sport in general. The B10 would benefit as the local conference.
Maybe – King/RU and king/MD games on BTN might drive some fans to demand BTN that wouldn’t otherwise care. But how many of those games will be on BTN and how will they compare to, say, UMD hoops in driving BTN desires?
Con – The CCG can never have OSU and MI or OSU and PSU or MI and PSU.
Con – The east will have a lot more population than the west and they’ll have the vast majority of major media markets. They’ll have all the best recruiting states, too. Those are big advantages for the future, and they’ll only grow as the mid-atlantic grows faster than the midwest does.
What other aspects did I miss, since I did this off the top of my head?
LikeLike
None of the kings want in the ‘west’ or really belong there other than Nebraska while Michigan very much prefers the East. It’s not about M wanting to be in the same division as Ohio either. It’s that they want to play in the backyards of the fertile recruiting grounds of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and receive the media exposure from playing on the Atlantic Coast..
East: Ohio, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Then you’ve got to organize the other six: Michigan/MSU, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/Northwestern… These six all share a state with its in-state rival and most likely would prefer to not be broken-up which isn’t possible to at least to one of them. There is no logical way to break-down the divisions (w/ Michigan in the East where they belong) and result in great balance as the West is significantly weaker than the East historically… Last time around, they put M & MSU in the ‘west’ to fix this while putting Wisconsin, Illini in the ‘east’. Didn’t really accomplish much other than gifted Wisconsin a really easy path to the CCG this season.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
“None of the kings want in the ‘west’ or really belong there other than Nebraska while Michigan very much prefers the East.”
OSU and MI belong in the West just as much as the East, as in not at all. While MI prefers the East, I’m not sure OSU does (especially in this scenario).
“It’s not about M wanting to be in the same division as Ohio either. It’s that they want to play in the backyards of the fertile recruiting grounds of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and receive the media exposure from playing on the Atlantic Coast.”
Since when does MI lack media exposure? Does ESPN not cover them now?
“East: Ohio, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Then you’ve got to organize the other six: Michigan/MSU, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/Northwestern… These six all share a state with its in-state rival and most likely would prefer to not be broken-up which isn’t possible to at least to one of them. There is no logical way to break-down the divisions (w/ Michigan in the East where they belong) and result in great balance as the West is significantly weaker than the East historically… Last time around, they put M & MSU in the ‘west’ to fix this while putting Wisconsin, Illini in the ‘east’. Didn’t really accomplish much other than gifted Wisconsin a really easy path to the CCG this season.”
But if you move OSU west, then you don’t have to split any in-state rivalries and still have some semblance of balance. You still would need locked crossover games, obviously, but the B10 seems to like those anyway.
LikeLike
Strictly from a fan perspective, I’ve come to the point I’d be OK with Ohio State in the west without Michigan, but the east without Michigan is tough to swallow as it leaves Ohio State without most of what I want it to have. Our only in division traditional Big Ten games would be the Indiana and Illinois schools.
LikeLike
You basically have them all covered. Slight adds:
Pro: Over short term, relatively competitively balanced
Con: Big 12 North/South type divide very possible. It’s not unlikely the west would start out stronger, but given the population/media/recruiting advantages in the east (which will only be magnified by fewer games between divisions), it is very possible the west is looked at as the weaker division over the long term and given less much less attention by fans.
Pro: Ohio State and Michigan being in same division means locked crossovers can be avoided in right circumstance, but…
Con: There is no east-west set-up that avoids the need for locked crossovers which severely limits scheduling.
LikeLike
Regarding King/RU and King/MD games on the BTN, it seems like those are the kinds of games where OSU has been ON the BTN ~ and scheduling, eg, OSU at Rutgers and MD at that team up north on the same weekend would surely place one or both on the BTN.
LikeLike
Sometimes, yes. But if the B10 wants to promote the newbies, wouldn’t they push OSU/IN type games on BTN like now and push OSU/RU onto ESPN/ESPN2?
LikeLike
Brian:
I think the B10 cares more about getting the BTN on basic cable in NJ and MD than promoting Rutgers and UMD.
LikeLike
To add to that, I expect to see pretty much every football game of RU or UMD on the BTN unless they become nationally ranked and are picked for an ABC telecast.
LikeLike
Richard,
I asked because I think this is one of the key points to how this east/west split is supposed to make so much money. This was the debate I wanted to have when I posted that pro/con list. Everyone seemed to agree the goal was to make money. I want to see every side explain exactly how moving OSU east makes a lot more money for the B10. What’s the specific path to profit? Different paths require different decisions.
Many seem to be saying that the goal is to build up the fan bases in NYC and DC for CFB in general and RU and MD (respectively) in particular, which would seem to require ABC and ESPN games so they’ll be seen. Apparently local ratings increase in those markets trump the losses elsewhere and would lead to a larger TV deal in 2017. That doesn’t explain to me why OSU should be in the east (or have locked crossover games with RU and MD) beyond the minute the TV deal is signed, but that seems to be their plan.
You seem to be saying the path to money is to get the BTN in more households, and that putting OSU/RU and OSU/MD football games on the BTN is the way to monetize this. I can certainly see how cracking the NYC market would make money, but I don’t see how 1 OSU/RU game per year is enough leverage to make the difference unless you believe the BTN is almost at the tipping point for getting carried.
One counterpoint I like to make to the ratings argument is that RU and MD have to be good to pull solid ratings. RU was part of 4 of the top 5 ESPN games for ratings in NYC, 5 of 5 for ESPN2. All of the ESPN games happened in 2006-7. 2006 was when RU was ranked for the first time in a long time. The 2007 game was RU (having just fallen out of the top 25 after losing 2 games earlier) hosting #2/3 USF. OSU can bring in high rated teams to NJ, but will RU have good enough seasons to care? That’s the big question.
LikeLike
It’s always interesting when one’s list of pros and cons is tendentiously structured to support one’s preferred outcome.
Both David Brandon and Gene Smith have said publicly that they would prefer to be in the same division as each other. I do not recall them stating that they prefer to be in the same division as PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland, though it is widely believed that the conference wants this.The conference, of course, is not monolithic. It is hard to tell if everyone else agrees with this, and what they are prepared to sacrifice to make it possible.
Many athletic directors admitted their various complaints with the last re-alignment that produced Leaders and Legends. All of them admitted that it was a compromise, and that there was no arrangement that would give everyone what they wanted. The addition of two more teams makes it even harder.
The solution (whatever it may ultimately be) is not a matter of counting the number of pros and cons, but of weighing them according to what types of outcomes you consider to be more valuable. This is clearly not an exact science: “Leaders and Legends” was widely considered a dud, and yet there was no shortage of smart people who signed off on it.
Although Bill O’Brien has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances, I think that PSU won’t be a perennial contender again for many years. In terms of playing strength, the Big Ten now has three kings (UM, OSU, Neb), not four. By the time PSU returns to its former glory, assuming it happens at all, the Big Ten probably will have added more teams, and we’ll be revisiting the divisional alignment again anyway.
This means that any alignment is going to be competitively unbalanced, since three kings have to be split among two divisions. Bearing that in mind, I don’t know of anyone who finds it especially attractive for fierce rivals to have the possibility of playing two weekends in a row. Recall that, for precisely that reason, the Big Ten originally considered moving The Game to earlier in the season, before the fans (quite rightly) revolted.
LikeLike
The problem with static divisions is that they can’t do everything that the BIG wants to do. One of the things that the schools (and fans) want, is to play each other a lot and preserve rivalries. Just look at the games that have been played more than 85 times – Minn/Wisc (121); Ind/Pur (114); Mich/OSU (108); Minn/IA (106); Ill/NW (105); Mich/MSU (104); Ill/OSU (98); Minn/UM (98); Ill/Pur (87); and IA/Wisc (86). If you want to preserve these rivalries, you have to place certain teams in the same division, which screws up both competitiveness and geography. You can ameliorate these concerns if you lock some games across the division, but then, for an 8 game schedule, you end up playing some teams only once every 6 years. The BIG also wants to get UM, OSU and PSU playing on the east coast as much as possible. But you can’t do that without sacrificing some of the rivalries (or competitiveness). This is why I like the idea of pods and changing divisions each year (which can solve all of these issues, at least somewhat). I’m in a minority on that issue, though, and I doubt that the BIG will adopt non-static divisions. For a static division, in order to preserve the rivalries and supply some east coast exposure, I think that the following might work: North – Neb, Minn, Wisc, IA, MSU, UM, Rutgers; and South (NW, Ill, Pur, Ind, OSU, PSU and MD. You’d have to lock UM and OSU and it makes sense to also lock Neb – PSU and Rutgers – MD, and you wouldn’t need to lock anyone else. On paper, though, the North seems much stronger than the South, and for UM and OSU in an 8-game schedule to get to play some of the traditional BIG teams only once in 6 years is pretty poor.
LikeLike
At this point, no one thinks the Big Ten is seriously considering a rotating pod structure. I toyed with this for a while and couldn’t come up with plausible pods that didn’t have some other, overwhelming disadvantage.
The problem with “North-South” is that the Big Ten just isn’t laid out that way. If you put the map inside a bounding rectangle, the width is much greater than the height. A North-South alignment comes out looking pretty arbitrary, much like Leaders/Legends did. In addition, just about every alignment proposal I’ve seen has PSU, Maryland, and Rutgers playing each other every year, which I’m pretty sure the conference (and those schools) would want. Your alignment fails to do that.
Also, I don’t recall any league adopting an alignment where some schools have annual rivals in the opposite division, and some do not. It is certainly not the usual way of doing it, as it leads to some serious scheduling imbalances, over time.
If they go with an 8-game schedule, they might consider rotating the non-locked rivals every year, rather than every two, so that everyone plays everyone more often.
LikeLike
The “floating” concept I earlier brought up should the Big Ten assimilate the ACC “core” of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Duke isn’t really a pod concept, as two-thirds of the members would be locked into permanent divisions (Rutgers + the ACC emigres in the East, the six Central time zone members in the West). But the six in between (Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue) could “float” between East and West in two-year cycles. Heck, the floaters themselves could be altered every four years, as long as games such as OSU-Mich, Mich-MSU, PSU-OSU and IU-Purdue were guaranteed, either in-division or as the designated crossover game. (The 18-team Big Ten would play a 9-game schedule.) The six permanent East and West teams would rotate crossover opponents over a 12-year span.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s always interesting when one’s list of pros and cons is tendentiously structured to support one’s preferred outcome.”
I’m really not trying to slant it. I actually want a reasonably objective list of the points on both sides of the issue. I tried to remember the points made by various posters and summarize them. Please feel free to restate any of them in what you feel are more accurate terms. My goal was to just accumulate all the points in one concise discussion so everyone can draw their own conclusions. Everyone will weight the various factors differently anyway, and thus reach a variety of conclusions.
“Both David Brandon and Gene Smith have said publicly that they would prefer to be in the same division as each other.”
When did Smith say that?
“I do not recall them stating that they prefer to be in the same division as PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland, though it is widely believed that the conference wants this.”
I think Brandon has said that, but I’ll let MI fans say for sure.
“Many athletic directors admitted their various complaints with the last re-alignment that produced Leaders and Legends. All of them admitted that it was a compromise, and that there was no arrangement that would give everyone what they wanted. The addition of two more teams makes it even harder.”
Of course.
“The solution (whatever it may ultimately be) is not a matter of counting the number of pros and cons, but of weighing them according to what types of outcomes you consider to be more valuable.”
Right. But it helps to first know what all the points are. Then you can start weighing them. My goal here was just to get all the points in one place, since that can be done more or less objectively. Then everyone can weight those points on their own, which is much more of a subjective exercise.
“Although Bill O’Brien has done a terrific job under difficult circumstances, I think that PSU won’t be a perennial contender again for many years. In terms of playing strength, the Big Ten now has three kings (UM, OSU, Neb), not four.”
Kings are brands more than performance. PSU from 2000-2004 won 26 games and didn’t stop being a king. Do you not think PSU can average 5 wins per year? Minus the emotional turmoil this year, PSU would have been 9-3 or 10-2 probably. Yes, they’ll get worse as the penalties hit, but they get to play a lot of beatable teams, too. IA has fallen down, and WI and MSU slipped for at least a year.
“By the time PSU returns to its former glory, assuming it happens at all, the Big Ten probably will have added more teams, and we’ll be revisiting the divisional alignment again anyway.”
That’s too pessimistic. PSU bounced back from the dark years under JoePa. There’s no reason to think they won’t come back this time. They should be good by 2020 at the latest.
2012 – postseason ban starts
2013 – 15 scholarship limit starts
2014 – 65 scholarship cap starts
2016 – bowl eligible
2017 – can sign 25 kids (as long as they stay at 65)
2018 – back to 85 scholarships
“This means that any alignment is going to be competitively unbalanced, since three kings have to be split among two divisions.”
Not if you also consider princes and split them, too. K/K/P vs K/P/P is pretty balanced.
“Bearing that in mind, I don’t know of anyone who finds it especially attractive for fierce rivals to have the possibility of playing two weekends in a row.”
Me neither, but it may be the least offensive option to a lot of people. Especially when they realize it would be a fairly rare occurrence.
“Recall that, for precisely that reason, the Big Ten originally considered moving The Game to earlier in the season, before the fans (quite rightly) revolted.”
They discussed it, yes, but they already knew the fans would revolt. I think they did it to prove to any doubters in the room that the fans wouldn’t accept it. That clarified the options for the final decision – OSU and MI together or separate with the chance of a repeat. They chose to separate them then.
To be clear, I have no real stake in the final outcome. There is no set of divisions that will make me “happy,” because I don’t want to be in a conference with RU and MD. I said inner/outer was the best solely because it is balanced and works with 8 games and no crossovers. There are several other options I’ve seen that I dislike less than most other options.
LikeLike
Brian-
I’m confused. In Frank’s last post, you put together a lengthy analysis of pros and cons surrounding the conference divisions and concluded that the Inside/Outside set up would be optimal. Yet Adam Rittenberg (ESPN B10 blogger) and now Teddy Greenstein indicate that there could well be what is essentially and east-west alignment? Didn’t Jim Delany get your email describing in detail the advantages of the “Eye of Sauron” setup?
You also describe above how “emotional” conference expansion is and that it’s not a typical merger and acquisition scenario. If none of the candidates are automatic Yeses like Rutgers per your analysis, then how can anyone possibly speculate that the Big Ten will have 18 programs?
You also wrote the following above:
How would putting NW in the east help get the BTN on basic cable in the east? NW has a small alumni base that already wants the BTN. It’s not like NW games draw a huge national audience
But the Greenstein article talks about Northwestern being a national school with east coast alums. How could that be true given your analysis of the situation? Perhaps Greenstein is “speculating”? Or is it “informed speculation” seeing that it’s clear he has sources with Northwestern and the Big Ten? Please let us know your opinion on the matter.
Hmmm. They’re thinking of keeping both Northwestern and Michigan State in the east in lieu of a straight east-west split that could have had Indiana and Purdue there instead? Why would that be? Perhaps they think football wise, MSU and NW would generate larger media interest in the east than the Hoosiers or Boilermakers? Maybe, and I know you think this is a “huge assumption”, the conference really is concerned that Penn State is going to be in the dumps for awhile due to the recruiting sanctions and because PSU has a head coach who has already interviewed with at least one NFL team (happily he stayed because he’s not a “one and done” kind of a guy, but PSU did take it seriously enough to look at contingencies O’Brien did bolt). Of course, according to you, because Nittany Lion fans expect to continue to have winning seasons, then it just doesn’t make sense to consider the may bottom out. After all, didn’t USC fans expect to win the national championship this year? I’m sure they deserved their king status all the way through their multi-loss season, including the one to possible future B1G member Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl.
Here’s some insight, Brian. The B1G is going to showcase the eastern division for football because New York is the #1 media market in the world, ESPN is located in Connecticut (and Fox is in NYC) and the four new members of the conference will likely come from schools in the ACC south of the Potomac River (and who knows–maybe Notre Dame wants in on the party as well). Are they going to look at alumni numbers and have the better programs in the East because they want to make sure the new members’ stadiums are filled up? Yes. Do they expect to have a 14-team conference for very long? No. Are recruiting areas, competitive unbalance between the divisions and the fact that Nebraska is going to be the western rep in the CCG a major driver? Not as much as the other factors.
So when you do your pro and con list, you need to weigh the factors first. The pro and cons you have there are not all “equal” when it comes to making the decisions on how the conference is going to make its decisions. The ones that effect the future television negotiations which are going to boost conference distributions over the $40M mark in FY 2017 from its current figure that over $25M are the most important. One of the mandates Delany was given when this process started was to make the conference’s athletic departments as financially self-sufficient as possible. The biggest revenue growth factor in athletic department revenues has come through the television deals with the networks and for the B1G, the introduction of the Big Ten Network. Keep you eye on that and you’ll almost all the insight you’ll need on any future division line up, be it 14, 16, 18 or 20 teams.
LikeLike
I hope the TV contract is a distant part of the list. The differences probably won’t be huge (and as a fan I couldn’t care less about the size of it even though the schools obviously will be).
Maybe east-west works for now, but I think we overstate how glued together all of even these powerful conferences are. You make big differences between east and west and have that go on for time the glue holding the conference together weakens and either a split or (more likely) a new set-up where schools leave to form a new type of conference (say away from the NCAA) gets a lot easier. It won’t happen now, but give us east-west for a decade and its more possible.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I’m confused.”
Yes, you are.
“In Frank’s last post, you put together a lengthy analysis of pros and cons surrounding the conference divisions and concluded that the Inside/Outside set up would be optimal.”
No, I didn’t. I said it was the best of a bad set of choices if the B10 hasn’t decided on 9 games.
LikeLike
“So when you do your pro and con list, you need to weigh the factors first.”
No, you don’t. I wasn’t trying to reach a conclusion, just a list of points to consider. Everyone will weigh the factors differently and reach their own conclusions.
LikeLike
Brian-
I’m confused because you don’t make sense. And the best of bad choices is the optimal decision given the pros and cons you put forward.
LikeLike
cutter,
“And the best of bad choices is the optimal decision given the pros and cons you put forward.”
Not quite, because I didn’t say it was the optimal outcome for the B10. I said if 9 games weren’t locked in and teams wanted to play each other frequently, it was the best choice. I never tried to say that was the emphasis of the B10, though. If the B10 wants TV money more than regular games against old rivals, then it isn’t the best choice. Within that little area of restrictions that I mentioned, it is the optimal plan. But I didn’t say that small area was the whole world, and people rarely use optimal to refer to local maxima.
The optimal decision depends on what your priorities are, and I didn’t try to impose my priorities on others. I just said what they were for that analysis. That’s why I think it’s a misnomer to apply “optimal” to what I did. I intentionally made no attempt to consider other sets of priorities since the analysis was long enough as it was. I think the term optimal should be reserved for a more comprehensive analysis.
LikeLike
To follow up, the clearest conclusion I reached was that going to 9 games would be an optimal decision for the B10. If they did that, then my divisional analysis would have changed significantly. 9 games makes a lot of options more reasonable. Then it would come down to how you weigh the priorities in terms of the desired outcome.
LikeLike
Brian, you sound like an OSU fan who wants to keep all the goodies to yourself and lock Michigan out. No dice.
LikeLike
He’s said several times that he wouldn’t mind switching Michigan and Ohio State if East Coast exposure is what Michigan wants.
He’s not opposed to a division with Ohio State in the West with Nebraska. He just doesn’t think the conference will be balanced if they end up in the same division with Penn State.
LikeLike
I don’t think the conference would align that way because Michigan wanted it. The issue is that, to make the addition of Rutgers and Maryland financially accretive, the conference needs to maximize the Eastern exposure of teams that it believes will command higher TV ratings in that region—which Michigan does, but they aren’t the only ones.
I am pretty sure that the whole conference recognizes this, and supports it in principle. They would not have agreed to add Maryland and Rutgers without understanding the underlying premise. The question is what each school is willing to sacrifice in order to make it happen, and here the members may be in wide disagreement.
LikeLike
It seems to come down to whether Northwestern stays West or goes East in a switch with Indiana.
They want to make as many big games as possible in NYC and D.C. which means we seem to have Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State going there.
The question is who is team #7.
LikeLike
Michigan is going to be in the East. If anything, Ohio State might opt west because they’re already nestled in a recruiting hotbed. UofM will get it’s Chicago enrollees regardless, so broadening their horizons by going East (and more importantly, South) is a win/win.
Plus, the ‘academic pedigree’ factor can’t be overstated.
LikeLike
Shockingly, Andy, you’re horribly wrong. I want no part of being in the east, assuming that’s what you consider the goodies, and I’ve said so before. I’d rather see balanced divisions with OSU in the west than 3 kings in the east.
LikeLike
As odd as this sounds given what our school will probably fight for, I’d wager most Ohio State fans would take a divisions with Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Northwestern (with a Michigan crossover) over a divisions with Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, and Indiana (with a Michigan crossover). Now more still would go for a set-up with Michigan in division, but if Michigan is out of division, I have little doubt the fan vote would be for the western set-up.
LikeLike
You didn’t miss anything.
But let’s just call it what it is; a money grab.
The biggest pro which outshines all of the cons in the minds of Delany and co.: A division with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State is the best possible way to extract $ out of NYC and D.C. given those are the 4 most Eastern big football schools of the Big Ten and it includes the 3 Eastern kings that those media markets will get big ratings with…
LikeLike
The worry with that approach has to be though that they might potentially be setting up a situation where the western schools receive less national attention. Just as Maryland and Rutgers might be more valuable with more games against the big names, so too are games involving Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, etc bigger when there are more implications with the Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State.
If you can have a set-up with a lot of attention in both divisions, that outweighs marginal gains in the east, especially since the latter will also be hindered by too tough of competition. It also makes the CCG more valuable. That’s the whole reason I think they emphasized competitive balance the first time.
LikeLike
I agree with your arguments. I just don’t think they’re thinking much beyond the notion that this is a short-term fix for a 14 team Big Ten (which is likely to get to 16 or 18 in the medium/long-term).
LikeLike
OK, I accept that as the premise. How does this net the B10 much more money?
Local ratings from 1 extra game per year? Some other mechanism? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I just want to see it explained. How, exactly, does putting 3 kings in the east net a lot more money for the B10?
LikeLike
Well, the math is that Rutgers and Maryland would each see three kings at home every two years. For television, home and away games serve the same purpose, so RU and MD would see all three kings every year, plus the occasional Nebraska game.
How much more is this worth, over the baseline assumption of splitting the kings 2-2? Jim Delany isn’t going to tell us the numbers. Counting money is basically all Delany does for a living, and he has made bucket-loads of it for his bosses, so I would tend to trust his numbers over anyone else’s.
Whether it is worth sacrificing other worthwhile objectives in the pursuit of money is a valid question. But as far as the money goes, his track record suggests that he probably has that right, even if we haven’t seen (and will never see) the real numbers.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well, the math is that Rutgers and Maryland would each see three kings at home every two years. For television, home and away games serve the same purpose, so RU and MD would see all three kings every year, plus the occasional Nebraska game. How much more is this worth, over the baseline assumption of splitting the kings 2-2?”
Right. As opposed to 2 kings every year plus the occasional OSU (or MI) and NE game.
8 games, locked non-king rival = 2.33 kings/year vs 3.17 (0.83 kings/yr difference)
8 games, no locked rival = 2.57 vs 3.29 (0.72 diff)
9 games, locked non-king rival = 2.67 kings/year vs 3.33 (0.67 kings/yr difference)
9 games, no locked rival = 2.86 vs 4.00 (1.14 diff)
So that’s about 5/6 of an extra king game for RU and for MD, at the cost of king games against NE, WI, etc.
Questions:
1. How do those extra games turn into money for the B10?
2. How much more do those games make?
3. How much does the B10 lose for the king games against NE, WI, etc that are lost?
4. What is the net gain?
“Jim Delany isn’t going to tell us the numbers. Counting money is basically all Delany does for a living, and he has made bucket-loads of it for his bosses, so I would tend to trust his numbers over anyone else’s.”
I’d trust them, too, but he’s never actually said it’s about short term money. He may have long term goals instead.
“Whether it is worth sacrificing other worthwhile objectives in the pursuit of money is a valid question. But as far as the money goes, his track record suggests that he probably has that right, even if we haven’t seen (and will never see) the real numbers.”
We will probably never see a comparison, but we know roughly what numbers he told MD and we’ll see what numbers actually get generated.
LikeLike
Higher average local ratings than other divisional setups is my guess.
It’s not a fluke that Nebraska at Northwestern drew one of the highest local Chicago ratings of the year for college football.
If you’re guaranteeing as many games in those local markets with the biggest 4 Eastern brands (Michigan State is probably more valuable than any non-king as far as NYC and D.C. goes given its alumni pull there), you’re going to generate higher average local ratings.
That probably gives Fox the most leverage to get BTN on local cable networks there.
It also probably gets the Big Ten its strongest bargaining position for the national TV deal if they say “look at the ratings we pull in NYC and D.C. for these T1 games where Ohio State is a top 5 team and they go to D.C. or NYC and the game is put on ABC or ESPN and draws an 8.0 rating”…
LikeLike
zeek,
“Higher average local ratings than other divisional setups is my guess.”
I can see that helping the next TV deal, but higher ratings in NYC will be countered by lower ratings elsewhere. Will the net number of eyeballs increase?
“It’s not a fluke that Nebraska at Northwestern drew one of the highest local Chicago ratings of the year for college football.”
1. Was that a one time effect, or will that happen every time? NW/NE had an impact on the division race and NW was having one of their best years ever. Plus, NE was visiting for the first time in B10 play.
2. How did that game do nationally?
“If you’re guaranteeing as many games in those local markets with the biggest 4 Eastern brands (Michigan State is probably more valuable than any non-king as far as NYC and D.C. goes given its alumni pull there), you’re going to generate higher average local ratings.
That probably gives Fox the most leverage to get BTN on local cable networks there.”
That’s assuming a huge ratings jump, isn’t it? We’re talking less than 1 extra king game per year, and even that may not be on BTN. How much leverage does 3.5 hours get versus the rest of the year?
“It also probably gets the Big Ten its strongest bargaining position for the national TV deal if they say “look at the ratings we pull in NYC and D.C. for these T1 games where Ohio State is a top 5 team and they go to D.C. or NYC and the game is put on ABC or ESPN and draws an 8.0 rating”…”
But do they need OSU to also be there annually to do that? Where is the balance point between good opponents and local teams losing a lot? What about the loss of other games with national value? Is the total package really better off this way, or is it solely a bid to force the BTN into DC and NJ?
LikeLike
Brian, my guess is that they view the Western markets as “maxed out” as far as eyeballs to TV sets go for Big Ten games. They can probably afford some minor slippage as a result of fewer visits by the big brands on average (namely Michigan/Michigan State exchanged for Wisconsin) but it’s not like there’ll be much more than a minor loss in markets like the Twin Cities.
The Eastern markets are more important as far as generating eyeballs are concerned; even just a small increase in eyeballs for national Big Ten games in NYC/Philly/D.C. could be significantly larger than loss in the much smaller Western markets.
That’s basically what their market research must show if they’re putting together a division with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State.
I’m not sure what the Northwestern-Nebraska game did nationally; and I’m not sure that will matter. After all, you’re talking about two different effects at work, here’s the logic:
The positive effect of people in New Jersey and Maryland seeing the 3 kings + Michigan State visit them every other year, and the impact that said visits over time will have on the growth in viewership of a big game like Michigan-Ohio State in NYC and D.C. for example. It’s really tough to gauge the impact but that’s what the Big Ten is measuring.
The Big Ten is betting that by putting Michigan and Ohio State in a division with Rutgers and Maryland, that people from D.C. and NYC will be more inclined to watch them play each other as well as Penn State (so that’s 3 big games that are guaranteed to be on ABC or ESPN Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Penn State, Ohio State-Penn State).
Of course, this creates an NHL-like media markets imbalance with the focus of those markets so heavily tilted towards the Big Ten East, but the Big Ten is betting that those games in particular will gain value: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Penn State, Ohio State-Penn State and perhaps even a game like Michigan-Michigan State which might be more important to people in D.C. and NYC.
Finally, and most importantly, I think they view this as a short-term opportunity. This is the key to making the pros outweigh the cons (including competitive imbalance and kings taking on too many losses) in the long-term. Why? Because the imbalances will be cured in the long-term when the conference moves to 16 or 18 and the conference is again redivided.
The short-term opportunity to develop viewership in NYC and D.C. (and perhaps Philly as well) is what they’re after.
LikeLike
@ Zeke.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Sending MI and MSU and Northwestern to the East is a short term effort to build viewership and interest in the new east coast markets.
When the B1G goes to 16, MI and MSU go back to the West with some decision made re: Northwestern vs. Indiana vs. Purdue.
If 16 is the number, you have in the East: PSU, Rut, Maryland, 2 new ACC teams, tOSU and, say, the two Indianas.
Now you are competitively balanced again and good geographically. Plusyou had a couple of seasons of MI and MSU and Northwestern sowing up in the NYC and DC markets.
Likewise, if 18 is the number: PSU, Rut, Maryland, 4 new ACC teams, tOSU, & Indiana (since they are getting lots of east coast students). If N.Car. and/or FSU is one of the new ACC teams, you have a blockbuster B1GE(ast). With the Champions of the West (MI) out west with MSU, Northwestern, Wiscy and Nebbie, you also have a blockbuster BIGW
LikeLike
zeek,
So what if this isn’t a short term plan? What if the B10 chooses not to expand or can’t find any willing schools? Do these divisions persist indefinitely or do they have to be redone?
If all they want is short term exposure, couldn’t they balance the divisions and use the crossover games to increase eastern exposure? Why haven’t they already decided on 9 games, since that is clearly the easiest way to get more good teams in NYC and DC?
That’s where this plan fails for me. It seems to be fighting itself.
LikeLike
@Brian
My guess is that the time frame for these divisions are 10-15 years.
That’s enough time to build up the NYC and D.C. markets with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State.
LikeLike
“If 16 is the number, you have in the East: PSU, Rut, Maryland, 2 new ACC teams,
tOSU and, say, the two Indianas.
…
Likewise, if 18 is the number: PSU, Rut, Maryland, 4 new ACC teams, tOSU, & Indiana”
@Beau – That is a whole lot of suck right there. It effective means that Ohio State (as
well as Indiana) is no longer in the Big Ten. I don’t see that as being a smart long term move by the conference.
LikeLike
The latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry examines Big Ten football divisional arguments (with a “Frank the Tank” plug, as well), and can be found at http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/1456.html.
LikeLike
Yeah, my take is similar to yours at this point.
I think they’re convinced that Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State are the 4 schools to put with Maryland and Rutgers in order to maximize the D.C. and NYC presence of the Big Ten.
I can’t disagree with that logic, although I hope Maryland and Rutgers get up to speed quickly because that’s going to be a bear of a division on paper when Penn State gets back to full speed (although I’m guessing we’ll be at 16 or 18 by then).
The 7th slot in that division is tricky and brings up the question of whether we need a full set of crossover games or just 1 crossover game.
It comes down to Northwestern or Indiana. For the sake of competitive balance, Indiana’s clearly the poorest performing school of the Big Ten historically, while Northwestern has had almost 20 years of decent success and looks to be near it’s peak.
I’m hoping that whatever they do, they just keep 1 crossover game (Northwestern/Illinois or Indiana/Purdue) and get rid of the rest. I’m not sure it’s fair to Penn State to have to play Nebraska annually along with Michigan/Ohio State/Michigan State. That’s a bear of a schedule to be getting annually.
As a Northwestern fan, I think they should just leave Indiana in the East and make Indiana/Purdue a crossover game. While Northwestern has a larger portion of its alumni on the Eastern seaboard compared to most of the Big Ten (especially those not named Penn State/Rutgers/Maryland), historically the school’s major games are against Wisconsin/Iowa/Illinois and Nebraska seems like a better fit.
Also from the perspective of the conference as a whole, I don’t think the Western schools are going to like that they won’t be making physical visits to any of the large markets as divisional games.
Removing Chicago from the West seems to me to be a bad idea; it’s a good thing to have Nebraska and Iowa traveling their every other year in my opinion because it’s likely to be their best travel games over the 2 year periods (Nebraska can easily send 25000 and Iowa can send 15000 easily and more recently has sold it out).
LikeLike
If you go to 9 games, IU in east with PU in west, they could do a semi 6-1-2 with 6 division games, 2 rotating games among the 7 other teams and 1 roll-your-own, not a fixed game, but a choice game. Over 6 years you would get all 7 in the other division home and away and have 4 games to schedule on your own. IU/PU could schedule each other every year. Other schools could schedule two teams 4 out of 6. The conference would only need to coordinate to make sure everyone got a dance partner.
If you do 8 games, you could go everyone 2 out of 8 with 2 extra games (2 cross division * 8 years=16 7 teams * 2=14, 2 left over). IU/PU would have to schedule ooc 4 out of 8 years.
LikeLike
9 conference games will make everything easier, but that won’t happen soon. IU&PU _could_ be OOC some years, making no cross-overs a possibility.
LikeLike
That’s an idea I wanted to throw out too but that would be up to those schools to support, which I think they should.
LikeLike
Why can’t we just do 1 crossover for Indiana-Purdue and let the other 6 division teams on each side match up normally rotating?
LikeLike
@zeek – That’s what I would hope for if the Big Ten chooses that alignment.
LikeLike
Indiana and Purdue would very rarely play anyone in the other division. They’d have to ‘swap’ divisions every once in awhile.
LikeLike
Yeah, but if they know that 8 game scheduling is a short term thing, maybe they’d be okay with that for a couple of years.
LikeLike
Zeek:
The problem is that it would look like favoritism/unfairness if only IU/PU is protected. Where do you draw the line on which matchups are important enough to protect?
Minny would say that the Little Brown Jug game (oldest trophy game in the country) is just as important and demand that Minny-Michigan be protected.
Illinois would say that the Illibuck is just as important as the LBJ.
UNL may demand to have PSU.
If we’re going to 16/18 soon anyway, then it’s all a moot point, as the differences only begin the 3rd year and after of the rotation, so just give everyone a protected game.
LikeLike
To be fair, though, Indiana vs. Purdue is THE primary rivalry for each of those schools and I believe that other Big Ten programs would understand the protection of that particular game. Every other school is able to keep their primary rivalry with its own division in the proposed East/West setup (while the other ones that you’ve listed are secondary rivalries at best), so I think there would be a different type of latitude granted to protecting IU/PU compared to others. Plus, playing Indiana and Purdue fewer times in exchange for playing Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska more often would probably be looked upon favorably by the other schools. Personally, I much prefer seeing Michigan State in the west as opposed to either of the Indiana schools, but I can certainly see the argument where splitting the Indiana schools would cause the least amount of heartburn as the sole protected cross-division rivalry.
LikeLike
this is my thought too. as long as tOSU & Michigan are in the same division, ax the mandated crossovers and let those rivalries become OOC games if they are important enough.
LikeLike
Richard,
The assumption, of course, is that the B10 would ask them and only them to move their rivalry OOC. That seems unlikely to me, especially since PU also has the ND game OOC. That’s 10 locked games per year. I’m not sure the B10 wouls ask that, and I’m not sure the schools would volunteer it.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Why can’t we just do 1 crossover for Indiana-Purdue and let the other 6 division teams on each side match up normally rotating?”
In the past, the B10 has been unwilling to do that. It was one reason they refused to also lock WI/IA, even with a 9th game.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Yeah, but if they know that 8 game scheduling is a short term thing, maybe they’d be okay with that for a couple of years.”
That’s a huge if that so many people seem to take for granted. There’s no way they can know it’s a short term thing unless they have already agreed to accept 2 schools that have applied. If that was true, the B10 would already have 16 teams.
LikeLike
Er I mean 9 game 14 team conference Brian.
You can sell Indiana/Purdue as only locked up game.
LikeLike
Brian-
You remind me of the French Army General Staff, although I don’t quite know if you’re the 1914 or 1940 version. Perhaps some of both.
The German Army has never invaded France through Belgium, therefore we should not prepare for it. And there’s no way the Wehrmacht could launch an armored assault through the Ardennes Forest, so let’s leave that sector lightly guarded and depend on the Maginot Line.
You keep saying that the conference didn’t do “something” before, therefore they won’t do that “something” in the future. It’s no shock the French lost the Franco-Prussian War, were on the ropes in WWI and surrendered to the Germans in WWII.
It also won’t be a shock in the end to find out that you’re wrong.
LikeLike
cutter,
“You keep saying that the conference didn’t do “something” before, therefore they won’t do that “something” in the future.”
No, I don’t. I keep saying that if they chose not to do something before, you shouldn’t assume they’ll do it now without some evidence. Hopes and wishes of fans are not evidence. I’m not saying the B10 will never change their mind about anything. I am saying it is wise to see evidence of the change rather than just assuming it. It’s like people who insisted the B10 would add OU despite the B10 making clear academics mattered. Them wanting it didn’t mean the B10 had changed their stance on the topic. Or people who insist ND will join the B10 despite ND making it clear they don’t want to join.
9 games isn’t a given until it happens. 16+ teams isn’t a given until it happens, especially since the other schools also have a say in it. I’m not saying these things won’t happen, I’m just saying it’s silly to assume they will and on your preferred timescale to boot.
LikeLike
@zeek – Also, one thing to note about Indiana is that it has been drawing a very large and growing contingent of East Coast students. For various reasons, Indiana has gained favored status for a lot of East Coast high school grads over the past decade in the way Michigan and Wisconsin previously have among the Big Ten public universities. Here is a Wall Street Journal article from a few years ago about the influx of New York area students to IU specifically:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057234017401625.html
As a result, I think that Indiana would be very happy to stay in the East.
At the same time, the West is already going to perceived to be getting the shaft in terms of the football lineup already. It’s going to be tough enough to move away from what I had previously envisioned (which was having Michigan State in the West instead of Purdue or Indiana), so swapping Northwestern for Indiana (on top of shifting MSU out of the West) is almost like adding insult to injury from a competitive standpoint.
LikeLike
Lots of talk about who relies on out-of-state students from the East Coast (Purdue relies heavily on out-of-state students as well), that is certainly in consideration but it might boil down to who among the “Middle Six” (Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan and MSU) is most willing to be split from its in-state rival. None of them are going to give up their rivalry game. All are ‘big’ games for them and the conference so out-of-division rivalries are here to stay…
Or you could split up all three. Or you could do what the B10 did last time and put M & MSU in the ‘west’ and Wisconsin the ‘east’, which the Michigan schools really don’t want. Or you could rotate these programs between divisions…
Regardless, I don’t see this situation as critical as I see the B10 at 14 as a stepping stone to 16 or 16+, potentially even before the divisions even get used.
LikeLike
Frank, that’s a good point about Indiana. The Washington Post also pointed out earlier that they’re one of 5-6 Big Ten schools with over 10,000 alumni in the D.C. region, so they’re more NYC-D.C. focused than most of the Big Ten.
Also, you bring up a great point earlier about the NHL’s media market imbalances as it relates to their contract.
I think the Big Ten is aiming for a similar outcome if they go with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State.
Those 4 will be getting so many prime ABC and ESPN slots for their games against one another that it will be significantly outweigh what the Western teams get.
But at the same time, as those 4 schools play in NYC and D.C. they may generate additional viewership for their games against one another…; that has to be what the Big Ten is aiming for if they go with the East-West split: that Michigan’s games against Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State will generate higher numbers as a result of the division split over time. It’s a secondary point to the obvious notion that Rutgers and Maryland will draw their best viewership locally as well in a division like that, which would be good for the BTN.
LikeLike
Do the divisions have to be balanced? Can we do 6 and 8? Not saying I would. Just might be worth considering if possible.
LikeLike
jj:
I believe odd unequal division is only allowed if conference number is odd. 6 and 7 in a 13 team conf.
LikeLike
jj,
“Do the divisions have to be balanced? Can we do 6 and 8? Not saying I would. Just might be worth considering if possible.”
To get the 13th game exemption, yes. The divisions have to be the same size and play a round robin. Besides, the crossover games don’t work with 6 and 8 unless you play 10 B10 games.
LikeLike
There is a consideration to these proposed divisions that “Marc Shepard” touched on earlier. People are thinking of Penn State as a “king”, when if the current sanctions stay in place that will be virtually impossible for them from 2015-2018. At 65 scholarship players, you don’t even go 3-deep in scholarship players at every position, most of your freshmen have to contribute immediately, and any injuries are incredibly damaging.
These divisions are taking in account 1) that Penn State will be nowhere near their traditional level of play for a while, and 2) by the time PSU is getting back, these divisions will be reworked again due to additional expansion.
LikeLike
Penn State is a big name with big attention regardless and I think the effect of the sanctions might be overstated from what we originally thought it was. Regardless, if more expansion is planned, they have to assume these divisions might be here for awhile and things can change quickly and changing divisions isn’t done often.
LikeLike
If anything, people are letting the fact Penn State had a good 2012 season cause them to underestimate the future effect of the sanctions.
The bowl ban may deter a handful of kids, but you already see some of this year’s recruits talking about how great it will be to make PSU’s next bowl in their senior season. When the recruiting sanctions start, PSU simply will not be allowed to carry the roster depth necessary to compete at a high level, regardless of how many recruits still want to go there.
LikeLike
Recruiting sanctions for PSU are too severe to be overcome and be a >.500 B10 team. They got hammered as hard as anyone since SMU; far, far worse than USC, Bama, Miami, etc…
I’m just hoping they remain ‘decent’ till they get past these sanctions.
LikeLike
@Phil: there are many factors to consider for PSU. Like USC, PSU might be able to up the quality of recruits (they are getting the a very highly ranked QB in this class). Plus, do not underestimate PSU’s push for walk-on players (re-named “run-ons”). If O’Brien and PSU can bring in 10-15 “run-ons,” and assume they are mid-level 3* “run-ons” whose parents can afford the tuition, etc., PSU will have some depth. Mad King Emmert limited the number of scholarships, not players.
LikeLike
MAC-level players who are either too small or slow to get scholarship offers from major programs (who would form the PSU’s walk-on program) provide little depth. Unless BOB focuses his scholarships on fast/impact guys and hope that his walk-ons can develop in to passable linemen or something like that.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s not uncommon for a player who is borderline for a major school to walk-on there rather than take a scholarship elsewhere. They may be recruit #22 when only 21 scholarships are available, or in this case #16 when only 15 are available. These would be 3* players, but most B10 teams are built around a core of 3* players. The key is getting diamonds in the rough and not maxed out players.
I’d expect him to spend scholarships on difference makers (QB, RB, CB, DE) and build a lot of depth on the lines with walk-ons. He’ll probably also take some undersized players with speed at skill positions and some shorter linemen.
LikeLike
Brian:
OK, but how many of those 3-star players walk on at a powerhouse because they want to win championships? Because PSU can’t do that (any time soon, anyway). BTW, I can’t think of a 3-star player choosing to forgo a scholarship to walk-on somewhere.
LikeLike
Richard,
“OK, but how many of those 3-star players walk on at a powerhouse because they want to win championships?”
Some. Maybe many. But a portion of them just really want to play for a certain school. OSU gets a few players who could get a MAC or CUSA or even BE scholarship but want to play at OSU instead. I’m sure PSU does, too. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not claiming they’ll get tons of them, but a few extra OL to provide depth could be a critical help.
“BTW, I can’t think of a 3-star player choosing to forgo a scholarship to walk-on somewhere.”
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2012/11/14/3647316/2013-3-star-fullback-william-houston-commits-to-ohio-state-as-a
OSU has one at FB in the 2013 class. He would have had MAC offers at least, and rumors said WV might have been preparing to offer him before he chose OSU.
LikeLike
Phil,
PSU will lack depth, but they are trying to make up for that by developing their walk-on program. When the 65 cap applies, PSU can still have 40 walk-ons to get to the 105 roster limit. A lot of kids may be willing to pay their way because they want to play at PSU. They can also get playing time and get a scholarship later on. I’m really curious to see if BOB goes to 1 years scholarships rather than 4 year ones during this phase. That would give him much more flexibility to maximize his roster, but would look bad.
2012 – postseason ban starts
2013 – 15 scholarship limit starts (but can backfill the 2012 class)
2014 – 65 scholarship cap starts
2016 – postseason ban ends
2017 – 15 scholarship limit ends
2018 – 65 scholarship cap ends
Also, remember PSU went 26-33 from 2000-2004. They stayed a king and promptly went 51-13 the next 5 seasons. Players want to play at PSU, especially eastern players. They will still have some talent during the down years. They probably won’t win a division in 2013-2017, but they’ll start being highly competitive again by 2018 and should be a power in 2020.
LikeLike
Brian replied with a useful distinction, which I support. There are branding kings, and there are kings on the field. Penn State remained a powerful brand, even when Paterno fielded mediocre teams for several years in the early 2000s. They remain a powerful brand today.
Notre Dame is perhaps the best example of this phenomenon. Even after 20 years with very little competitive success (after Lou Holtz’s departure), they remained one of the most popular brands in sports. Florida State is another school that remained nationally popular, despite a long period of unimpressive performance on the field (after Bobby Bowden’s best years were behind him).
Divisional re-alignment obviously needs to suit multiple agendas. If you are evaluating the divisons (or the proposed divsions) competitively, you can think of Penn State like a Wisconsin or an Iowa: a second-tier team (and that’s the optimistic view). Historically, the major programs always rebound, and I think Penn State will too, but it will take quite a few years. The sanctions are just too debilitating.
However, if you are evaluating the divsions in terms of brand strength, Penn State remains a king.
The Big Ten obviously needs to consider both marketing and competitive equity. I suspect they’d be very hesitant about putting PSU, OSU, and UM in the same division if they believed PSU was a perennial 10-11 win team. The fact that they know PSU can’t do that makes the East-West alignment palatable, from a competitive standpoint, and they can make the decision on marketing alone.
Obviously, the Big Ten knows that they’re likely to add teams before PSU returns to prominence on the field, at which point they get another do-over on the divisions.
LikeLike
Unless I missed it above, I don’t think anyone has commented on the “going to 18” quote in the Greenstein article – that is significant coming from Greenstein. It’s the first that we’ve openly heard someone who has connections to the B1G office openly talk about it as a possibility I think.
Also, regarding NW to the east….I may be reading too much into it, but if the B1G is going to 18, ND almost certainly has to be involved, and they’d go east, but they’d also want a game in Chicago regularly…..I’m not sayin, but I’m just sayin.
If the B1G expands to 18 or 20, and can offer ND a NE pod of PSU, ND, Rutgers, BC, & Northwestern, ND would have regular games in Chicago, NYC & Boston – three of their largest fan base centers – that would be awfully tough for them to say no to if they are forced to join a conference when the super 64 split from the NCAA.
LikeLike
Notre Dame isn’t coming until there is a break from the NCAA and they need to be there for playoffs. That’s what their alumni want and nothing is going to change that in medium term that the Big Ten has control over (and the 12 year deal on the new BCS means a break in unlikely soon either).
LikeLike
“Notre Dame isn’t coming until there is a break from the NCAA and they need to be there for playoffs”
Didn’t I just say that is exactly what is going to happen? The split is inevitable, it’s going to happen, and when it does, ND couldn’t say no to games in NYC, Boston, & Chicago every season.
The split will happen sooner than you think…the 12 year playoff can always be reworked if the SEC/B1G/PAC want it to be.
LikeLike
Why would a break from the NCAA force ND into a conference? ND can just leave the NCAA and be an independent in the new organization/bowl/playoff structure.
I wish Delany would give up on his white whale, because he isn’t going to land them.
LikeLike
I’m almost positive that Maryland/Rutgers is a step that shows Delany has given up on Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Agree…..I think Delany and the Presidents have decided that they could never make ND happy….and have moved on.
LikeLike
I don’t think Delany has given up on ND, but is now operating on the assumption that they won’t join barring true Armageddon.
In other words, the Big 10 would be happy to have them, but they are no longer a priority target.
LikeLike
Because the conference commissioners would conspire to finally land Notre Dame.
Independents are an anathema to the rest of college sports.
LikeLike
“Because the conference commissioners would conspire to finally land Notre Dame.”
What would they do to conspire? Tell them they aren’t allowed to play in their reindeer games?
When the networks are negotiating the rights fees for the new and improved playoff, they’ll pay a good chuck less for a ND-less reindeer game.
LikeLike
@greg
Yes, and they could make up a good portion of the difference by not having to give ND a cut of the revenue (ND’s gets paid better than any school in the country from the BCS).
Anyways, further consolidation is inevitable and ND will be forced to join a FB conference within a decade (though the “conference” could be a giant 60-72 member entity)
LikeLike
“Anyways, further consolidation is inevitable and ND will be forced to join a FB conference within a decade”
Don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
Wasn’t planning on it, a decade is a long time.
LikeLike
I have a middle-ground opinion on Notre Dame. I don’t think Delany has quite given up on them, but he isn’t holding his breath either. The new playoff is a 12-year deal that gives Notre Dame what they need: guaranteed post-season access. As long as they have that, they have no need to relinquish their independence.
For years, Notre Dame tolerated the Big East, which was considerably weaker than the ACC is today. Since the ACC can keep replenishing with former Big East schools, I don’t think that league is in any immediate danger. The ACC could lose a good 6, 8, even 10 schools, replenish with former Big East schools, and Notre Dame would still have what they want.
LikeLike
If the ACC loses 10 schools ND won’t stick. They won’t be able to put together an acceptable schedule.
LikeLike
If they replenish from the Big East, sooner or later that includes Navy as a FB-only member, so its only four of the remaining schools that have to be “good enough” to be placed on ND’s schedule.
LikeLike
If Big East schools were acceptable to ND they wouldn’t left the conference. Remember, ND originally pledged to play 3 games a year against Big East teams in exchange for hosting their non-FB sports and never once did so.
If ND wasn’t willing to play 3 Big East teams a year what makes you think they will play 5?
LikeLike
Also, Notre Dame probably doesn’t want Navy to count as a “conference” game since that means another game they have to fill (plus there is no guarantee Navy will join)
LikeLike
I may be reading too much into it, but if the B1G is going to 18, ND almost certainly has to be involved
Not necessarily; Delany could add the ACC southern AAU quartet of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Duke, which would give as much synergy for Maryland as it and Rutgers will do for Penn State.
LikeLike
Vp19,
I fully believe the end game is 20 for the B1G – and ND/FSU have to be involved. 18 is an awkward number for scheduling purposes, 20 is clean and easy.
If we go back to Frank’s first post on B1G expansion, what was the driver for expansion? Football. Basketball matters (especially for BTN inventory), but football is king. Adding a quartet of Virginia, UNC, Ga Tech, & Duke would certainly add BTN inventory, but it doesn’t add tier 1 money for football, and that is what this entire thing is about. If you are going to add those four, you need to add some serious tier 1 money via football ratings to split the pie 18/20 ways and still make a boatload of cash for everyone. I suspect just adding UVA/UNC/GT/Duke would lose everyone money – you would need to add some big football brands to that mix in order to get the value of the tier 1 deal up in order to make those four financially viable.
I think, for certain, these 19 should be locks if the B1G moves to 20:
Central Division
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Northeastern Division
Penn State
Notre Dame
Rutgers
Northwestern
Maryland
Southeastern Division
Florida State
North Carolina
Virginia
Georgia Tech
An expansion to 20 should almost certainly involve the above 19 – the 20th member could go one of three ways:
Boston College: It is in Boston, has deep ties w/ Notre Dame (and would give ND exposure in one of its largest fan markets every other year), & is an elite academic school. On the negative side, it isn’t AAU, it is private, it isn’t contiguous, & there is no major following for BC sports (pretty apathetic fan base). A move to add BC would be strictly about trying to get penetration in Boston for the BTN & appeasing ND.
Duke: It would solidify the B1G’s presence in North Carolina, it is a national brand name that would help add valuable inventory to the BTN, & is an elite academic school who is a member of the AAU. On the negative side it is a private school, your average Duke fan would rather get chlamydia than watch a Duke football game (and the administration doesn’t seem to support the program), & if you can get UNC without Duke, are they really necessary for anything at all?
Miami: Miami is a top 20 TV market with a football program that has a storied history (for the last 30 years anyway) and they happen to be smack dab in the middle of the some of the most fertile football recruiting grounds in the country. It is also an elite medical school, which the academics would look kindly upon and would give FSU a heated rivalry game. On the negative side, their football program could be non existent for a decade or so depending on the NCAA sanctions that they could be facing, they are a private school, they aren’t AAU, and they can’t even sell half of their tickets for home football games – fan support is pretty weak for the hurricanes..
I’m not sure which of the three above schools I would prefer for #20, but I know who five of the next six should be if the B1G is going to go national.
LikeLike
@ BigTenFan. I don’t think Football is the driver anymore.
I will let Frank speak for himself, but I think the focus is no longer on the tier I football teams and schools. Since Frank began writing about conference realignment (a mere three years ago that seems like decades ago), we’ve learned a lot about the BTN, about cable subscription fees, the importance of “eyeballs” vs. butts in the seats vs. other ways of monetizing “inventory.” We have also begun to understand how BBall fits into the equation (and, at least for the BTN, how other so-called “non-revenue sports” are going to become monetized … B1G Hockey anyone?).
At this point, other than ND and maybe FSU, the tier I football teams/schools are off the table (barring something strange like Texas suddenly wanting to move to the B1G).
Adding another football “king” is not going to generate “tier I money” as you say. The B1G is already getting “tier I money” from their existing football kings. In other words, in my view, adding ND or FSU adds only marginally to the ABC/ESPN tv contracts.
Consequently, football is no longer “king” in conference realignment. The Rutgers and Maryland additions make this crystal clear. Now the “king” in conference realignment is the tv market and getting the BTN on the basic cable tier where subscription fees are 80-90 cents. vs. 10 cents. Now Bball matters a lot as does the ability to maximize the local exposure of your existing football “kings” because those will drive demand for the BTN to be placed on the basic cable subscription tier. In other words, you don’t need a new football king if you can properly leverage your existing football kings.
For these reasons, I disagree that you MUST add a “tier I football program” to the quartet of Vir, Duke, NC and GaTech. Obviously, if you CAN add a “tier I football program,” then you should. But, it is not, in my view, a “must” to accomplish the long-term goals of the B1G and the BTN.
LikeLike
If that’s the case, would it not be easier to add, say, UConn and Syracuse, as these are also basketball powers and will solidify the BTN’s presence in the Northeast? Or add them to the 4 you mentioned to go to 20?
LikeLike
If that’s the case, would it not be easier to add, say, UConn and Syracuse, as these are also basketball powers and will solidify the BTN’s presence in the Northeast? Or add them to the 4 you mentioned to go to 20?
Since SU and Connecticut aren’t AAU, they are off the table for Big Ten presidents. Notre Dame would be the only exception to enter without AAU membership (remember, Nebraska was AAU when it entered in June 2010) because of its undergraduate academic strength as America’s preeminent Catholic university (sorry, Fordham and Georgetown).
As long as Kansas is tied by both the Big 12 grant of rights and KSU, and conference stablemate Texas deems itself bigger than the game, the only realistic candidates for further Big Ten expansion are Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia. I know many of you don’t like hearing that, but it’s the truth.
LikeLike
PSU-OSU series ended. LBJ series ended. Illinois-Northwestern not annual.
With 18, all major rivalrives could still be kept (I worked it out). Thus, the B10 goes to 20 only if ND and FSU are 19 and 20, but I don’t see ND joining within 10 years.
LikeLike
BigTenFan,
“Also, regarding NW to the east….I may be reading too much into it, but if the B1G is going to 18, ND almost certainly has to be involved,”
Why? UVA, UNC, Duke, GT. Or swap in FSU and/or VT. Or if you want out of the box teams, consider BC, MO, KU and others as well.
LikeLike
I was hesitant about putting Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State in the east due to competitive balance but I’ve done a 180 on this one.
We’re expanding to 16 at the very least, it could be a few years, but this is a temporary alignment. Why not put our three biggest current draws in the East, while one of them is down anyways, for a few years to get some initial buzz for our newest members and presence on the East Coast?
If it’s a 2-5 year arrangement I don’t see many downsides. I think the sooner we can get to established divisions the sooner we can start to establish new rivalries etc, but I can’t see any future expansions that are going to send one team to East and the West so we’ll be doing this all over again in a few years anyways.
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly with this. What better way to get the population centers of the B1G East onboard (and BTN in those markets) than to have UM/OSU and PSU coming to a campus near you. Then, once expansion is complete and ND is on board (: Ohio state can take a hike westward.
LikeLike
oh, no. the Champions of the West should go west. 🙂
LikeLike
brindelin,
“If it’s a 2-5 year arrangement I don’t see many downsides.”
And if it lasts for 18 years like 11 did?
LikeLike
They redraw the divisions?
LikeLike
I’m still very curious were ND ends up.
I’m still looking at some long term ideas. If in fact the Big 10 could somehow pickup Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech, and you combined those 4 with Maryland and Rutgers you have a very nice Eastern mostly historic ACC schools in a tight 6 team package. The Big 10 West would be a tight package of Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconson, Illinois, and NW, but then how do you split up the other 6, especially Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, teams everyone wants to play? I have been thinking about how those 6 could rotate every couple years between the “West” division and the “Atlantic” division, but I don’t see how that is possible. There would be a distinct disadvantage to the middle group in getting a larger set of new teams to prepare for every couple years.
If the Big 10 is able to grab Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech how does that impact other conferences? If Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky all have no interest in other schools from their states joining, the choices are pretty limited for SEC, expansion into Virginia and NC is about it. So North Carolina State, Virginia Tech. Would they have any interest in expanding to Penn or even farther north? I don’t see that happening.
That leaves Wake Forest, Florida State, Boston College, Clemson, Lousiville, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt. You drop Wake Forest, and the Big 12 could expand to 18 have have a very distinct west and east. West Virginia, Pitt, (back together!), Florida State, Boston College, Clemson, Lousiville, Miami, and Syracuse make a nice East with teams that know most of each other quite well. Then the west would be made up of the 9 remaining big 12 schools. Would make the Big 12 look a lot less bizarre then it does now, in fact it would look very tidy with two 9 team divisions, far tidier then the mess with the Big 10 and SEC have and would have with division breakdowns.
LikeLike
Maybe you have two central pods that rotate:
Michigan/Michigan State/Purdue
Ohio State/Penn State/Indiana
One attaches to Eastern division to create a 9 team East. The other attaches to the Western division to create a 9 team West.
Alternate every 2 years.
It might be better to just have 6 pods of 3 teams each though and just combine various sets of 3 pods to create divisions every 2 years.
That’s basically how the 11 team Big Ten worked when each team had 2 fixed rivals.
LikeLike
And in either case you have to add 1 fixed rival.
Still, if you go with 6 pods of 3 teams each, you can only fix 3 annual games. The other 6 games would be different every 2 years, so that you go through the entire conference relatively quickly.
LikeLike
Actually, you could have 4 fixed games under my 6 pods of 3 setup. Granted, each pod would play the pod farthest away from it almost never (1/9th of the time, though how much do Michigan, MSU, & Illinois have to play UNC, Duke, and UVa, anyway?)
LikeLike
It might be better to just have 6 pods of 3 teams each though and just combine various sets of 3 pods to create divisions every 2 years.
That’s basically how the 11 team Big Ten worked when each team had 2 fixed rivals.
The difference is that those were de facto divisions, not de jure. If you thought the four pods of 4 in the late ’90s WAC was confusing, try selling six pods of 3.
The better alternative is to have six permanent East (Rutgers + ACC 5) and West (six Central Time Zone schools) members, complemented by floating East/West trios from (as suggested above, Penn State/Ohio State/Purdue and Michigan/Michigan State/Indiana) over 2-year cycles. You could even periodically alter the trios every 4 years, making certain Purdue-Indiana, Ohio State-Michigan and Michigan State-Michigan are preserved).
You need to keep the East permanent six and West permanent six together for synergy.
LikeLike
If a pod system is put in place, I like your idea of having the permanent sixes in the East and West and while the other six teams in the conference rotate through divisions every two years.
The only thing I can think of tinkering with is the trios you suggest. I might be inclined to make it Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State and Indiana/Penn State/Purdue for ease of scheduling in order to keep most of the major rivalry games intact, but it would make OSU-PSU problematic.
Perhaps those two trios could have have set rivals so that Ohio State and Penn State do play each year (MSU could be with IU like it is now and UM with Purdue).
For Michigan, that would mean annual games with Michigan State, Ohio State and Purdue with the six remaining games with either the six permanent Eastern Division teams or the six permanent Western Division teams. The downside is no games scheduled with Penn State or Indiana during any regular season whatsover (although they could meet in the conference championship game).
Of course, all this assumes on my part that the B1G will have nine conference games. If it were to go to ten, then it’d be annual games with MSU, OSU and PU, six games with either the Eastern or Western Division teams and one game with either Penn State or Indiana.
The six teams in the permanent divisions would play the five other teams in their own divisions each year, three teams from one of the trios and in a ten conference game set up, two teams from the other division.
LikeLike
cutter,
“The only thing I can think of tinkering with is the trios you suggest. I might be inclined to make it Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State and Indiana/Penn State/Purdue for ease of scheduling in order to keep most of the major rivalry games intact, but it would make OSU-PSU problematic.
Perhaps those two trios could have have set rivals so that Ohio State and Penn State do play each year (MSU could be with IU like it is now and UM with Purdue).”
Convenient of you to give OSU a much harder schedule every year.
MI – OSU, MSU, PU
MSU – OSU, MI, IN
OSU – MI, PSU, MSU
Yeah, that seems fair.
LikeLike
You’re right, Brian.
It should be
Michigan-MSU
OSU-IU
PSU-PU
LikeLike
Richard,
“It should be
Michigan-MSU
OSU-IU
PSU-PU”
Those aren’t the triads he wanted. OSU, MI, MSU vs PSU, PU, IN was his idea. That lead to OSU/PSU, MI/PU and MSU/IN. Conveniently, that stuck OSU with the hardest schedule by far.
There are more balanced ways to split those teams.
OSU, PSU, IN vs MI, MSU, PU, for example. Then play OSU/MI, PSU/MSU and IN/PU.
OSU – MI, PSU, IN
MI – OSU, MSU, PU
PSU – OSU, MSU, IN
MSU – MI, PSU, PU
IN – OSU, PSU, PU
PU – MI, MSU, IN
That keeps every game you’d want while being balanced.
LikeLike
Brian,
The premise that Ohio State has the most difficult schedule of the three doesn’t hold water. Penn State is about to undergo severe, multi-year recruiting restrictions and has to deal with a head coach who has already flirted with the NFL once and may well do so again in the near future.
But hey, if you went that fixed game to be Ohio State-Indiana or Ohio State-Purdue while Michigan has the annual game with Penn State, then I’d happily take it. PSU is going to have problems galore putting together a reliable two-deep with 65 scholarships and I have no objections with Michigan–armed with 85 scholarships and a couple of top end recruiting classes already–annually playing PSU starting 2014 or 2015 or 2016.
I thought the Buckeyes under Urban Meyer could handle a severely undermanned Nittany Lion squad pretty easily, but I guess you think otherwise.
And Michigan State? Ever since UM got its act together, OSU changed management and ND actually became relevant, their recruiting has started to wane. The Spartans will probably go back to their norm, get a handful of good players, but not have the talent levels to consistently compete with Ohio State or Michigan.
The actual reason why I paired Ohio State together with Penn State is based on Frank’s premise that this was an important matchup that should be preserved in the conference realignment. But you’re so blinded by the idea that PSU is a “king” that you immediately consider them a major program despite perhaps the most rigorous sanctions ever imposed on a football program by the NCAA outside of the Death Penalty.
LikeLike
cutter,
“The premise that Ohio State has the most difficult schedule of the three doesn’t hold water.”
Only to you.
“Penn State is about to undergo severe, multi-year recruiting restrictions and has to deal with a head coach who has already flirted with the NFL once and may well do so again in the near future.”
And they’ll still be better than PU or IN. Plus, PSU gets off the sanctions by 2018. PU and IN will still be PU and IN in 2018.
“I thought the Buckeyes under Urban Meyer could handle a severely undermanned Nittany Lion squad pretty easily, but I guess you think otherwise.”
Yes, that’s the only conclusion. Saying it’s a harder schedule must mean I think OSU will always lose to PSU for all eternity. It couldn’t possibly mean just what it says, that it’s a harder schedule. I also couldn’t possibly be considering years when PSU isn’t on sanctions, either.
There were multiple ways to split the 6 teams that were more balanced yet preserved all the important games. You didn’t choose any of them.
LikeLike
If the B10 goes with this idea, I do think the trios would have to be reshuffled every so often (every 4 years; that is, after a rotation through both the East & West), so that all schools play each other. The problem, though, is that OSU has to play Michigan and PSU annually, which means they can’t ever play MSU and Michigan can’t ever play PSU (try out the rotations; you can’t get them to work) which means you end up just flipping the IN schools between Michigan+MSU and OSU+PSU.
LikeLike
Richard,
“If the B10 goes with this idea, I do think the trios would have to be reshuffled every so often (every 4 years; that is, after a rotation through both the East & West), so that all schools play each other.”
Yes, they’d have to do that. IN wouldn’t accept never playing OSU or MI again, OSU wouldn’t accept never playing IN or PU again, etc.
“The problem, though, is that OSU has to play Michigan and PSU annually,”
No, they don’t. They have to play MI annually. OSU/PSU may be a luxury the B10 can’t afford in that scenario.
“which means they can’t ever play MSU and Michigan can’t ever play PSU (try out the rotations; you can’t get them to work) which means you end up just flipping the IN schools between Michigan+MSU and OSU+PSU.”
All of these keep OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, MI/MSU and PU/IN except where noted.
Balanced (no OSU/MSU or MI/PSU, though)
OSU/MI/IN vs PSU/MSU/PU
OSU/MI/PU vs PSU/MSU/IN
OSU/PSU/PU vs MI/MSU/IN
OSU/PSU/IN vs MI/MSU/PU
Unbalanced
OSU/MI/PSU vs MSU/PU/IN – allows MI/PSU
OSU/MI/MSU vs PSU/PU/IN – allows OSU/MSU and MI/PSU
OSU/PU/IN vs MI/MSU/PSU – MI/PSU replaces OSU/PSU
OSU/MI – 7
MI/MSU – 7
PU/IN – 7
OSU/PSU – 6
PSU/MSU – 5
PSU/PU – 4
PSU/IN – 4
MSU/PU – 4
MSU/IN – 4
OSU/PU – 3
OSU/IN – 3
MI/PSU – 3
MI/PU – 2.5
MI/IN – 2.5
OSU/MSU – 1
LikeLike
One way to do it would to have two 5-team pods that are permanently attached to each of the division and two 4-team pods that rotate every two years.
Pod A: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech (all the former ACC teams)
Pod B: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Pods A & B would be permanently assigned to Division 1 and Division 2 each season
Pod C: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pod D: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Pods C & D would rotate between the two divisions on a two-year basis.
Assuming a nine-game conference schedule, that means a program would play the eight teams within its division plus one program from the other division.
So in Years 1 and 2, Division 1 would be comprised of Pods A & C (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota) while Division 2 would have Pods B & D (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana). This would essentially be the Inside/Outside arrangement that many people would like.
In Years 3 and 4, Division 1 would have Pods A & D (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana) and Division 2 would have Pods B & C (Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers).
But does this really work for all the stakeholders? My answer to that is no. This isn’t the optimal lineup for the networks and it doesn’t really work for the universities that have large concentrations of alumni networks on the east coast. While many of the rivalries are kept in place within the pods themselves, the geography is problematic (especially for the “Eye of Sauron” makeup) when it comes to fan travel and to how they relate to the divisions.
The Big Ten will want to showcase the eastern division because that’s where the major media and the population growth is located. Combine the five members of Pod A described above with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers to make the Eastern Division and put Michigan State along with the teams in Pods C and D to make the Western Division. Eight games within the division with one game (or perhaps two if they opt to go with ten conference games) with a team from the other division.
That sort of structure essentially acknowledges that the B1G Conference will essentially be two “super divisions” or small conferences operating underneath one umbrella for purposes of promotion, playoffs in the form of a conference championship game, the BTN (which may have a BTN East channel and a BTN west channel), etc. In essence, that abandons the traditional conference model for a whole different setup.
LikeLike
Massive problem with competitive balance considering how strong Pod B is compared to Pod A.
LikeLike
I would hardly say that the SEC’s options are “limited”.
If the BIG added UNC, VA, GT, and Duke it would be an an academic powerhouse, but football-wise, it will eternally be second fiddle to the SEC. I think this is inevtable anyway, so I’m not too disturbed about it……but if the SEC then takes VT, NC State, FSU, and Clemson, it will have 1/2 of VA and NC, and the rest of the South….and the brand will be out of this world. The ratings will be enormous I don’t entirely buy the idea that FSU and Clemson don’t add markets–1/2 of SC and 1/2 of Florida are “markets”, aren’t they>?.
LikeLike
To elaborate a little…..I already have quite a few family and friends who either went to IU or Purdue, or have lived in Indiana their whole life, who look upon BIG football as the minor leagues, and watch the SEC game when it’s on v. a BIG 10 game…..that’s why I’ve wondered on here about the wisdom of expanding to 18….even IF you could get the 4 (presumably) targeted schools, the SEC can more than match it in football terms…..and at some point you risk looking like you’re playing a different (and lesser) game than that being played by the SEC…..at what point do you become irrelevant? Can being dominant in basketball and somewhat so in the olynpic sports amke up for the hit in football?
That’s why, to me, the targeting of the ACC 4 only makes sense if it’s 70% about academic punch/%, 30% about markets, 0% about football.
LikeLike
Also……..a BIG expansion including VA, UNC, Duke, GT would be far riskier than an SEC expansion to VT, NC State, Clemson, and FSU…..the BIG is changing it’s culture significantly…..the SEC’s 4 would fit right in……….
LikeLike
SEC’s options are limited only to the extent that they refuse to add duplicate markets and expand outside the South.
LikeLike
…and the assumptions on this board. UNC is more likely to the SEC than B1G.
LikeLike
That is one school. They were talking about in general. If the SEC is unwilling to add duplicate markets or extend outside the south their only options are UNC, NC State, Duke, UVA and V-Tech.
And no one outside of the UNC administration and BOT’s has any idea where UNC is more likely to end up.
LikeLike
Plus another Texas school, plus OU, plus Kansas if you expand your time horizon just a bit. Plenty of options when only two ads are really likely. Most likely would be UNC / UVA but that probably won’t happen for a long while still since those two schools will move last in this game.
LikeLike
The only Texas school that would add any value to the SEC is UT and they have made clear they have made clear for 20 years they have absolutely no interest in the SEC.
Similarly, OU has repeatedly stated they will not go to the SEC (and that is why they, unlike A&M, declined their invite a couple years ago). Plus, by all accounts Oklahoma is either unwilling or unable or both to leave Okie St. and I’m not sure the SEC wants a package deal.
Kansas lies outside the South, which was one of the limiting factors that this whole discussion.
Plus, all the Big XII has a GOR in effect for another decade, so none of those schools are moving anyways.
To reiterate my point, the SEC has options, but unless they are willing to go outside the South and/or add schools in existing markets they restricted to schools in North Carolina and Virginia.
LikeLike
I said “limited” if Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina indeed would veto any other state schools coming in. That would mean no Miami, Florida State, Clemson or Louisville. So other then North Carolina State, Wake Forest, and Virginia Tech the remaining available schools would all be northern schools.
LikeLike
Conferences typically have a 2/3 or 3/4 vote for expansion….so those schools wouldn’t necessarily have a veto power……and not sure all 3 would band together to prevent Clemson, FSU, UL from getting an SEC invite……those schools are all public schools so there would be political ramifications for those schools to vote against the other in-state schools…..esp. if the alternative is the Big 12…
LikeLike
And UGA. They called it the Gentleman’s Agreement. It has never been confirmed, but UK’s AD said that they would consider “vetoing” a potentially UL admission.
LikeLike
@ZSchroeder: There is one thing missing from your analysis. If the Big 12 “East” consists of nine former ACC schools, what exactly does either group get from the deal? The East schools would play an annual round robin, and maybe one wild-card game from the opposite division. They could do that now with just a scheduling deal between the existing conferences.
This is why I’m doubtful that 18-team leagues will happen. What you end up with is just two 9-team mini-leagues with very few cross-over games. If you’re the 9 eastern teams, why join the Big 12 so that you can just play each other, which is what they do now anyway?
LikeLike
Just pure market share. It retains many historic rivalries but allows the Big 12 to go to the TV market with 18 schools. And potentially one less competing conference.
LikeLike
It also allows for a really exciting championship game. If you play your division in a round robin of 8 games, play one cross over game for each school with reasonably well matched teams one weekend, call it the Big 12 West / East Challenge, then you have a 9 game schedule. That builds up some rivalry between the two divisions and then it would come to the head in a conference championship game between two teams that likely have not already played each other during the season. I think it gets a bit boring when you just played the other team 3-4 weeks earlier, like Nebraska v Wisconsin this year. Each division doesn’t need to play each other all the time, they don’t have a lot of history anyways.
LikeLike
I don’t think the economics work that way. Expansion only helps if you create new rivalries. What you’re proposing amounts to two nine-team mini-leagues: the current Big 12 (minus West Virginia), and what’s left of the ACC (plus West Virginia).
Each team would play a round-robin in its mini-league, so 8/9ths of the schedule would be what they already have. Its value to TV would therefore be just the sum of its parts, or maybe 1/9th better than the sum of its parts. That is hardly a compelling financial argument for a merger.
From the Big 12’s perspective, why would they want to share their TV deal with a bunch of ex-ACC schools whom they almost never meet on the field? From the ACC schools’ perspective, why join a league run by Texans, unless you’re getting something you don’t already have? They could get the identical thing with just a scheduling arrangement, much like Jim Delany tried (and failed) to negotiate with the Pac-12.
Imagine if the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, but then arranged the schedule so that the Big Ten’s marquee teams hardly ever played Rutgers or Maryland. What added value would that have?
By the way, I could see the Big Ten reaching 18 teams, because they have several reasons for doing so that the Big 12 does not: their research consortium (CIC), which is worth billions all by itself; and their successful TV network. For the Big 12, I don’t see the synergies that would make it worthwhile.
As it is, some factions within the Big 12 prefer to stay at 10 teams, because they make almost as much money as the SEC, and they have to share it with four fewer schools. And the Big 12 is not an equal-revenue-sharing conference. A new deal has to be seriously accretive, or the “haves” of the Big 12 would lose money.
LikeLike
If the top 8 ACC schools are divided by the B1G and SEC most of whats left will sink. The B12 will not rescue these schools with a subsidy at the expense of Texas and Oklahoma. The B12 may chose 2 of these schools (not WF or BC) to get a CCG, but no more. In 20 years, the schools that do not get into a power conference are more likely to end up like Rice, SMU, and Houston than TCU. The B12 may grow larger than 12 if the B1G and SEC leave some of the top 8 schools available, but the rest will not be able to pay their way.
LikeLike
I don’t think every conference expansion is equal in motivation. Big 10 is very much focused on population growth areas, TV sets, and where there alumni are located. I don’t think the Big 12 adding West Virginia was to create great rivalries, it was purely to stay relevant. If Texas and Oklahoma cared about creating new and exciting rivalries they would have ditched most of the Big 12 for the Pac 10 or another conference that gave them better options. Picking up a separate division would allow them to stay relevant, especially in a world of larger leagues.
LikeLike
I suspect Notre Dame will remain as a semi-independent in football with the Atlantic Coast Conference for as long as the ACC remains basically viable. ND has too much invested in its identity to its stakeholders (major donors, alumns, NBC, Adidas) to do otherwise unless they’re absolutely compelled to do so.
I call ND a semi-independent because it has five games scheduled annually with ACC teams starting in 2014, annual rivalry games with Navy and USC plus a long-term scheduling agreement with Stanford that was put in place to ensure the Irish play in California once a year. That’s eight games which are annually set in place, essentially giving them the equivalent of a conference schedule each year.
As long as NBC is willing to pay them for their home broadcasts and Notre Dame has access to the post-season, I suspect ND will stick with the ACC in much the same manner as they did with the Big East.
Assuming Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech join the B1G as members 15 thru 18, that’ll leave the ACC a ten-team conference (Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, North Carolina State, Clemson, Florida State, Miami-FL). If Connecticut or Cincinnati are available, that number could go back up to twelve and the ACC could keep its conference championship game. Or they could go the route of the current Big XII and stay at ten teams.
But is that likely to be the status quo? Probably not for very long. The SEC is starting their own network and as others have suggested, they’re probably looking at getting into North Carolina and Virginia. Let’s say they add two programs from those states–that puts the ACC back at ten again, but still viable enough for Notre Dame’s purposes. Unless the Big XII decides it wants to go on some sort of expansion binge to give it an eastern presence (perhaps for the same reasons as the Big Ten) or the SEC invites additional teams in states where they already have a presence, that’s where ND will stay in the near term.
I suspect they’ll “stick it out” until we see a contraction of Division 1-A into a 64- to 80-team entity organized into four or five super conferences with the first round of the playoffs organized around the super conference championship games.
It will be interesting to see what the Big Ten does if it goes to 18 members. Will the B1G do it in a two step process by perhaps inviting North Carolina or Virginia and Georgia Tech first? If yes, then will they approach ND again to see if the Irish want to be one of the next pair of teams to coming in as #17 and #18? Or will the B1G forego all that and just invite four more members in one step?
Whatever happens, it’s become clear that the B1G is looking to make a strong presence in the mid-Atlantic and the northeast. These are the some of the same urban areas where Notre Dame–due to social, religious and ethnic ties–has a very strong identity. If the B1G has a major presence from NYC to Atlanta with an 18-team expansion, does that make the conference more or less desirable to the Irish?
LikeLike
Cotton Bowl gets the first championship game.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls12/story/_/id/8821288/att-cotton-bowl-host-first-playoff-title-game-sources-said
LikeLike
So the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will be played on New Year’s Eve when New Year’s Day falls on a Sunday. The Rose Bowl’s never been played in December.
LikeLike
By my count the Rose Bowl has been on 1/2 13 times, 1/3 and 1/4 once each, and 84 times on 1/1.
LikeLike
I thought that was interesting. Why not Monday like usual? Do they need more than 1 week before the championship so people can get better air fares?
LikeLike
Makes me wonder if both bowls will host semi-finals those years. If not, it feels it would make more sense to move them to January 2nd.
LikeLike
They said they’d play the semis on 12/30 those years.
LikeLike
frug,
It makes no sense unless they are hosting semifinals. Just move 3 non-semifinal games to 1/2 like always.
LikeLike
Rice not completely forgotten. Tulsa, UMass considered. Rice & USM also discussed. http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/41350/next-big-east-expansion-targets
What I find interesting is that the BE always seems to add in pairs. But they had 11 when they added ECU and Tulane. They have 12, probably soon 11 (SDSU leaving), but they are still talking in pairs. That would still leave them with an odd number, 13. I guess they are just trying to get to 12 ASAP for the ccg and will deal with 14 when Navy finally joins.
LikeLike
Whenever I see Rice mentioned in an expansion article I search the comments for all of the negative things people say. There is rarely anything positive. lol
LikeLike
If it makes you feel any better, as one who now lives in the west I could see Rice as a Texas version of Stanford if things eventually drove the PAC to 16 and the usual suspects were unwilling or unable to be involved. Smaller, private, and academic an elite opening a Texas window for the PAC?
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – FWIW, every time that I see Rice associated with anything in conference realignment, I always think of you. Usually, it’s in the realm of, “Aw, man, Rice just got screwed again!” So, it’s nice to see something semi-positive about your school.
LikeLike
Anybody want to guess where this game will rank all time in BCS MNC games for TV ratings?
If football TV money is driving the bus you want rising numbers not falling ones. If Notre Dame’s highest draw was ~13 for the Fiesta Bowl vs Ohio State in 2006 and Alabama drew ~17 for the game against Texas in 2010 both are still below Texas vs Southern Cal in 2006 that pulled almost a 22. Does anybody think they will pull 22 tonight?
LikeLike
Duff, I think ND/Bama could beat the 2006 game. Which makes the “then we’ll just tell ND to go F themselves” argument even more hilarious.
LikeLike
It won’t beat USC-UT. Those teams were wire to wire #1 and #2 and was hyped was hyped for weeks before the matchup as “the greatest game” ever.
Plus, the USC-UT game was on ABC, tonight’s game is on ESPN.
LikeLike
Forgot about the ESPN/ABC difference. That alone makes it impossible.
LikeLike
Numbers on ABC versus ESPN are proverbial apples-to-oranges comparisons. The general rule of thumb is that if ESPN gets within 15-20% of an over-the-air ratings, that’s pretty close to equal on the basis of viewer penetration.
So, I don’t think the ND-Alabama game will beat USC-Texas on an absolute basis, but in terms of having to discount for the fact that this year’s game is on cable, it’s going to be a massive rating tonight. It will clearly beat the other national title games that have been on ESPN and likely any non-NFL program in the history of cable overall. I know that my perception might be colored a bit by being in Chicago (where there’s tons of Irish hype, especially considering that this isn’t a prototypical college sports town) but my observation of ESPN over the past 2 weeks is that they’ve spent more time breaking down this matchup than any other title game in the BCS era (and I distinctly remember the USC-Texas ramp-up since that’s when ESPN spent several evenings comparing that USC squad to the best college teams in history… so of course they eventually lost).
LikeLike
May be some ESPN hype, but there just doesn’t seem to be much down south where they think Alabama has already won the national title game. Not much hype on Big 12 boards. Chicago IS ND’s home territory. I heard more LSU/Bama talk (but again I’m in SEC country). There are a lot of ND subway fans out there, so it will be good ratings, but I just don’t sense much interest outside those teams’ fans.
LikeLike
I agree with bullet.
This will be the most watched game since because of the names in it, but I think a lot of the hype over the names is tempered by the fact that Alabama is a 10 point favorite.
Most people expect a lopsided game. If ND makes it a game in the 4th quarter and wins it, the ratings in that 4th quarter will be through the roof.
LikeLike
“It will clearly beat the other national title games that have been on ESPN and likely any non-NFL program in the history of cable overall.”
National championship games already have the all-time record. Both NCGs on ESPN beat every MNF game ever played on ESPN.
Also keep in mind I have a personal boycott of BCS games on cable that will continue with the new contract (which I think is just plain unwise given the future that might be looming, but ESPN sort of railroaded them into going with them by picking up the contract bowls first).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
I think you’re getting a Chicago spin. There hasn’t been any buzz down here. An AL blowout win has been assumed for weeks.
LikeLike
I don’t see much buzz. A lot of people (not me-I think it will be close) believe Alabama will destroy ND. It will be a whole lot better than last year, but I doubt it approaches USC/UT.
LikeLike
duffman,
Even before the game, I didn’t think it would do well. Two huge brands, but nobody expects a good game. Most of the country was assuming an easy AL win. That always hurts the numbers. Plus, neither team was great this year. Add in the blowout and I’d guess it doesn’t do great.
LikeLike
Oh no, unless you love slideshows.
http://www.cnn.com/cnn-sports-is-changing/
Starting in February, CNN Sports will be provided by Bleacher Report.
Bleacher Report is on a mission to revolutionize the way fans learn, think, and talk about their favorite teams. Bleacher Report brings an entertaining experience to every sports consumer where a vibrant community of knowledgeable peers provides insights to everyone who has a passion for sports.
Fans looking for Sports Illustrated.com should bookmark the site to continue to get their favorites.
LikeLike
So instead of using sports illustrated, they will use writers who know less than 99% of the posters on this board.
And I hate slideshows. I guess its good for advertisers to force people to spend 5 minutes on a 30 second article.
LikeLike
@bullet – Slideshows are the bane of my existence. I just roll my eyes when you have to click through 20 pages for information that would fit into a single paragraph. It’s even worse when those posts come up in Google News search results. There are actually some good writers over at Bleacher Report (e.g. Adam Jacobi), but they get lost with the 99% of fan-based drivel.
LikeLike
Bleacher Report’s slideshows are Dante’s tenth ring of hell. You just have to laugh at their manipulative power.
LikeLike
Turner should have read this before buying: http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-03/news/bleacher-report-sports-journalism-internet-espn-news-technology/
That said, I think B/R had a good idea on paper that wound up falling under Sturgeon’s Law in reality, and they ended up chucking it out in favor of the Fanhouse route, which isn’t being successful in changing their reputation. I had my blog posts reposted on B/R for a while until they shut down that functionality, even writing a slideshow once. A number of times my headlines would be rewritten – in at least one case into something that would mislead readers as to my point – and I think B/R also has/had a thing with inserting as many paragraphs as possible. Slideshows get a bad rap, but there’s a reason they’re popular, even on other sites, although I admit navigation can be annoying sometimes when it’s hard to get to the page of the slideshow you actually want, which may be the point.
LikeLike
Amen Frank. I hate those things.
LikeLike
Here is how I envision the access/playoff bowls ( setting aside the years where NYD falls on a Sunday)
CYCLE 1: NYE: 1:00 PEACH 5:00 COTTON 8:30 FIESTA
NYD: 1:00 ORANGE 5:00 ROSE 8:30 SUGAR (ROSE AND SUGAR SEMIS)
CYCLE 2: NYE: 1:00 PEACH 5:00 FIESTA 8:30 ORANGE (FIESTA AND ORANGE SEMIS)
NYD: 1:00 COTTON 5:00 ROSE 8:30 SUGAR
CYCLE 3 NYE: 1:00 PEACH 5:00 COTTON 8:30 FIESTA (PEACH AND COTTON SEMIS)
NYD: 1:00 ORANGE 5:00 ROSE 8:30 SUGAR
Do you agree with my guesses on how the schedule shakes out??
LikeLike
You raise a problem. They want the semis to be in the 5 and 8 slots, but the Fiesta at 1 is 11 local and that’s really too early. Still think they do it. So cycle 3 would be 1 Fiesta, 5 Peach, 8 Cotton.
LikeLike
Obviously nothing is official, but I think an earlier rumor said the Orange Bowl would be prime-time on New Years Eve except when two other semi-finals were then. That means it would be on New Years Day 4 of the 12 years instead of 8.
My adjustments to cycle 1 (rest stay same):
CYCLE 1: NYE: 1:00 PEACH 5:00 Fiesta 8:30 Orange
NYD: 1:00 Cotton 5:00 ROSE 8:30 SUGAR (ROSE AND SUGAR SEMIS)
LikeLike
ND 21
Alabama 17
I REALLY want the SEC to lose.
LikeLike
Alabama ready to play. Notre Dame too hyped up. Kelly looks nervous.
LikeLike
Helps that virtually everyone playing for Alabama’s been in several games this big over their careers (SEC CCGs and NCGs along with those Alabama/LSU tilts that have gotten huge ratings the past two years).
LikeLike
I was slightly leaning to Alabama, but after hearing Musberger & Herbstreit on that obvious interference (6 inches from the receiver), suddenly, I’m hoping Alabama stomps them. Why do they always have Musberger? Does anyone like him?
LikeLike
Is a penalty even reviewable? But it was obvious.
LikeLike
Musberger’s voice has the Keith Jackson football sound but kieth didn’t pretend to be the absolute authority, or make every utterance sound like the most important thing possible just happened, or was completely infatuated with emphasizing names. I think he’d be tolerable if he took advantage of Colorado or Washington’s new laws 🙂
LikeLike
For someone like myself who despised Musberger back when he had a completely different job (CBS/NFL host) and was ecstatic when he went away, his resurrection as Keith Jackson’s successor has been especially cruel.
LikeLike
Me too. Especially since I like CF better than the NFL.
LikeLike
@Phil – I actually have fond memories of Brent Musburger back when he was on NFL Today, although that might have just been because I associate that show with the dominant Ditka years for the Bears of my youth. As a game announcer, though, he’s definitely long in the tooth. His ogling of AJ McCarron’s girlfriend was quite creepy, particularly within the context of a national championship game telecast (even if the entire male viewing audience was thinking the same thing).
LikeLike
in fairness, for a game THAT bad, you basically have to go hunt for filler.
LikeLike
This is getting ugly quick. I’m very close to switching over to the Bulls game.
LikeLike
Saban prep 10
Kelly prep 3
Alabama exploiting all the weaknesses. I didn’t think Alabama would pass so much or be able to run as well (but the passes help open things up). Beautiful play calling. I was expecting something like 17-13 Alabama. Already 21.
LikeLike
I hit the league pass for OKC at Wizards.
How crazy is it that the Wizards are 5-28 but two of those wins are over Miami and OKC.
LikeLike
Uh, looking forward to next year:
Early game of the year candidate:
Alabama at Texas A&M (hype for this one could be a monster).
LikeLike
Notre Dame looks like a Big Ten team tonight.
LikeLike
Guess Ohio St. is #2. Question is whether UGA or A&M is #3. Think Oregon slips to #6 behind ND unless ND shows a lot better in the 2nd half. Then maybe Oregon stays ahead of UGA and A&M (people will remember Alabama dominates ND, ND beats Stanford, Stanford beats Oregon).
LikeLike
If Pitt hadn’t missed that FG, we would have had Alabama Florida which probably would have been as ugly, despite Oregon being ahead of FL in the human polls. No chance for Oregon-Alabama.
LikeLike
ND is a FRAUD. Lost to Pitt, until the refs intervened with a phony PI call on 4th down. Should have lost at home to Stanford. Could have lost at home to Purdue. Struggled with a horrible USC team playing w/0 Barkley. Struggled at home v. BYU.
Tao’s status is a joke. Absurd that he won the Maxwell and finished 2nd in the Heisman. Lacey from Bama is 3x the player he is. ND deserves this ass-kicking,
LikeLike
Perhaps this shows that “a win is win” is a faulty premis. Weak, questionable, outright mistake influenced results should be factored in any selection process (but not in a true bracket, winners advance system).
Refs enabled Stanford’s ND loss, Pitt game, really? tOSU perhaps, but barely beating Cal? UO lost (missed FG) to Stanford in OT. Perhaps those who beat UGA and aTm should be considered? We’re going to have a one loss champ, and several to be drawn out of a hat behind them.
How long ’til spring practice?
LikeLike
What this shows, once again, as usual, is that college football has the shittiest joke of an ending to its season of any sport. It doesn’t crown a legitimate champion, and in fact does everything it can to prevent legitimacy. Going to 4 isn’t going to make that much of a difference either.
Virtually every year it is like watching a genius who could be a leader in any endeavor instead choose to shoot up heroin and skip final exams, flunking out. What a pathetic waste.
LikeLike
Dunno why you don’t just rename your handle “128-team Playoffs Now”.
LikeLike
I like the present system just fine.
The problem with playoffs is that they render the regular season meaningless. A team like Alabama would play it’s entire regular season with the certainty that they’d be in the playoffs. The big-time programs would view the regular season as a tune-up.
No thanks. I didn’t want any play-off. Now that it’s here, I hope they hold the line at 4. If a given team is not without doubt one of the four most deserving teams to play for a championship, they have no legitimate gripe.
LikeLike
Big Ten teams were at least competitive in their bowl games.
LikeLike
This was the biggest official loss in BCS title game history (USC/OU was vacated). Biggest prior was Florida 41, Ohio St. 14.
LikeLike
Woo hoo? We’re #2. We’re #2.
LikeLike
Thinking more about ND to the B10…
ND wants independence more than anything, even if they leave cable dollars on the table.
B10 is focusing on maximizing cable dollars and academics (esp. research). Notre Dame fits the cable dollars, but not the academics.
In a post expansion world, with 4 large conferences in a separate super FBS, why can’t the Big 10 take the ND-ACC deal. I am assuming Duke, NC, GT, and VA go B1G, VT and NCST go SEC, and the Big 12/Big East/ACC figure something out.
Notre Dame could have home and home with 5-6 Big Ten football teams per year. The B1G could make the schedules work to allow for games in November. ND mens and women’s bball could easily stay independent, with the Big Ten again offering home and home with a good chunk of the conference. Maybe the BTN even pays (at a discount) for some of the bball inventory that would stay with ND.
Big Ten would get what they want: prime TV inventory. Notre Dame would keep what they have: football independence and a good basketball schedule.
The only issue would be the remaining Olympic sports, but I can’t imagine something couldn’t be worked out for womens volleyball, etc.
The new playoff system then goes NFL style: 4 conference champions, and two at larges. Notre Dame would have an opportunity to play for an at large, and would still have as good a shot as anyone of getting into the playoffs.
Who would object this type of arrangement?
LikeLike
That’s very Big Eastish.
All in or all out. It’s their decision.
LikeLike
Im saying they are not at all a part of the B1G. Just a non-conference opponent in FB and BB.
LikeLike
A post expansion 4 super conference world wouldn’t, by definition, require membership? If not, then expansion is still available. Either that or you’ve conferred super conference status to ND.
LikeLike
The Notre Dame basketball coaches. Hoop independence is something for the woebegones of college athletics, the Longwoods or NJITs.
LikeLike
Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn Sate would object. When the time comes, Notre Dame will join the Big 12. I think the Big 12 will make a nice deal with them to play the least amount of conference games. If they add say Pitt and ND, the Big 12 can split into two divisions and have ND play only division games and or maybe 1 or 2 more. ND will be able to keep its percieved nation schedule. The B1G on the other hand, will in all likelyhood be increasing the amount of conference games after expansion. If the B1G goes to 9 games and ND was a member, their schedule would be set every year with the 9 conference games and USC, Navy, and Stanford. I don’t see that being too appealing, especially with the Big 12 ready due to necessity to bend over backwards for them.
I think the B1G will go 16 teams and stop for a while. 16 is perfect for 4 pods and a 9 game schedule. With 4 pods of 4 teams, each team would play its 3 division mates, a rival from each other pod (3 games) and rotate the other 3 members of the other pods 2 times every 6 years as you match pods into divisions each year. 18 teams would have to be set up into two divisions in all probability meaning 8 divisional games and only 1 crossover. I can’t imagine the schools would like that. A further expansion to 20 with pods could be made later but I can’t see that happening without another king, or 2, coming. I just don’t see ND or Texas being an equal member of anything, especially when their are many schools willing to take the scraps off their tables.
LikeLike
ND already has super conference status in the current system. They won’t get left out. The trick would be how to split up the playoff money. If it was an NFL type system, and money was allocated based on participants, that would be a risky proposition for ND (and surely the other conferences would agree if they weren’t guaranteed anything). But ND is not driven by TV money…
Basketball independence would be tough but not impossible. The Catholic 7 could also be a possibility for Olympic sports if nobody else will take them.
I dont see the Big 12. The whole point is that they don’t want to join a conference, and it goes beyond a separate TV deal. Notre Dame wants a national schedule, and alumni donations trumps cable dollars. They just need November football scheduling.
Its a win-win. B10 gets a huge cable boost, Notre Dame gets independence. And maybe the price for entry into the playoffs is to split Notre Dame scheduling among the Pac 10, B10, and SEC (a huge bonus to each conference with a TV network).
LikeLike
ND would probably regard the C-7 as too weak outside of BB for their non-FB sports.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they? Notre Dame needs the other schools far more than they need Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Who would object this type of arrangement?
Everyone who isn’t ND. The whole point of a breakaway would be to cement the consolidation of power.
Anyways, the Big 10 won’t cut ND any deals for what amounts to the broadcast rights to 2.5 ND games per year.
LikeLike
Jimmy holds grudges!
LikeLike
JB,
“Who would object this type of arrangement?”
The B10 and millions of B10 fans.
LikeLike
Towards the end, this isn’t so much an equitible assessment of the issues as a way of arguing why SDSU should stay with the Big East/Big West split, but at the least it should show why moving back to the Mountain West isn’t as much of a slam dunk as you might think: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/05/sdsu-breaking-down-mountain-west-vs-big-east/
LikeLike
I think SDSU should strongly consider football independence if BYU sticks with independence. The Big West saves money on their non-revenue sports. They can easily do an annual series with BYU. Boise would want to play SDSU frequently as well for CA recruiting (their lifeblood). Hawaii probably would do a long series with their conference mate as there are less schools willing/able to fly out to Hawaii at the end of the year. Idaho and NMSU would be eager to do 2-for-1’s. A local TV contract may get the Aztecs as much TV money as being in the BE or MWC would (Hawaii was getting $5M from PPV).
LikeLike
Good luck putting together a schedule as an indy.
LikeLike
I just did.
So did BYU.
Obviously I think it’s more plausible if BYU stays independent as well so that you have a big game or 2 late in the season.
LikeLike
And look at what happened to BYU. This year they had 1 home game in the entire second half off the season and they have far more leverage than SDSU when it comes to scheduling.
When Idaho was looking at independence they said it wasn’t a viable option for more then 2 years. Does SDSU have more pull than Idaho? Probably, but not that much more.
LikeLike
Did you read what I write?
Independence for SDSU is somewhat predicated on independence for BYU.
I wouldn’t say that BYU has “far more” leverage than SDSU, either. More, yes, but the gap between Idaho and SDSU is far greater than the gap between BYU and SDSU. SDSU is a school that Boise would do HaH’s with.
LikeLike
Even if BYU stays indy that is one game a year. They need 12 including, at least 5 of which have to be home games and 4 of those games have to be against FBS teams.
LikeLike
You make it sound like that’s difficult.
Remember that they are in SD and SoCal has both recruits and weather.
Their first 5 weeks can be filled as easily as they are now.
Idaho and NMSU will do 2-for-1’s.
8. One of Army or Navy can be persuaded to visit easily.
9. Any northern FCS school would love to visit SD in November (Montana or one of the Dakota schools).
10. BYU.
That leaves 2 games. A couple of northern (MAC?) schools would have to be persuaded to visit SD in November. Or Hawaii.
That leaves 2 games. If the MWC doesn’t have a title game, Hawaii would want to fill championship week (and visit in October).
So a couple of northern (MAC) schools would have to be persuaded to visit SD in November.
LikeLike
Except if NMSU and Idaho give SDSU 2-1’s they make it even more difficult for themselves to continue as independents. Plus, within two years those 2 will have to either join a conference or drop down to FCS.
Anyways, if scheduling as an independent was as simple as you suggest ND wouldn’t have had to join the ACC (yes their standards are higher but so is their leverage)
LikeLike
I’ll say that if you are taking about a short term deal (1 or 2 years) then, yeah, SDSU could make it work, but anything longer isn’t realistic.
LikeLike
You don’t actually have a full October/November there, even with Idaho and NSMU, who are no certainties to last as independents long enough to complete a 2-for-1.
LikeLike
Eh?
I had 2 spots left where I penciled in MAC teams (though they could be BE/CUSA/MWC as well).
LikeLike
What’s in it for the MAC team? MAC teams are not just going to come for nothing but the California sunshine ~ they get $1m or so when they play a for the record scrimmage+ with a Big Ten / SEC school. And of course they have to have the spot in their schedule to fill, in the middle of their conference season when they would often be better off taking the bye if they have a bye week ~ as we saw with Ohio this season, even when their first string can cause trouble for more fancied teams, the depth chart in the MAC should more often be called the shallow chart.
LikeLike
Bruce:
I think you’re out of your mind if you think that MAC teams wouldn’t want to do a HaH with SDSU. It’s probably all moot if SDSU joins the MWC, but SDSU could have offered the 2 top MAC schools (NIU & Toledo?) the same type of deal that ND has with USC & Stanford: You visit us in late November, we’ll visit you in October. The MAC has no trouble scheduling conference games around OOC games (not just B10 teams during the 11-team conference days, but also for Army & Navy).
LikeLike
Navy would be good for a home and home regularly (assuming Navy stays independent) given the Naval presence in San Diego.
LikeLike
Navy may not stay independent.
Army has a bunch of supporters in SD as well.
LikeLike
@Richard: can I have some of what you’ve been drinking? When you sober up, you’ll realize that SDSU can’t be independent.
LikeLike
Why not? They have a home for their other sports in the Big West already.
LikeLike
@Richard –
They can easily do an annual series with BYU
Don’t SDSU and BYU hate each other? Not rivals hate, but neither school cares for the company of each other.
LikeLike
Not that I’ve heard. Where is that info from?
BYU would love to visit Cali more as well (especially late in the season).
LikeLike
Here’s the thing I don’t get about ND: they say that they value independence but insist on playing the likes of Pitt, Navy, Purdue, MSU and USC. Nothing against those institutions but shouldn’t they be mixing it up a bit? I’m sure that there’d be plenty of teams who would like to play them.
IMO, they should be scheduling some SEC teams in the regular season, even if they have to travel South. Playing LSU, South Carolina, Georgia or Texas A&M should be good preparation for when they have to play Alabama in the playoffs.
This lack of preparation has showed now in the result tonight. I would say the same for the Big Ten schools. It’s long past time get out of their respective comfort zones. Not easy to say because pride would be against having to admit that they need to compete against SEC teams more directly. Michigan at least tried to get out of their comfort zone, although it didn’t end too well for them. Too bad the scheduling alliance with the PAC schools fell apart, as it would have addressed this issue in some way.
LikeLike
For ND, “independence” is a fiction that their alumni want to believe in.
As for the B10, what are you talking about? OSU almost always schedules one big game a year (like the SEC schools; did you miss OSU-Texas and OSU-USC and OSU-Miami?) and the rest of the B10 play the Pac as well.
LikeLike
Independence doesn’t mean there aren’t schools they want to play a lot. It just means they aren’t confined to a conference. They aren’t competing for conference championships, aren’t playing more than half their games against one set of conference teams.
Odd thing about independence is it felt like I got a taste of it this year. Given, for the first time in 100 years, Ohio State was ineligible for the Big Ten title, it felt like we were independent this year. Every game had meaning, but only in it’s own right and on the course to a good season, not for any standings (I couldn’t care less about a divisional title). Oddly it made me care a lot less about how the rest of the conference fared both in and out of conference. I still payed attention, but it didn’t seem nearly as relevant (and that includes how I felt in down Ohio State years).
LikeLike
It’s more like selling the illusion of being part of a cadre than really being independent. The bad part is that a couple of B1G schools are still fallen by the illusion. I think for the likes of Navy and Purdue, they feel the “need” to keep those games because they get to be on national TV for those games. MSU could play a more robust schedule and still compete but hangs on to their ND game for whatever reason.
LikeLike
You’re seriously mistaken. I mean, if Notre Dame is an “illusion,” why have USC and Stanford scheduled them all of these years? How do you explain that?
The fact is, teams and athletic directors like to play Notre Dame. Every Notre Dame game is televised on a national network, and when they come to your stadium the game is a guaranteed sell-out.
MSU’s position is somewhat akin to Navy’s and Purdue’s: there aren’t a lot of prominent opponents that would agree to play them home & home on a consistent basis. Of course, the game has practical value, too, as it’s drivable distance for both the team and the fans.
LikeLike
Because it’s a traditional rivalry. I understand breaks in it, but I hope Michigan State and Purdue keep the series going.
LikeLike
@ Transic:
It’s simple. It’s called tradition. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But a lot of people do.
@Marc
MSU has no problem getting big home and homes. We’ve got Baba, Oregon and I believe West Virginia on deck.
LikeLike
>”MSU could play a more robust schedule and still compete but hangs on to their ND game for whatever reason.”
@transic – That ‘whatever reason’ is comraderie born out of a mutual dislike of the Wolverines. Sparty helped ND out when TSUN tried to black-list them which created a bond between the two programs.
LikeLike
I hope for your sake they’re ineligible every year.
LikeLike
I just checked on a couple of sites. Notre Dame had a top-10 strength of schedule this year, depending on which measurement you use. It’s a myth that they play a cupcake schedule.
Notre Dame just wasn’t that good. They had a number of very close games in which all the late breaks went their way. Their talent is probably good for a 9-3 record. Looking at it that way, the game turned out exactly the way it should have.
LikeLike
Alan has said that LSU has tried to get a series with ND in the past. It would be good for their post-season preparations (and great for the ratings) if they agreed to it. They could still make a 4 game playoff with a loss.
LikeLike
m (Ag) – between 1970 and 1998, LSU and Notre Dame met 8 times in the regular season. All but one game took place in October or November. Louisiana certainly has the highest non-Hispanic Catholic population in the South. LSU’s assistant AD for scheduling has expressed a willingness to schedule the Irish again, but from what we have been told, the Irish aren’t interested.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure it would be Texas. 7 million Catholics in the state.
LikeLike
He said non-Hispanic Catholic. Texas’ Catholic population is overwhelming Hispanic.
LikeLike
They aren’t going to drop Navy ~ scheduling that game is about more than strength of schedule.
Those other rivalries, they are a part of how ND has stayed independent.
LikeLike
Frank, I think you are right on with your analysis. I wonder what the realignment landscape would look like right now had the Big East taken the ESPN deal. I think one of the myths of the current realignment push is that TV networks NEED live football content and that this will continue to drive the prices for said content sky high. Instead, I think networks would LIKE live football, but they don’t NEED live football. For years, I would have replay games on Fox Sports West or Prime ticket on in the background while I studied or made dinner. The Pac 12, BYU TV, etc. may have bought up a bunch of those games (and this is why replay rights are so important to BYU), but I bet a sports network could buy a few games and just replay them a bunch of times for a fraction of what it would cost to give a league a giant contract. SDSU is going to kick the Big East projections around for awhile, and I’m actually less sure of where they will end up now than I was a week ago.
bigsportsblog.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Just a thought:
The rumor that GTech and UVa are #15 and #16 don’t make much sense unless
1. UNC and Duke are joining as well
Or
2. If the SEC gets UNC (and also takes NCSU), the B10 is willing to take FSU (and Duke).
LikeLike
Final 2012 AP poll results.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1/week/1/seasontype/3
#1 Bama
#2 Oregon
#3 Ohio State
#4 Notre Dame
#5 (tie) A&M and UGA
Vandy comes in at #23.
LikeLike
A glass ceiling for OSU and massive overreaction to 1 game in a 13+ game season as expected.
LikeLike
Massive overreaction? I think that was Notre Dame in their wins against Michigan, Stanford, and Pitt.
LikeLike
ND was just SO lucky this year…..that needs to be taken into consideration.
As an example (and I could be wrong here), did the Stanford QB who played so well against Wisconsin even play in the ND game? I know that the starting QB that game was very ineffective.
The Pitt phantom PI call, the Pitt missed FG, the close wins v. Purdue and BYU, Denard R. playing like s*** against them, missing Barkley when they played USC, and what now looks like a very overated win againnst a soft OU team.
Through luck and determination and the refs, ND earned the right to play Bama. They had their chance. No reason to overrate them now that they failed.
LikeLike
What massive overreaction? I’d say Ohio State is where they belong, and Notre Dame ought to be about 8th.
LikeLike
The “5” moves were overreactions-A&M up 5, KSU/LSU/FL down 5.
The interesting thing is USU 16, Boise 18, SJSU 21 and NIU 22. Normally, pollsters would not rate a non-AQ with 2 losses. IMO they are all over-rated and Boise and NIU have no business in the top 25. USU and SJSU maybe near the bottom.
LikeLike
ND should be 8-10. Stanford is fine where they are. Their loss to UDub is a bad one.
LikeLike
ND should not have been higher than 6th.
LikeLike
I’d put them 5th. They had a bad matchup and lost badly, but it was one game. The had some good games too. IMHO:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St.
3. Oregon (maybe best team, but Alabama and OSU got it done when they needed to, OR didnt’)
4. UGA
5. Notre Dame
6. Stanford
7. A&M
8. Florida
9. KSU
10. LSU
11. South Carolina
12. FSU
13. Clemson
14. OU
15. Louisville
5 through 14 were pretty close. FSU beat Clemson who beat LSU who beat South Carolina who beat Clemson and also Georgia who beat Florida who beat FSU. Louisville had one very good game vs. Florida. 16 through 30 are pretty much a toss-up.
LikeLike
Bamatab,
Congrats on the win. I expect the TAMU vs Bama game next season will be the most hyped game of next fall.
Alan,
With all the focus on Alabama and TAMU looks like the perfect storm for the Tigers to sneak in and take it all.
LikeLike
Doesn’t Bama play at Michigan next year? If so, that will be interesting….
LikeLike
No, that game was a one time, neutral site game. Bama plays VT to start the season next year in the Georgia Dome. Then we get an off week, with aTm up next.
LikeLike
I have the feeling you guys are going to have the chance to beat up on OSU next year………
LikeLike
It will be fun having the Tide in College Station. It should be as good a game as this year.
LikeLike
Alabama? Leave Dixie? Impossible!
LikeLike
They played in State College, PA in 2011. Don’t confuse Alabama with Florida, who hasn’t played a non-conference game outside the state since at least the Bush 41 administration.
LikeLike
And they MSU on the schedule in a couple of years.
Alabama isn’t afraid to go outside the region.
LikeLike
Thanks Duffman. I was fairly confident that as long as Bama didn’t come out there and shoot itself in the foot, they would beat ND pretty handily. Over the holidays I watched the Michgan, Stanford, Pitt, & BYU games (plus I watched the USC game live), and knew that we were a pretty bad matchup for them. Right after the SECCG I figured we would be around a 10 point favorite, and after watching the ND games I figured we’d win by around 17 pts (again, as long as we didn’t beat ourselves).
As far as the TAMU game next year goes, that game will be hyped like you said. I’m sure Saban has already started scheming and trying to figure out a way to slow that offense (and Johnny Football) down. If anyone can come up with a way to do it, Saban can. He’ll have all off-season to scheme, and it’ll be interesting to see if he can do it.
I’m interested to hear what Alan thinks of LSU’s chances next year. They are losing a lot of players. Personally, I think if Miles can win 10 or 11 games next year, it would be one of Miles’ best coaching jobs.
For me, I think this was one of Saban’s best coaching jobs. We lost a lot of players to the draft. But it was a great season for Bama. It looks like Saban will stick around for a while, and if he can keep that standard up, there is no telling what he can accomplish there. I was really too young to remember the Bryant years. But I’m just glad I am able to live through this present run. It has been fun. Hopefully Bama can keep it up and stay around the top for a few more years.
LikeLike
I can tell you about LSU’s chances. They still have Les. Enough said.
LikeLike
Les Miles just completed his 8th year at LSU, in which he has a record of 85 wins and 21 losses, 1 BCS NC, 2 BCS NCG appearances, 2 SEC championships, 3 SEC CCG appearances, a 13 win season, a 12 win season, three 11 win seasons, and a ten win season, and has more wins against Urban Meyer and Nick Saban than any other coach in America.
Yes, that last offensive series against Clemson was a head scratcher, but I’ll bet the Hoosiers would love to have a coach lose the Peach Bowl on the last play.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought LSU won inspite of him. I hope you keep him.
LikeLike
‘shroom – we finally agree. I hope LSU keeps him too.
LikeLike
Nothing against Hoke, but I hope Michigan gets Les. B10 games would definitely be more interesting.
Precc conferences and halftime interviews haven’t been as interesting since John L. left.
LikeLike
Notre Dame may have faced the same situation as Ohio St. 5 years ago. Bad matchups. Ohio St. was big enough to stay with the B1G but faster, but not as fast as Florida/LSU and not big enough (like Wisconsin was back then) to make a difference. They were SEC-lite. ND is the latest SEC-lite. Much like Alabama, but not quite as good. A team like Oregon that is different would have fared better.
LikeLike
That OSU team was a lot better than this ND team. A lot better.
That OSU team was put in a difficult position due to Meyer’s spread offense. In contrast, Bama played just the style of ball ND should have wanted. Smash-mouth.
It looked to me that Kelly panicked. His game plan of throwing long passes downfield, targeting Bama’s best DB, might have been better. Perhaps ND’s players lost their confidence as a result. Or maybe they just really,sucked.
LikeLike
When they walked on the field, I was saying they were too high. Told my spouse that if they got behind 2 scores quickly it was all over. Saban did a much better job psychologically preparing Alabama (I posted something similar after it was 7-0).
LikeLike
Looked like Kelly thought he only had a “punchers chance” of winning….by throwing the ball downfield a lot. Surprising…….not exactly Rockne-like.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Notre Dame may have faced the same situation as Ohio St. 5 years ago. Bad matchups. Ohio St. was big enough to stay with the B1G but faster, but not as fast as Florida/LSU and not big enough (like Wisconsin was back then) to make a difference.”
There was a lot more to it than that. The biggest problem was a terrible OL coach that turned 5* recruits into 2* players. We also had a raging alcoholic starting at LT.
For UF, OSU came in cocky and having enjoyed the awards circuit way too much (i.e. fat and lazy). Ted Ginn got hurt on the opening kickoff, and the rout was on.
As for LSU, OSU wasn’t supposed to be in that game. Everyone else blew it late in November. Even then, OSU did OK except for some big play mistakes by young players (PF on the punter, etc). We had a statue of a QB that wilted under pressure all year, and LSU got to him.
LikeLike
“everyone else blew it” is the same script, with variations ~ ND arguably came to the NCG a year earlier then they were on track to do.
LikeLike
@Brian:
I will go to my grave believing that if Roy Hall doesn’t break Ginn’s foot celebrating that TD then the game is totally different. Maybe not a win, but certainly not the slaughter that occurred. Troy Smith’s In-n-Out Burger adventures notwithstanding, losing Ginn killed any notion of stretching the field and blew up the entire gameplan. Florida pulled their entire defense up because everyone else was a possession receiver that couldn’t create separation.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
The only problem with the Ginn theory is that Alex Boone was whiffing on blocks so often that Troy Smith never had time to throw deep.
LikeLike
“Ohio St. was big enough to stay with the B1G but faster, but not as fast as Florida/LSU”
—Whenver I hear someone parroting ESPN talking points regarding those games it’s an automatic red flag that either:
1) They didn’t watch the games in question.
2) They have never played/coached/don’t have a solid foundation for evaluation.
Team ‘speed’ had little to do with either of those loses. Across the board Ohio State players were actually faster at most positions when you collate the various objective times (although you can argue about nebulous ‘football’ speed). The biggest physical difference in the FL game was in the trenches were Ohio State’s lines got man-handled. In the LSU game it was poor play calling after a couple of breaks put the Tigers out in front.
‘Speed’ in general is one of the most misused terms by commentators/talking heads. A safety makes a bad read and is 20 yards in the wrong direction leaving a WR wide open. Speed! The blockers demolish their men leaving a RB untouched for the 1st 10 yards. Speed! Gunner on the punt team drifts too far inside leaving the outside lane completely free allowing the return man an open field. Speed!
‘Speed’ is a crutch supporting incompetent analysis.
LikeLike
Sometimes. Sometimes speed does matter. I don’t think it matters so much for OSU as I believe the Bucks have ESS-EEE-SEE speed, but as an example, I can’t recall a middle-of-the-defense player for PSU who’s fast since, well, ever.
LikeLike
bamatab – congrats.
LSU is losing 10 juniors to the NFL draft, which is a record for any school. These players fall into three categories: 1. 1st or 2nd rounders; 2. players that can’t improve their draft stock and have been passed up by underclassmen; and 3. players that just don’t like school. All will be drafted.
Since Matt Flynn finished his eligibility with the 2007 BCS NC, LSU has averaged 10 wins a year by starting Andrew Hatch, Jarrett Lee, Jordan Jefferson, and Zach Mettenburger at QB. That is a remarkable achievement. To win 10 games this season, with the loss of a Heisman finalist, an All-American OLT, two other OL starters, the starting RB, and a starting OLB was something, especially when you consider that the 3 losses were all to top 10 teams, by a combined 12 points.
From a talent standpoint, LSU should be fine again next year. LSU should bring in another top 5 recruiting class next month. The season will turn on Mettenburger and his continued development and Les’ trust of him.
LikeLike
duff – LSU has open dates before both the Alabama and the A&M games next year.
While Johnny Football is something special, it will be interesting to see how he performs without his two tackles next year.
LikeLike
He had all month vs. OU to pass, run, trim his nails, pull a Musberger and check out the girls in the stands….
LikeLike
Jake Matthews is staying. Cedric Ogbuehi will slide from guard to tackle and is already being projected as a first day draft pick. I think the A&M line is going to be very good next year and Johnny Manziel is just on another level. Sumlin gets a week off before LSU, too.
LikeLike
Last night’s game was a blowout in the first quarter and nearly matched Auburn’s nail biter over Auburn.
—
Alabama’s 42-14 rout over Notre Dame drew a 15.7 overnight rating Monday on ESPN. That’s up 14 percent from last year’s game, another blowout Crimson Tide victory, 21-0 over LSU. But it’s down from the 16.1 for ESPN’s first BCS championship two years ago, Auburn’s win over Oregon that was decided in the final seconds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/bcs-title-games-preliminary-tv-rating-up-but-not-up-big-after-alabama-rout-of-notre-dame/2013/01/08/4a63587e-59a2-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html
LikeLike
close games draw more fans.
LikeLike
Back on the divisions, the more I think about it, the less I think east-west with Michigan and Michigan State divided will happen. I get why it works better than other east-west ideas (much better with competitive balance), but I think a concession to the west will probably be that crossovers will be minimized in order to make up for fewer kings in their division. If you lock Michigan-Michigan State that means a lot fewer games of Michigan vs. other west teams so I think the west teams will support a different direction.
My guess is that Northwestern still pushes for the west and it ends up being Indiana in the east (with a locked crossover with Purdue).
LikeLike
Until now, most people have assumed that, either: A) Every team will have a locked crossover; or, B) No team will have a locked crossover.
That isn’t strictly necessary. They could unbalance the schedule, such that Indiana & Purdue play each other annually, but all the other cross-divisional games are free-floating. This would maintain those schools’ annual game, but allow the other western teams to see the Kings more often.
If Indiana goes east, it also ameliorates the competitive imbalance, to an extent. Minnesota and Indiana are the Big Ten’s two traditional weaklings, so it makes sense not to have both of them in the west. Of course, the poor Hoosiers would face a murderer’s row schedule very year, and would hardly ever make a bowl. But they hardly ever do that anyway.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t rank Minnesota as one of the weaklings. It was really bad for a few years under their last coach, but is usually more toward the middle of the pack and was back to bowl eligible this year. No one else in the conference compares to Indiana in being consistently bad.
LikeLike
Minnesota national rank in winning ptg:
Last 10 years: 77
Last 20 years: 86
Last 30 years: 91
Last 40 years: 88
LikeLike
Historically, Northwestern would clearly be the other team I’d classify as a weakling, worse than Indiana in fact. But they’d obviously improved their situation in recent years.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I wouldn’t rank Minnesota as one of the weaklings. It was really bad for a few years under their last coach, but is usually more toward the middle of the pack and was back to bowl eligible this year. No one else in the conference compares to Indiana in being consistently bad.”
While it’s true nobody is bad like IN, MN is a relative weakling.
All time W% – #42 overall, #7 in B10 (IL, NW, IN)
Since 1945 – #81 overall, #7 in B10 (IL, NW, IN)
Since 1993 – #86 overall, #8 in B10 (IL, IN)
All time B10 W% – #5/10
Since 1945 – #8
Since 1993 – #9
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I agree – it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. The Pac-12 only protects the California schools in annual crossover division games while everyone else just rotates. There’s no reason why the Big Ten couldn’t just protect Indiana-Purdue and let everyone else play each other more regularly (which is likely preferable for the western schools, anyway).
LikeLike
Agreed.
This is a crucial point; splitting up Michigan-Michigan State and creating that as a locked crossover results in considerably less play against Michigan for the other Western schools.
I’m sure everyone would much rather have it be Indiana-Purdue as the sole crossover if that’s the option selected.
I still think Northwestern gets put in the West for at least the appearance of boosting competitive balance a little and for giving Chicago visits to everyone in the West every other year. For most of those schools it’s the best away trip for their fans.
LikeLike
Zeek-
So to sum up, your best assessment is that the divisions will work out as follows:
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
East – Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
The only protected crossover game (regardless of the number of conference games, i.e. 8 or 9) will be Indiana-Purdue with those two programs on a 6-1-1 or 6-1-2 setup. The other schools will be on a 6-0-2 or 6-0-3 arrangement with no protected cross division games.
It certainly seems workable, but per Greenstein’s report, the conference has asked Northwestern to go in the Eastern Division. The article cites NW’s national presence and eastern alumni (which I understand IU also shares with the Wildcats). In terms of what the networks who will be paying for the rights to televise these games, does that make sense? Which football program is considered higher profile to the eastern parts of the country–Northwestern or Indiana?
If you accept the premise that the B1G will be at 14 teams for a short period of time and that further expansion to 16 or 18 teams is on the near horizon, could Northwestern be persuaded to play in the East Division for a handful of seasons for the perceived good of the conference with an agreement in place to move them to the west when the B1G expands? For example, if Virginia and Georgia Tech were to join the conference and a non-pod set up was used (i.e., two fixed 8-team divisions), Northwestern would move to the west when UVa and GaTech formally became part of the B1G.
One thing to keep in mind is that if the B1G were to go to 16 teams and use a pod system with four 4-team pods, the only fixed annual games Northwestern is likely to have is with the teams in its own pod–probably Illinois, Indiana and Purdue. Do you think NW would support a pod system or would they want to keep the two eight-team fixed divisions in order to play the western teams on a more consistent basis?
LikeLike
cutter,
Asking NW to move and forcing them to are two very different things. They may have just been gauging NW’s interests in the east and then chose to drop it once NW said no. We have no way to know until another leak or the actual divisions are announced.
LikeLike
Brian-
That’s a fair statement. Since the B1G prides itself on its membership working well together, I was suggesting that the conference members might offer Northwestern a compromise or put some agreement in place outlining how they would move forward with future division alignments with additional members.
To some degree, I imagine the conference has laid out scenarios and thought about what it would look like if it had 16 members or more. Here’s an excerpt from the Greenstein article about Northwestern (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0106-northwestern-football–20130106,0,244829.story);
“But the strong preference of NU officials is to stay west. Assuming a western division with Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin and either Indiana or Purdue, the Wildcats and their fans would have reasonable drives to everywhere but Minneapolis and Lincoln.”
“With the possibility that protected crossover rivalries will be spiked, Northwestern could maintain yearly rivalries with Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. And Nebraska visits mean guaranteed sellouts at Ryan Field.”
Those were some interesting value statements by Northwestern–reasonable drives for their fans, yearly rivalries with three specific teams and ensuring semi-annual visits from Nebraska in order to sell tickets. For lack of a better way to describe it, that suggests Northwestern’s leadership is being fan-centric and regional/rivalry-centric in its thinking and priorities.over perhaps putting the television networks or more wide ranging firsthand exposure first in its priorities.
It’ll be interesting to see if there are other schools who thing this way outside of Northwestern. We’ve all pretty much come to the conclusion that Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota is a bloc of schools that would want to stick together–does that suggest they’re thinking in line with Northwestern’s priorities? If you draw Illinois into that same bloc with NW, then instead of thinking that the four western most schools are together, perhaps we need to shift our thinking and consider that what we’re really looking at is a six-team bloc instead.
That begs the next question–what happens if the conference goes to 16 or 18 teams? We’ve all put forward various pod scenarios for the B1G when that happens to ensure teams across the entire conference get to play one another as much as possible. But what if that isn’t a priority for a number of B1G programs (such as Northwestern, perhaps)? Would they actually value being in permanent divisions more than a pod-like arrangement? Does having that stability and that “division identity for the fans” trump other considerations (such as having balanced divisions in terms of the standing of the various programs)?
Like you said, we’ll see what happens when they announce it formally or if something more leaks out. In the end, we may well see a 16- or 18-team B1G acting more like two entities with two conference offices under one umbrella organization because schools are more fan-centric and/or regional/rivalry centric in their priorities than not. Maximizing the number of games with teams from the other division or playing as often as possible through the expanse of the conference might well be secondary considerations in the larger scheme of things.
LikeLike
cutter,
“That’s a fair statement.”
I know it shocks you, but I am capable of those on occasion.
“Since the B1G prides itself on its membership working well together, I was suggesting that the conference members might offer Northwestern a compromise or put some agreement in place outlining how they would move forward with future division alignments with additional members.”
I’m sure that sort of talk happened. I’m sure it did with WI moving east last time. I’m sure it did when they discussed moving The Game, too. Sometimes you can offer an incentive that a school will accept and other times you can’t.
“To some degree, I imagine the conference has laid out scenarios and thought about what it would look like if it had 16 members or more.”
I’d like to think they have. I’d be very upset if the B10 office hasn’t done a lot of homework (I doubt the presidents have looked at it yet).
“Those were some interesting value statements by Northwestern–reasonable drives for their fans, yearly rivalries with three specific teams and ensuring semi-annual visits from Nebraska in order to sell tickets. For lack of a better way to describe it, that suggests Northwestern’s leadership is being fan-centric and regional/rivalry-centric in its thinking and priorities.over perhaps putting the television networks or more wide ranging firsthand exposure first in its priorities.
It’ll be interesting to see if there are other schools who thing this way outside of Northwestern.”
I think most schools do that. Consider OSU’s concerns about going east – teams the fans don’t care about, selling tickets and long travel. OSU is presumably being asked to make all those same sacrifices as NW for the good of the B10. This is one area where the ends versus the middle is better, since teams play their neighbors and thus maintain their rivalries.
“We’ve all pretty much come to the conclusion that Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota is a bloc of schools that would want to stick together–does that suggest they’re thinking in line with Northwestern’s priorities? If you draw Illinois into that same bloc with NW, then instead of thinking that the four western most schools are together, perhaps we need to shift our thinking and consider that what we’re really looking at is a six-team bloc instead.”
IL will be torn as they have more rivalries to the east than the west (IN, PU, OSU, MI).
“That begs the next question–what happens if the conference goes to 16 or 18 teams? We’ve all put forward various pod scenarios for the B1G when that happens to ensure teams across the entire conference get to play one another as much as possible. But what if that isn’t a priority for a number of B1G programs (such as Northwestern, perhaps)? Would they actually value being in permanent divisions more than a pod-like arrangement?”
I think that is highly dependent on who they do and don’t play frequently. Nobody but PSU really cares about playing RU or MD (playing in NYC or DC, yes, but not the actual opponents). Except for their rivals, few would miss IN or PU or MN or IL. Most teams would care about not playing OSU and MI and MSU and WI and …
“Does having that stability and that “division identity for the fans” trump other considerations (such as having balanced divisions in terms of the standing of the various programs)?”
It may for fans, but it shouldn’t for leaders. Fans rarely consider the consequences of their preferences. The B10 has to think about how programs will be impacted long term, how the CCG will be affected, etc.
“Like you said, we’ll see what happens when they announce it formally or if something more leaks out. In the end, we may well see a 16- or 18-team B1G acting more like two entities with two conference offices under one umbrella organization because schools are more fan-centric and/or regional/rivalry centric in their priorities than not.”
I’ve always been dubious of pods because the changing divisions will confuse fans. That may well be reason enough not to use them for the B10. That’s why expansion is so bad. Some B10 teams will get stuck playing a bunch of teams they don’t care about. Since the expansion all seems to be coming from the east, that means screwing over the eastern B10 schools while the western ones get to play essentially all their old rivals plus NE. I’d rather see OSU move to the SEC than get stuck playing RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT every year.
LikeLike
Brian:
Just for you (well, actually, no, but anyway), in my 6 pods of 3, I have OSU with IU and PU.
LikeLike
Richard,
While I appreciate that, it doesn’t change my concern about pods in general. I’m trying to picture the B10 explaining how 6 pods of 3 works to millions of fans in their 50s and above and struggling. I also think the tendency to keep the newbies together hurts their integration into the B10.
LikeLike
Brian-
cutter,
“That’s a fair statement.”
I know it shocks you, but I am capable of those on occasion.
Cutter: Well, I’m glad we’re both agreed that you only do make them “on occasion”.
“Since the B1G prides itself on its membership working well together, I was suggesting that the conference members might offer Northwestern a compromise or put some agreement in place outlining how they would move forward with future division alignments with additional members.”
I’m sure that sort of talk happened. I’m sure it did with WI moving east last time. I’m sure it did when they discussed moving The Game, too. Sometimes you can offer an incentive that a school will accept and other times you can’t.
Cutter: Oh, absolutely. I fully expect there will be some horse trading and deal making, but that is going to take place under the guise of what the conference’s priorities turn out to be. There is one thing all these schools will agree to though–they’re all looking at the bottom line. Northwestern isn’t immune to it either, especially since they’re looking at their own facility improvements and have the smallest football stadium in the conference.
“To some degree, I imagine the conference has laid out scenarios and thought about what it would look like if it had 16 members or more.”
I’d like to think they have. I’d be very upset if the B10 office hasn’t done a lot of homework (I doubt the presidents have looked at it yet).
Cutter: You earlier suggested that it’d be foolish for the B1G to look ahead due to the nature of realignment, but now you say you’d be upset if they hadn’t looked at the possible scenarios. That doesn’t track.
“Those were some interesting value statements by Northwestern–reasonable drives for their fans, yearly rivalries with three specific teams and ensuring semi-annual visits from Nebraska in order to sell tickets. For lack of a better way to describe it, that suggests Northwestern’s leadership is being fan-centric and regional/rivalry-centric in its thinking and priorities.over perhaps putting the television networks or more wide ranging firsthand exposure first in its priorities.
It’ll be interesting to see if there are other schools who thing this way outside of Northwestern.”
I think most schools do that. Consider OSU’s concerns about going east – teams the fans don’t care about, selling tickets and long travel. OSU is presumably being asked to make all those same sacrifices as NW for the good of the B10. This is one area where the ends versus the middle is better, since teams play their neighbors and thus maintain their rivalries.
Cutter: That seems like an unusual outlook to me to some degree. First off, Ohio State is going to play at least seven games per year in Columbus, so we’re looking at OSU fans traveling to lot of familiar places in their own division for those other four or five games per year. At 14 teams in the league, we’re talking about one east coast trip per year to the Washington, DC or New York City areas. i suspect a lot of Buckeye fans wouldn’t have a big problem with that–including the alums who already live there and may have to travel back to Columbus to see a game (or Happy Valley if OSU plays Penn State).
I presume the only two teams Ohio State fans don’t care about are Rutgers and Maryland. I suppose they’d be pretty happy with the rest of the teams in their division plus most of them in the other division?
The selling tickets thing is odd as well. Doesn’t OSU sell out pretty much every game regardless of the opponent? If the conference does go to a nine-game schedule and Rutgers or Maryland replaces a MAC level opponent, doesn’t that make the overall schedule a bit more appealing? After all, Gene Smith has said he’s going to toughen up the non-conference schedule in anticipation of the four-team playoff, so maybe OSU fans will only see one MAC level team per year in Columbus under the new setup.
I can’t speak to the rivalries that Ohio State has with the teams in the middle of the country outside Illinois and the Illinibuck trophy. I don’t know—do OSU fans really get excited about games with Indiana and Purdue? Really?
“We’ve all pretty much come to the conclusion that Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota is a bloc of schools that would want to stick together–does that suggest they’re thinking in line with Northwestern’s priorities? If you draw Illinois into that same bloc with NW, then instead of thinking that the four western most schools are together, perhaps we need to shift our thinking and consider that what we’re really looking at is a six-team bloc instead.”
IL will be torn as they have more rivalries to the east than the west (IN, PU, OSU, MI).
Cutter: Two things here. Illinois could probably happily look forward to playing both Indiana and Purdue if the conference goes to 16 or 18. Even with 14, one of those two teams are likely to get on the ledger. And while I acknowledge that there are probably more “Muck Fichigan” shirts in orange and blue than any other school colors, it’s not a rivalry game by most any definition because there has to be two sides engaging in it. Illinois sure as hell isn’t one of Michigan’s rivals.
“That begs the next question–what happens if the conference goes to 16 or 18 teams? We’ve all put forward various pod scenarios for the B1G when that happens to ensure teams across the entire conference get to play one another as much as possible. But what if that isn’t a priority for a number of B1G programs (such as Northwestern, perhaps)? Would they actually value being in permanent divisions more than a pod-like arrangement?”
I think that is highly dependent on who they do and don’t play frequently. Nobody but PSU really cares about playing RU or MD (playing in NYC or DC, yes, but not the actual opponents). Except for their rivals, few would miss IN or PU or MN or IL. Most teams would care about not playing OSU and MI and MSU and WI and …
Cutter: This all speaks to the notion that we agreed upon, i.e., different programs will bring different individual priorities to the table. How they act collectively will be key.
“Does having that stability and that “division identity for the fans” trump other considerations (such as having balanced divisions in terms of the standing of the various programs)?”
It may for fans, but it shouldn’t for leaders. Fans rarely consider the consequences of their preferences. The B10 has to think about how programs will be impacted long term, how the CCG will be affected, etc.
Cutter: I’m just thinking about the WAC’s attempt at 16 teams with four pods and how the fans were confused and didn’t identify with the divisions because their membership changed after two years. The other problems were that rivalries got dropped and that the members had little in common, were spread out, and it wasn’t a very lucrative setup in the end.
The B1G won’t expand unless the financial projections are good to outstanding, so that’s not going to be an issue (unless it doesn’t pan out). Now the question comes down to regions and rivalries. The Inside/Outside setup replicates the error that the WAC made to some degree because you have two sets of schools geographically separated by a cluster of schools in the other division. An east/west setup where you have a geography identity and try to get the majority of rivalry games in place on a regular basis may be the way to go here.
“Like you said, we’ll see what happens when they announce it formally or if something more leaks out. In the end, we may well see a 16- or 18-team B1G acting more like two entities with two conference offices under one umbrella organization because schools are more fan-centric and/or regional/rivalry centric in their priorities than not.”
I’ve always been dubious of pods because the changing divisions will confuse fans. That may well be reason enough not to use them for the B10. That’s why expansion is so bad. Some B10 teams will get stuck playing a bunch of teams they don’t care about. Since the expansion all seems to be coming from the east, that means screwing over the eastern B10 schools while the western ones get to play essentially all their old rivals plus NE. I’d rather see OSU move to the SEC than get stuck playing RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT every year.
Cutter: If OSU went to the SEC, you’d get to play schools like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Missouri. Besides, if UNC and Duke went to the SEC, you’d get them as well.
We’ll see what happens, and who knows? Maybe the B1G will adopt the “Eye of Sauron” division alignment. I wouldn’t hold my breath through.
Setting aside where I live, I really don’t have too much of a problem play programs located on the east coast. While I enjoyed the Michigan-Notre Dame series, it meant having ND as the sole major non-conference team on the schedule forever. I’m actually happy the series ended because it might mean, for example getting home-and-homes in the future with other major programs (although Arkansas in 2018/9 wasn’t what I had in mind). In the same spirit, adding Maryland, Rutgers, UNC, Duke and Georgia Tech means the opportunity for a little more variety within the conference schedule (both Midwest and non-Midwest teams) with room enough to play the major conference rivals (OSU, PSU, MSU) on an annual basis.
IMHO, what that means for Michigan is that it can now be branded even more as a national program rather than one that could be perceived as Midwest-centric. In an odd way, it sort of replicates what Notre Dame has been doing–especially if the non-conference schedule includes teams from the Mountain and Pacific time zones or one of the Big XII powers (Texas, Oklahoma). For that basis and for others, I welcome the change.
LikeLike
“There is one thing all these schools will agree to though–they’re all looking at the bottom line. Northwestern isn’t immune to it either, especially since they’re looking at their own facility improvements and have the smallest football stadium in the conference.”
Approaches to the bottom line differ, though. What’s best for an OSU or MI isn’t always best for NW or IN.
“You earlier suggested that it’d be foolish for the B1G to look ahead due to the nature of realignment, but now you say you’d be upset if they hadn’t looked at the possible scenarios. That doesn’t track.”
That’s because you’re wrong. I didn’t say that. Things might track better if you stopped making things up, but I don’t expect much from a Michigan Man.
“First off, Ohio State is going to play at least seven games per year in Columbus,”
NW will play at least 6 at home, too. What’s your point? Does that somehow change caring about the location of your road conference games Does it change caring about whether your home opponents are interesting enough to sell 105,000 tickets?
“so we’re looking at OSU fans traveling to lot of familiar places in their own division for those other four or five games per year.”
No, we’re not. We’re looking at some familiar places. But again, how does this argument differ from sending NW east? All the same locations would be familiar.
“At 14 teams in the league, we’re talking about one east coast trip per year to the Washington, DC or New York City areas.”
Probably, plus an unwanted home game against one of those teams every year, too.
“i suspect a lot of Buckeye fans wouldn’t have a big problem with that”
It depends. Some travel everywhere, but not a lot of people are driving 500 miles to see OSU play Rutgers.
“including the alums who already live there and may have to travel back to Columbus to see a game (or Happy Valley if OSU plays Penn State).”
Of course some will like the convenience, but a trip back to OSU allows you to reminisce, see the campus, be in the Horseshoe and engage in all the usual gameday activities. It’s not the same seeing OSU on the road.
“I presume the only two teams Ohio State fans don’t care about are Rutgers and Maryland.”
You presume wrong, according to Gene Smith.
“The selling tickets thing is odd as well. Doesn’t OSU sell out pretty much every game regardless of the opponent?”
As far as I know, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s always easy. Most of the sales are season tickets, and having a bunch of less appealing opponents makes those harder to sell. You can say it’s wrong to your heart’s content, but Gene Smith is far better positioned than you to know what is good or bad for OSU ticket sales.
“If the conference does go to a nine-game schedule and Rutgers or Maryland replaces a MAC level opponent, doesn’t that make the overall schedule a bit more appealing?”
Not at all. I’d bet any of the OH MAC teams would be bigger draws. They all have large in-state fan bases to buy tickets.
“After all, Gene Smith has said he’s going to toughen up the non-conference schedule in anticipation of the four-team playoff, so maybe OSU fans will only see one MAC level team per year in Columbus under the new setup.”
That has nothing to do with your argument, but he has added more AQ games OOC. Of course, that was with the B10 at 8 games and the new playoff coming. Nothing prevents him from dropping them if the B10 goes to 9 again.
“I can’t speak to the rivalries that Ohio State has with the teams in the middle of the country outside Illinois and the Illinibuck trophy. I don’t know—do OSU fans really get excited about games with Indiana and Purdue? Really?”
Earlier you were arguing how OSU fans would be excited by all but RU and MD. Make up your mind. IN and PU mean more to fans from western OH than others. More importantly, they are close by so OSU fans can fill their stadiums for road games if they can’t get home tickets. They mean more than RU and MD, certainly.
“And while I acknowledge that there are probably more “Muck Fichigan” shirts in orange and blue than any other school colors, it’s not a rivalry game by most any definition because there has to be two sides engaging in it. Illinois sure as hell isn’t one of Michigan’s rivals.”
It’s not a rivalry, but it means a lot to IL fans. That makes a lot of middle area teams IL cares about. NW is the only western team that means much to them (some say IA, too).
“I’m just thinking about the WAC’s attempt at 16 teams with four pods and how the fans were confused and didn’t identify with the divisions because their membership changed after two years.”
I’ve always said that was a problem. Pods are a fun theoretical construct to play with on a blog, but they have serious problems in reality.
“The other problems were that rivalries got dropped and that the members had little in common, were spread out, and it wasn’t a very lucrative setup in the end.”
Part of that came down to the pods and the rotation they chose to use. But you always suffer from adding 6 new schools at once. That’s a good reason not to do it.
Old WAC – AF, BYU, CSU, FrSU, HI, NM, SDSU, Utah, UTEP, WY
Newbies – Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, SJSU, UNLV
Pod 1 – HI, FrSU, SDSU, SJSU (1 newbie)
Pod 2 – AF, CSU, UNLV, WY (1 newbie)
Pod 3 – BYU, Utah, NM, UTEP (0 newbies)
Pod 4 – Rice, SMU, TCU, Tulsa (4 newbies)
Pods 1 and 4 never played each other. That meant pods 2 and 3 took all the burden of playing 4 teams no fans cared about, and those schools got mad. 5 of those 8 led the drive to split off and form the MWC (AF, BYU, CSU, Utah, WY + NM, SDSU and UNLV), which included 6 of the 8 in the middle and 7 old WAC schools in total.
“The B1G won’t expand unless the financial projections are good to outstanding, so that’s not going to be an issue (unless it doesn’t pan out).”
That’s the question. Will the projections amount to anything, or is the B10 adding deadweight? None of us really know how teams turn into money for the B10, though, so we have a hard time judging accurately on that score. Time will tell.
“The Inside/Outside setup replicates the error that the WAC made to some degree because you have two sets of schools geographically separated by a cluster of schools in the other division.”
It’s the exact opposite. Inner/outer would have the two extreme groups play every year. The WAC never had the extremes play each other. Inner/outer keeps all the major rivalries except OSU/PSU (not a true rivalry, but a valuable game nonetheless). Pods hurt rivalries, and did in the WAC.
“An east/west setup where you have a geography identity and try to get the majority of rivalry games in place on a regular basis may be the way to go here.”
I’d say E/W is more like the WAC. One side gets to keep all their rivals and play their usual opponents while the other side gets stuck with the newbies. Obviously the WAC was more extreme with 6 new schools, but the concept is there. And look who seems most concerned, the teams in the middle just like the WAC.
I’d rather see OSU move to the SEC than get stuck playing RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT every year.
“If OSU went to the SEC, you’d get to play schools like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Missouri.”
That seems like an unlikely division. UK is about the same as PU or IN. Vanderbilt is no different from NW. SC and MO would be OK. But we’d also get UGA and UF. Those would be great for recruiting and for alumni in the south. I’d rather play FB schools that care than ACC and BE schools that are all hoops schools if we have to make long road trips.
“We’ll see what happens, and who knows? Maybe the B1G will adopt the “Eye of Sauron” division alignment. I wouldn’t hold my breath through.”
I don’t expect them to do it, and I’d prefer they’d avoid the need by choosing 9 games. That extra game makes many division choices become tolerable. I’d still prefer sending OSU west to east and don’t think unbalanced divisions are a not positive, though.
“In the same spirit, adding Maryland, Rutgers, UNC, Duke and Georgia Tech means the opportunity for a little more variety within the conference schedule (both Midwest and non-Midwest teams)”
Variety in OOC games is great, It’s not a good thing in conference play for most fans.
“IMHO, what that means for Michigan is that it can now be branded even more as a national program rather than one that could be perceived as Midwest-centric.”
If that’s what you and MI want, good for you. That’s not what most OSU fans want for OSU.
LikeLike
The latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry — “How big, Big Ten?” is at http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/1778.html
LikeLike
@vp19
This is one of the Terrapin fans posted on the Rivals Board. Maryland seems to be getting with the program…. ;-o)
LikeLike
LikeLike
One more shot:
LikeLike
Hoops:
LikeLike
Final ooc record vs. FCS
1. SEC 39-11 78.00%
2. B12 21- 9 70.00%
3. B1G 28-19 59.57%
4. Ind 25-17 59.52%
5. P12 27-20 57.45%
6. BE 20-15 57.14%
7. WAC 15-18 45.45%
8. ACC 18-23 43.90%
9. MAC 18-30 37.50%
10. MWC 13-25 34.21%
10. SB 13-25 34.21%
12. USA 11-36 23.40%
FCS vs. FBS 10-98 9.26%
LikeLike
It seemed like the 2 loss teams this year had a lot of flaws and it seemed hard to complete a top 25 with deserving teams. In part, that was due to an unusually large crop of 2 loss teams which probably meant a dearth of 3 and 4 loss teams. In the last 10 years, there have been fewer 0 and 1 loss teams only in 2007. There have never been more than 8 2 loss teams. This year there were 13.
2003 0 unbeatens, 4 1 loss, 7 2 loss
2004 3-4-4
2005 1-4-6
2006 1-4-8
2007 0-2-7
2008 1-4-6
2009 2-4-5
2010 2-5-5
2011 0-5-8
2012 1-3-13
So there were 17 2 loss or less teams vs. 11 to 13 typically. There were only 4 zero or one loss teams vs. the 5 to 7 typical.
May be part of the reason so many AQ teams got ranked. Pollsters had difficulty voting for teams with 5 losses.
LikeLike
“There have never been more than 8 2 loss teams. This year there were 13.”
-Now that is an interesting statistic.
LikeLike
In keeping with Nick Saban’s two-hours-to-enjoy-the-end-of-the-2012-season, the USA Today has published the first way-too-early 2013 pre-season rankings.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/08/early-top-25-2013-alabama-oregon-ohio-state/1816949/
By conference.
SEC (6): #1 Alabama, #5 Florida, #7 Georgia, #9 LSU, #14 South Carolina, and #15 Texas A&M.
Big XII (5): #13 TCU, #17 Texas, #19 OK State, #21 Oklahoma, and #25 K-State.
Pac 12 (4): #3 Stanford, #4 Oregon, #18 Oregon State, and #23 UCLA.
B1G (3): #2 Ohio State, #10 Nebraska, and #22 Northwestern.
ACC (2): #6 Florida State and #12 Clemson.
MWC (2): #11 Boise State and #20 Fresno State.
Ind: #8 Notre Dame
Big East: #16 Louisville
MAC: #24 Northern Illinois
LikeLike
I agree with most of those, but I’m surprised to see Texas A&M so low. That’s going to be the most hyped squad other than Alabama in the SEC next year I’d guess. They’ll probably find their way into the preseason top 10.
LikeLike
I’d bet top 5 for A&M.
LikeLike
Definitely way too early. Some of those might be in difference conferences by August!
LikeLike
There was an earlier one posted pre-bowls
http://www.nationalchamps.net/2013/earlybird/index.htm
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
They seem to be predicting a bifurcated SEC again. I think they are under-representing the B10 in the bottom of the poll (MI and/or MSU will be there) and someone from the B12 will be higher.
LikeLike
Texas refusing to play A&M and Kansas refusing to play Mizzou: smart move or emotions-driven mistake? Discuss.
Also note that Kansas played Colorado in basketball this year and is setting up a series with Nebraska, and that Oklahoma is setting up a football series with Nebraska as well.
LikeLike
@Andy – If I were running the UT and KU athletic departments, no, I wouldn’t agree to play A&M or Mizzou, respectively (and I have no emotional ties regarding any of those schools other than Illinois being a Mizzou rival, but their ability to play or not play KU doesn’t mean much to me personally). The advantage that both A&M and Mizzou gained from the SEC was getting better exposure nationally, so that was a no-brainer move for both of those schools. What their rivals have to sell now is the opposite, which is that they’re in a tighter regional league (notwithstanding West Virginia). Giving A&M and Mizzou opportunities to play close to home on top of their national SEC exposure neutralizes that regional advantage that the Big 12 teams would have in their home markets. Colorado was always a geographic outlier in the Big 12, so I’m thinking that there isn’t the same concern for KU in giving them exposure in the Kansas City market compared to Mizzou, while Nebraska is one of those gold-plated king names for football that pretty much everyone is willing to schedule.
LikeLike
Also, given the fact that Oklahoma is a king program and that they flirted heavily with the Pac-10 twice (Pac-16 idea and then again one year later) I doubt they’re nearly as bothered by Nebraska leaving as Kansas or Texas were at the other defections. Also worth noting that the OU-NU series is a one-off home and home that won’t actually take place for nearly a decade, so it’s not like they’re bringing back the rivalry in a meaningful way.
LikeLike
So Frank your conention is that Missouir’s in-state recruiting in Kansas City, MO will be hurt by not playing Kansas every year? Because that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Kansas City is in Misosuri. Missouri has always recruited well there. We always tend to get several top recruits there per year. KU is barely a factor there. And when it comes to basketball, KU doesn’t even recruit locally. They recruit nationally.
Also, why would Missouri need Kansas for national exposure in basketball? Mizzou basketball is top 10, has averaged over 27 wins per season over the last 4 seasons and looks to match that success for a 5th season in a row. Plays Illinois, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas every year plus typically another home and home or neutral site game (this year was at UCLA, UCLA is at Mizzou Arena next year, in recent years opponents have included Indiana, Syracuse, Gonzaga, Villanova, Notre Dame, etc), plus typically a good preseason tournament (Battle for Atlantis this year, Las Vegas Invitaitonal next year, Maui Invitational the year after that). Mizzou gets tons of national exposure. Every single Mizzou basketball game is on TV, and well over half will be on national TV.
So again I ask, why does Missouri “need” KU to play us? And how is it a “one way street”?
If anything it’s the other way around in football. KU would like to improve their recruiting in Kansas City, Missouri. In basketball neither team “needs” each other, but both would benefit what has always been the highest rated game for either team on the schedule this year. MU/KU basketball games outdraw the football games in tv ratings. Put the game on a neutral site, charge hundreds of dollars per ticket (in donations requirements) and it will still sell out 20k+ seats in minutes, just like they do with the Mizzou/Illinois Braggin’ Rights rivalry games, except you could probably charge even more for the MU/KU game. It would be a massive moneymaker. So how is turning down that money good sense? On the off hope that Kansas City kids will suddenly forget that they live in the state of Missouri? I truly don’t get it.
Seems like a bunch of bitter emotional nonsense to me.
LikeLike
The bottom line for Kansas and Texas is probably that they already have 9 games locked every year in conference play. Missouri and A&M which just left conferences with rivals and now have 8 games certainly want to continue their biggest games, but for Kansas and Texas that would lock 10 games automatically. When you add in the need for a lot of home games (for revenue and for Texas for the Longhorn Network), the schedule loses pretty much all flexibility if those return as annual events.
Now I wish Kansas-Missouri would do it anyway (I love cross state games with historic significance, instate games mean less to me), but I don’t think it’s really mostly an emotion decision. We’ll be able to see for sure based on the future though. If we get a home and home here and there, that’s a sign they want flexibility. If they don’t schedule at all, then that’s a sign of emotion.
LikeLike
Fair enough, this excuse works for football but not basketball. So play 2 out of every 4 years for increased flexibility. Certainly they could agree to that. But all of the rhetoric is that they won’t play at all in any sport. I’d call that unreasonable emotionall bitterness to the detriment of good business.
LikeLike
After a couple of years, I agree with that logic. I do think the Texas and Kansas (along with most the rest of the Big 12) do want their to be seen as price in leaving (conference pride) and will delay a few years on that even if they aren’t being emotional. After that though, I think they’ll schedule occasionally. I don’t think it will be every year or anything, but a couple times a decade (sadly that might still be more common than we play some Big Ten teams if conference realignment continues the way its going).
LikeLike
That’s what our athletic director, Mike Alden, keeps saying. He says Kansas will play us in a couple of years. We’ll see if he’s right.
LikeLike
Given that A&M/Mizzou at least arguably benefit more from those games than Texas/Kansas, were I Texas or Kansas I might just offer something like a 3:2; sure we’ll play you for a while, but in exchange we get more of them at home (for Kansas maybe it’d be 4 games in KC one game at KU). I sincerely doubt that A&M/Mizzou would say yes, but at least it’s an offer.
LikeLike
Wow. Homerism supreme. There are three times as many KU grads in the KC metro area than there are MU grads. These are self reported figures by each school’s KC alumni association chapters. Read the KC Star Sports Section and see how many articles are KU related vs. MU related.
“Kansas City is in Missouri”
Contrary to your understanding of Kansas City, the metro area extends into both states. The Kansas side has a large professional commuter population, though more of the growth is in Overland Park, Olathe, etc.
“We always tend to get several top recruits there per year. KU is barely a factor there. And when it comes to basketball, KU doesn’t even recruit locally.”
Really? Here is the alumni page from KC Pump N Run– Kansas City’s top AAU program: http://kcpumpnrun.com/?page_id=11 It’s pretty even.
“Why does Missouri need KU for national exposure?”
You don’t. Feel free to schedule whomever you wish to get on TV. But they won’t be your rival, and you won’t sell out your stadium. Just remember that when you guys regress back to the mean. You left a great deal of brand equity when you took off. Don’t expect us to help you fill a stadium in Kansas City, or Columbia when it happens.
Regarding charging hundreds of dollars to fill a 20k seat arena– KU plays a game or two at the Sprint Center in Kansas City every year. It doesn’t matter if we play Syracuse, Davidson or SLU– it sells out. Why should we share that with MU?
LikeLike
Let’s put an end to this nonsense about KU always selling out its games in Kansas City. KU drew 8,408 for a game against Washington State and 10,315 against SLU this season.
LikeLike
kmp59, yep, JayDevil is full of crap. KU can’t sell out KC without a good draw. If they played MU in KC the game sells out in 2 seconds.
LikeLike
JayDevil, what a load of crap. Not surprising though. Same lies KU fans have been telling for years. Some of you mighta actually believe this stuff. Both MU and KU have scheduled games in KC against various teams in recent years. MU typicaly draws 10-11k, KU a little less actually. They drew 7,686 against SLU this year. Mizzou played SLU a few years ago in STL and drew almost three times that. It doesn’t matter if KU has a few thousand more alums in KC. KC has a couple million people. Well over half live in the state of Missouri. During football season, MU outdraws KU on tv in KCU by about 5 to 1. In basketball it’s more even. You don’t own KC propper. Certainly you’ve got Kansas City, Kansas locked down fairly well.
LikeLike
KU can sell out any game in Kansas City if they price the ticket accordingly.
They can sell out a game against Nobody U if they make the tickets cheap enough. They could charge more for a game against, say, Arkansas and sell out the arena. They could charge even more for a game against Missouri and sell the arena out.
If they wanted to charge the highest possible prices for a Kansas game in KC and still sell the game out, the opponent they would pick would be Missouri.
Of course, they would have to split the profits 50/50 with Mizzou, while they could keep most of the profits for themselves in a game against Nobody U. Still, I’m guessing the difference in ticket prices would make the Mizzou game more profitable.
LikeLike
definitely.
LikeLike
Except that whole argument is nonsense, Frank. A&M plays eight home games. Plus they will always be able to schedule SMU, Rice, Houston, UTEP, UNT and TSU. There is no advantage to claiming a “regional” product anyway. The media and recruits prefer national games anyway and that was clear this year.
Hard feelings by Texas is really the driver (and I don’t blame them) but this isn’t a strategic move.
LikeLike
exactly.
LikeLike
Frank the Ag:
A&M has never played 8 games a year in Kyle Field. This past year, you guys played 6. Granted, you have 8 home games scheduled in 2013 (and maybe more in the future).
LikeLike
This is a smart move for Texas since it still dominates the Texas market and the last thing they need is a loss to A&M. Despite how well A&M did this year, it takes a long time for overall perceptions to change. That is why OSU rarely plays Cincinnati. Not much value if OSU wins, but a major coup if Cincinnati wins. Even some of the Ohio MAC teams give OSU a hard time because it is a one time opportunity to take down the king. Same applies to Texas. Its big rival is Oklahoma. A&M was always Texas’ second rival, but Texas was A&M #1 rival. Probably because of this, A&M play better versus Texas than Texas did against A&M (against the line, expected results, etc.).
If NIU had not managed to snag a BCS bid, Oklahoma would have got the Sugar, promoting Texas to the Cotton against A&M. Texas will play A&M in a future Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl, but will never schedule them again.
Since Kansas football is usually a doormat, it has little to lose by scheduling Missouri in football, but I did not expect Kansas to buy out games to schedule Missouri OOC. Kansas should schedule regular season games against Missouri at some point in the next 10 years. Even though it could schedule basketball, I do not expect Kansas to schedule its king sport until it starts scheduling football with Missouri again. Just like Texas in football, nothing for Kansas to gain with basketball.
LikeLike
I’d say 99% of Horns were rooting on their “biggest” rival then last week. Their indifference for a Texas A&M is very apparent from reading the Longhorn message boards. Sheesh…
Comparing Texas vs A&M to OSU vs Cincy is ridiculous. Look, if we play again or not it isn’t that big of a deal. A&M honestly doesn’t need Texas on the schedule since we play Alabama and LSU every year, and mix in Ark, Auburn and Mizzou for grins. A&M received much more exposure than Texas in Texas and nationally and not just because of Johnny Football. The SEC brand is a difference maker just as the leadership at the school predicted. Three consensus All-Americans, Heisman and Outland trophy winners and ESPN game day in year 1. To top it off A&M is recruiting lights out and I don’t see it ending anytime soon.
As Bowen Loftin said, A&M will play Texas anytime, anywhere. If it is a decade from now or never that is perfectly fine with Texas A&M.
LikeLike
I did not say A&M did not have a good year. Just that it would NOT have been better for Texas to get blown-out by A&M which is what would have probably happened this year. It is better for Texas never to play A&M again except in bowl games.
LikeLike
What I am saying is perceptions have already changed. Texas playing in a weak B12 and A&M playing in the SEC is an advantage for A&M and that became obvious this year with all the national and local publicity. You don’t win Heisman’s and Outland’s without hype.
LikeLike
The Big XII was weak?
LikeLike
You could also argue it was Kevin Sumlin and Johnny Manziel, not the SEC, that brought the PR. You might recall that a nobody program that was a model for incompetence produced the Heisman winner last year, in the “weak” Big 12. Seems to me Kevin Sumlin had a Heisman contender last year until his team crashed and burned in the CUSA ccg. And two of the early leading candidates were from no-name programs (Klein and Smith) playing in the “weak” Big 12.
LikeLike
In the BCS era in which the SEC has easily won the most MNCs:
Heisman winners:
Big 12 5
SEC 4
B1G 2
Pac 2
ACC 1
LikeLike
A&M is now the “it” school in Texas. Those living in the state know this already. Like the FWST writer Gil LeBetron put in his article this weekend, “The divorce is final, and A&M got it all.”
Sumlin was certainly a big factor but the exposure of playing Alabama, LSU and Florida on national TV drove the media frenzy around the program. The stage was set by the SEC and Texas A&M, Sumlin and Manziel capitalized on it.
LikeLike
Yes frug, it is when compared to the SEC. Which is the point of this discussion, right?
LikeLike
One year and the last 100 have been changed. Dream on.
LikeLike
A&M’s hot now, but they’ll always be fighting an uphill battle against Texas (Austin trumps College Station, Longhorn brand trumps ATM, UT will always have the financial edge, etc.). A year from now Sumlin could be on his way to USC, JFF on his way to the NFL, and Mack Brown on his way out (hopefully).
LikeLike
Frank the Ag:
“I’d say 99% of Horns were rooting on their “biggest” rival then last week.”
So did 99% of Buckeye fans when Michigan played in a bowl game.
LikeLike
Richard, you sure about that? I don’t know any wolverines who would root for OSU.
LikeLike
Andy:
I was on offtackleempire.com during bowl season. Every B10 fan on there was rooting for B10 teams against the SEC (if some grudgingly).
One thing about the recent beatdowns in posteason play is that they’ve made the B10 more cohesive, ironically.
LikeLike
Well, except for that one MSU guy.
LikeLike
Weaker doesn’t necessarily mean weak.
Also, the Big XII and SEC have been basically equal the last two years. The SEC was stronger at the top but the Big XII had more depth.
LikeLike
There’s a rather creepy Musbarger like obsession with A&M by a number of posters on ShaggyBevo, but that seems to be part of the #$@! Mack Brown, Case McCoy, Diaz, Harstsin schtick. Its an eclectic bunch over there. Don’t see so much elsewhere.
LikeLike
But will Bowen play Tech or Baylor anytime, anywhere? The answer is no. A&M has made it clear they won’t. Typical Aggie hypocrisy. And Bowen probably doesn’t even realize it. A&M won’t do it for the same reason Texas isn’t playing A&M.
Its of much more benefit to Tech or Baylor than to A&M. A&M wouldn’t even play UH, Rice, SMU or TCU for years. Texas has played Rice or UH nearly every year since the SWC brokeup. That game had benefit to Texas since it put them in Houston. They had OU in Dallas already so there was no benefit in playing TCU or SMU. A&M is closer to Houston. And they would play Arkansas in Dallas, but didn’t want to legitimize TCU or SMU.
LikeLike
A&M will play Texas Tech and Baylor on the same terms that Texas will play A&M. If they make it to a Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl against A&M. Both schools have a problem getting this matchup since it is likely that if Texas is 1 or 2 places below one of these schools they will get bypassed so the bowl can create a Texas – A&M game. So games between A&M and these schools are less likely than future games with Texas.
LikeLike
“Typical Aggie hypocrisy”. LOL.
Here’s hypocrisy for you: You claim Texas A&M won’t play Tech and Baylor. Well A&M offered to play them both in multiple sports but BOTH are on the public record stating they will not play A&M. How exactly do you propose A&M to schedule them? Show me a link where A&M made it clear we won’t play them. I’ll show you comments for both of those schools below: Google it if you doubt the accuracy.
Here is Baylor coach Kim Mulkey’s thoughts:
“As far as I’m concerned, it will be [the last time A&M plays in Waco],” Mulkey said. “Speaking for myself it will be, unless there’s an NCAA tournament game here in the future and they get placed here or something. I’m not going to play them.”
“In the fall, Mulkey likened Texas A&M’s departure to the Aggies “divorcing” the Big 12. And she made it clear it would not be an amicable separation (my input – she likened it to having sex with your ex-husband, lol).
Here is Tech AD Kirby Hocutt’s thoughts:
Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt said Monday that the Red Raiders won’t schedule the Aggies in any sport unless the two schools commit to compete in every sport. That was the consensus among Texas Tech coaches,” Just writes.
“We discussed it with all our head coaches,” Hocutt said, “and that’s something we as an athletic department and we as a group of coaches feel strongly about at this time.”
Why would A&M play a Houston based team on a regular basis given the proximity to the city? With only three non-con games available for majority of seasons after the break up, it wasn’t exactly like the school had lots of opportunites to play SMU and TCU. A&M has played SMU three times and TCU once (in a bowl game) in the 15 years since the breakup of the SWC and has both Rice and SMU on the ’13 schedule. A&M does play all of the former SWC programs in other sports all the time.
LikeLike
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with A&M not playing UH. Just like there’s not anything wrong with Texas not playing A&M. Baylor has an advantage in women’s bb right now, so they are doing the same thing.
I’m not going to look up the link, but there was a comment by Byrne or Bowen that they wouldn’t play Tech or Baylor in football. It was over 6 months ago, so it would be hard to find. Baylor had expressed an interest.
LikeLike
You claim it yet won’t back it up? OK.
Well, the input here is clear. Tech and Baylor are the parties choosing not to play right now; the “typical hypocritical Ags” are willing but don’t have a dance partner yet; and the passionate Longhorn fans are making stuff up as they go…
LikeLike
Byrne wasn’t interested in scheduling Tech? Not true per direct quotes for Hocutt in the Lubbock Avalanche:
“Hocutt said he’s had conversations with A&M athletic director Bill Byrne about future scheduling opportunities, but Hocutt doesn’t see any Tech-A&M games happening “any time soon. Our football schedule is set for the next two years,” Hocutt said. “
Byrne clearly was trying to schedule Tech, in football. Hocutt did go on in the article about the possiblility of playing sometime in the future (but he couldn’t seem to figure out how to do that).
For the record, it is fine that Tech doesn’t want to play A&M same for Baylor or Texas. The hard feelings from A&M’s exit are certainly understandable.
LikeLike
“A&M wouldn’t even play UH, Rice, SMU or TCU for years.”
This reads like you are sliding around the time window to confirm an already-existing conclusion ~ you can’t say “A&M WON’T play UH, Rice, SMU or TCU”, since A&M signed a three game contract in 2004 with SMU, and has Rice as their opener for next year, but “wouldn’t” flexes until just before they agree to.
LikeLike
As I said, it was a while back and would be hard to find. I’m pretty sure what I’ve read. You’re entitled to your opinion. If you think I’m making stuff up, based on my posts here, its a pretty stupid, typical Aggie opinion. Now if you believe my memory may be faulty, that definitely sometimes happens!
LikeLike
And the PAC is more and more thankful the P16 did not happen.
LikeLike
A&M didn’t play them for years. They have played them recently. They all wanted to play them, but A&M didn’t think it was in their interest and didn’t until recently. Simple facts.
Just because you don’t like other’s people’s opinions doesn’t mean they are dishonest. We normally avoid that type of bs around here. Go to a political board.
LikeLike
You presented your misinformed comment in a factual way:
“But will Bowen play Tech or Baylor anytime, anywhere? The answer is no. A&M has made it clear they won’t.”
Now after being proven wrong you’re down to name calling. Funny stuff.
BTW, your comment here:
“They all wanted to play them, but A&M didn’t think it was in their interest and didn’t until recently. Simple facts.”
That isn’t a fact. It is your opinion. Probably with as much merit as every other opinion you’ve had on the Texas A&M move to the SEC.
LikeLike
You haven’t proven me wrong, only that you have reasons for your opinion. You said I made something up (i.e. “you are a liar”). I said your OPINION that I was a liar was a stupid opinion. There’s a difference there that’s obviously too subtle for you.
LikeLike
Truth is A&M and Mizzou have both made it clear that they’re more than willing to play Big 12 schools, and the entire Big 12 is boycotting A&M and Mizzou in every sport, with the only exception being Oklahoma and Missouri in wrestling. Thankfully these two wrestling coaches have managed to stay above this nonsense.
LikeLike
OU and A&M played in basketball this year.
Before the Cotton Bowl there was an article where an OU administrator said if the Big 12 was boycotting A&M, they didn’t get the memo.
A&M played TCU in women’s basketball, but they started that series before conference realignment.
That said, the Longhorns clearly are boycotting A&M. Baylor clearly is in women’s basketball, but I’m not sure A&M has reached out to try and schedule them in any other sport.
LikeLike
OU’s AD used to be AD at Mizzou. Maybe he’s more sympathetic than the rest.
LikeLike
“Even some of the Ohio MAC teams give OSU a hard time because it is a one time opportunity to take down the king.”
-Erm, no. Most of those games were close because Jim Tressel treated them as little more than glorified scrimmages.
LikeLike
If the Longhorns & Aggies play every year, neither team having a GOOD year will see the long-term prospects of their program greatly damaged with a loss. At least, not as much as another non-conference loss against a quality team. (Also, despite what some say, a win would not redeem a bad year)
If the 2 schools play now that they no longer play the same teams on the rest of their schedule it will be bigger locally than it ever was before. Yes, it will be bigger than a far-away school like Ohio State or USC on the schedule.
You all have it backwards; instead of asking who would be helped more if the 2 schools play (both would be helped), you should be asking who would be hurt? The answer isn’t either of the 2 schools: It’s Oklahoma and LSU, Arkansas and Texas Tech. A&M vs LSU will still be big. The Red River Rivalry will still be big. But the Aggies and Longhorns will be a game that everyone in the state, casual fans and devoted fans alike, will be looking towards before they know the 2 teams records.
Those other programs won’t get destroyed, but they will lose some attention if the focus on the 2 biggest programs in the state gets amplified because they start playing each other again.
LikeLike
Colorado and Nebraska left on better terms. A&M’s president tried to break up the conference. Missouri left late in the year and wouldn’t work with the Big 12, BE and MAC, costing the Big 12 $10 million + legal fees to buy WVU out of the Big East. It even screwed with FSU who had to schedule 2 FCS programs when WVU cancelled late.
Kansas basketball games mean a lot more to Missouri than they do to Kansas. Kansas has plenty of alternatives. Same thing with Texas football and Texas A&M. Colorado and Nebraska aren’t recruiting rivals to the rest of the Big 12 to the extent Missouri and A&M were. Colorado actually reduced its Texas football recruiting after joining the Big 12. Nebraska only mildly increased it compared to the rest of the Big 8.
Its a one way street. Its advantageous to Missouri and A&M. It is neutral to Kansas and Texas. Nebraska football is mutually beneficial. Colorado is an alternative for Kansas who isn’t a rival in Kansas City recruiting.
LikeLike
wow, a lot of weird statements in there.
Mizzou doesn’t “need” a game with KU in basketball.
Top 10 most attractive teams on Kansas’s basketball schedule this year:
Ohio State
Michigan State
Kanasas State
Oklahoma State
Baylor
Temple
Colorado
Texas
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Top 10 most attractive teams on Missouri’s basketball schedule this year:
Kentucky
UCLA
Louisville
Florida
Illinois
Tennessee
Arkansas
VCU
Alabama
Stanford
I really don’t see much difference between those two lists. I don’t see Kansas has having much of an advantage in ability to get good teams on their schedule. Missouri tends to play pretty good teams every year.
The question is should arch rivals with campuses 2.5 hrs apart who have played eachother for over a century and are both ranked in the top 10 play each other? Wouldn’t basketball fans be better served by seeing them play?
As for recruiting, Kansas would like to be able to recruit Kansas City, Missouri. Mizzou certainly has no trouble recruiting that city in any sport. They get several good recruits out of that city every year. More than KU does. Including this year. I know KU says they’re somehow hurting Mizzou’s recruiting in Kansas City, Missouri by refusing to play Mizzou but how much actual sense does that make?
And furthermore, does UT refusing to play A&M actually hurt A&M’s recruiting within Texas? Really?
Now I get the hard feelings about money list and inconvenience by Mizzou leaving. I get that. But again, as a justification isn’t that just emotional bitterness rather than good business sense?
LikeLike
* “money lost” not “money list”
LikeLike
@Andy – I think the overarching point is that Texas and Kansas (1) perceive (whether it’s true or not) that scheduling A&M and Mizzou helps those old rivals much more than the other way around and (2) effectively have the ability to schedule anyone that they want nationally for football and basketball as non-conference games, respectively, so it’s not as if though scheduling A&M and Mizzou would provide some type of extra boost in revenue or sell more seats. As a fan, I’d still want to see those rivalries played, but I can certainly understand the rationale for the ADs involved to choose to not continue them. Part of it might be driven by emotion, yet it’s a misnomer to characterize it as *all* emotion. There are perfectly logical business, branding and recruiting issues in play, as well.
LikeLike
Frank, the idea that ku wouldn’t make a ton of money by continuing the series with Missouri is preposterous. Yes, KU can schedule serieses with Ohio State and Michigan State and those will sell one. Missouri’s got its annual rivalry game with Illinois (a huge money maker for both schools) and recently scheduled home and homes with UCLA and Arizona. Yes, both teams can get good games with other schools that will sell tickets and get on national tv and make money.
But Missouri vs KU is unique. It’s perhaps the most bitter basketball rivalry in America. Frequently compared favorably to UNC/Duke. It’s must see TV. That’s a ticket that doesn’t just sell out, it goes for $1000 on stubhub.
LikeLike
* “those will sell out” not “those will sell one”, need to reread these before posting.
LikeLike
UNC is a king. Duke is a king. Kansas is a king. Mizzou hasn’t had a final four. Why on earth would KU split revenue with the MU AD when they can get a sell out in Kansas City with any other low to mid-tier basketball team in the country?
LikeLike
Mizzou doesn’t have a final 4, true, but they have quite a few elite 8s, and more wins and more NCAA tournaments than any other program without a final 4. Mizzou is consistently top 30. Frequently top 15. They’ve averaged over 27 wins per season over the last 4 seasons. Finished 3rd in the country in the final regular season poll last year. They have more wins vs KU than any other program, and have a higher win % vs KU than any Big 8 school. MU has more conference titles, counting regular season and tournament, than any Big 12 school other than KU. The MU/KU rivalry is considered to be one of the best in sports and dates back over a century. It always gets very high ratings on tv. MU/KU tickets sell on the secondary market for hundreds and often thousands of dollars each every single year. Students at both schools camp out in tents for days to get the best seats for these games. KU has long made it part of their schtick to claim that they don’t really care about playing Missouri. And yet they troll our message boards and other message boards and the comments sections of any article ever written about Mizzou to this day on even the most obscure websites to bash Mizzou. If the internet is any indication, KU’s obsession with all things Missouri knows no bounds. And I’ve been to several games at Allen Fieldhouse between MU and KU. The hatred is shocking. I’ve recieved threats of violence, right up in my face, on multiple occasions. So basically all of this “we’re above Mizzou, we don’t care about thim” is total and complete garbage and nonsense. KU fans love playing Mizzou. They especially relish in beating Mizzou and will crow about it for weeks every time it happens. The ONLY reason they’re claiming right now that they don’t want to is because somehow they think this makes them “win”. Mizzou doesn’t need to play KU. We’ve got Kentucky, Illinois, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee every year, plus teams we schedule for non-conference like UCLA, Arizona, Louisville, Notre Dame, etc. We’re fine. But we all know that the MU/KU games are a hell of a lot of fun. And you beakers are only screwing over college basketball as a sport for refusing to play.
LikeLike
Also, JayDevil, if you only play kings like UNC and Duke, then how come you didn’t play UNC or Duke this year? Why did you play Saint Louis University, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and Temple? You do realize Missouri has a much stronger program than any of those schools, don’t you? Except maybe Temple, but then they’re unranked and Mizzou is top 10. So what gives? I thought you said KU should only play Kings?
LikeLike
You can slice it any way you like– I just don’t think many KU fans are interested in the series. If they were, the AD would schedule a game. Most fans I know would rather have a Michigan State, UCLA, Arizona, or Ohio State on the schedule.
To answer your question about UNC and Duke. UNC will not schedule a series as long as Roy Williams is there. Duke has made it known that it would only do a ‘neutral’ site game in Madison square garden. Negotiations for a home and home aren’t on the table.
LikeLike
Frank, it is mostly emotion.
During realignment, all the Longhorn supporters said the A&M NEEDED to schedule the UT-Austin. That was how they convinced themselves it would never happen. It was repeated over and over in different forms, for months on end.
It was never true. Not the first time they said it, and not the hundred-thousandth. But it’s one of those things that’s been repeated so many times they instinctively believe it even though reason tells them otherwise.
So if anyone brings up the possibility of a series they instinctively reject it, emotionally believing that A&M will somehow shrivel up and die if the series is not played. That TV sets in San Antonio will never tune into A&M vs. Alabama because the Aggies don’t play the Longhorns; that a high school athlete in Dallas won’t be recruited to College Station because the football team won’t have any away trips in Austin; that A&M grads will suddenly, tearfully stop donating to the athletic program without the game on their schedule; that high school students across the state were only applying to A&M because they played the Longhorns annually and will now stop sending applications to College Station.
That said, there is a major business reason right now: they can’t air an Aggie/Longhorn football game on the Longhorn network until the network gets on basic cable across state. The outcry would be too great (and I’m not talking about the outcry from Aggies; it would be everyone who would complain). Playing A&M would thus lock 1 of 3 games every year off of the LHN, which limits any other non-conference scheduling to get games on the network. They like playing a school like Ole Miss now. It’s likely their game in Austin will be on the LHN to increase demand for the network in the state of Texas without causing the legislative inquiries that putting an A&M game on the network would cause.
If ESPN ever negotiates the end of the LHN, taking the major games for ESPN2 & ESPNU and re-selling the other games to local networks in Texas, an A&M game would be quite good for that agreement. The Longhorns could play A&M and national school non-conference (along with Rice) and make a lot of money for the school & ESPN.
LikeLike
Good post. Despite what many say, A&M doesn’t need to play UT when they play LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, and Auburn every year. And Missouri doesn’t need to play Kansas when they play Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee every year.
LikeLike
Then everybody’s happy.
LikeLike
You can have everything you need and still want to do something fun that you don’t need.
LikeLike
Kansas is a basketball king. Missouri isn’t.
Texas is a football king. A&M isn’t.
Schools benefit by playing kings.
Kansas can schedule Kentucky or pretty much anyone they want. Texas can schedule USC. Texas has 8 games in the next 10 years vs. USC, Notre Dame and Ohio St. Those are more attractive games to the home fans.
Not so much in basketball, but in football, scheduling a rival limits your flexibility in scheduling a USC, Notre Dame or Ohio St. It also limits your geographical reach. Texas also has games away from home against Cal, UCLA, BYU, Maryland and Arkansas.
LikeLike
Faulty logic. Schools benefit from playing kings, but they also benefit from playing traditional rivals.
I would argue that a ticket to a game between #5 Texas and #7 Ohio State would sell for less than a ticket for a game between #5 Texas and #15 Texas A&M, and would get higher ratings on TV.
Same goes for #5 KU vs #7 Michigan State vs #5 KU vs #15 Mizzou in basketball.
LikeLike
I would argue that a ticket to a game between #5 Texas and #7 Ohio State would sell for less than a ticket for a game between #5 Texas and #15 Texas A&M, and would get higher ratings on TV.
I doubt it. Most Texas fans (and the overwhelming majority of students and message board fans) have made clear they have zero desire for Texas to ever play A&M again. Would they boycott the game? I doubt it, but I can’t see them paying a premium for it either.
LikeLike
It would be a bad bet on TV ratings. And Texas could sell Ohio St. tickets for more than A&M in house. Street price probably better from the Aggies trying to get tickets, but UT doesn’t benefit from that, just the scalpers.
Have to talk to Jayhawks about their basketball.
LikeLike
Honestly I don’t know much about A&M, but they seem like a pretty passionate fanbase and seem to hate UT a lot, so I would think it would be a very hot ticket.
I’m pretty confident about KU though. I’ve been to quite a few of those games in both Columbia and Lawrence.
LikeLike
I guess that will be our cross to bear, frug. How will we ever survive it. 🙂
LikeLike
“I would argue that a ticket to a game between #5 Texas and #7 Ohio State would sell for less than a ticket for a game between #5 Texas and #15 Texas A&M,”
—The largest crowd ever at Darrel K Royal before the last expansion was Texas vs Ohio State in 2006. Post expansion, the largest crowd vs A&M is 14th overall in 2010. Wyoming (5th) & UCLA (3rd) had larger crowds during the same season.
In Loki related news… Rice was the opponent for the #2 largest crowd ever at DKR in 2011.
LikeLike
The problem with that is, MU isn’t consistently a top 15 team. It makes more sense to do home and homes or neutral site games with other basketball kings. That way KU doesn’t have to split the pot with MU when they’re down.
LikeLike
Mizzou is consistently top 30, frequently top 15, and always able to sell tickets and draw viewers.
The Busch Braggin’ Rights Game in St. Louis between Illinois and Missouri is a huge money maker had has been for 32 years. There’s no reason a Boarder War Game in KC between KU and MU couldn’t make even more money. There’s basically no reason not to do it.
LikeLike
“In Loki related news… Rice was the opponent for the #2 largest crowd ever at DKR in 2011.”
Noone ever wants to miss the M.O.B.
LikeLike
It doesn’t hurt A&M recruiting in the least. Nor does it negatively impact the athletic program in anyway. The big bonus is we play a true football king annually. Everything is an upgrade for Texas A&M.
LikeLike
How exactly did Texas A&M try to break up the conference on our exit? If we are going to be honest here, the B12 was hanging on for dear life and kicking up a dust storm as we were exiting and that is why the exit got so ridiculously noisy. You remember Ken Starr’s I won’t sue/I will sue change and the B12 not honoring the initial exit agreement with the SEC and A&M? Dan Beebe called Slive during the SEC vote and apologized for certain B12 member institutions who were reneging on the agreed upon deal.
Tell me, when Powers and Dodds put together the exit plan with the Pac12 for Texas, OU, Tech, OSU, CU and A&M (without bothering to share the plan with Texas A&M or Prez Loftin) was Texas trying to break up the B12? There is one reason the 12 exists today and that is because Loftin told Powers that A&M was not interested. Unbelievable the amount of spin.
Yes, Texas A&M clearly wanted out after NU and CU left but the school wasn’t trying to break up the conference.
LikeLike
OU’s e-mails came out in FOIA. Bowen was railing against Texas and trying to stir OU up AFTER A&M was already out of the conference.
LikeLike
If Bowen had done that before leaving, it would be one thing. But doing it after A&M had already officially announced was nothing but trying to disrupt the conference.
LikeLike
You mean the emails where Boren was asking Bowen for advice on exit procedures as the OU trustees were planning their move to the Pac12? Is your weak argument here that Bowen initiated OU’s exit attempt? You cannot be serious. Boren and Bowen formed a strong relationship during that tumultuous 18 month period and Boren was in the middle of situation (exiting the B12) that Bowen just went through. Offering advice at Boren’s request in no way equates to attempting to breakup the B12.
However Powers and Gee discussing their “Tech problem” might indicate a more sinister plot.
LikeLike
No, it was the one where he said something to the effect of, “Look at X, see, I told you Texas was trying to do that.” I don’t remember the exact topic, but it was surprising and juvenile. And something that was no longer any of his business. Changes in conference rules were irrelevant at that point.
LikeLike
Let me refresh your memory of how R Bowen Loftin was trying to “break up” the B12….
From: Loftin, R. Bowen
To: Boren, David L.
Subject: Big 12 ESPN Women”s Basketball
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 4:15:14 PM
David:
You will notice the total absence of Texas from the broadcast schedule. ESPN is setting it up so
that all their games fall through for the LHN.
Bowen
R. Bowen Loftin, Ph.D.
President
Texas A&M University
Looks like a factual comment to me. He is noting Texas’ contractual obligation to actively work with ESPN to push content to the LHN. It is laughable to equate this to breaking up the B12.
LikeLike
And after he had already decided to leave the conference, what was the purpose of bringing that to OU’s attention (and it sounded like a pretty stupid conspiracy theory to me, not worthy of someone who got his Phd at Rice)?
LikeLike
And to refresh your memory, Texas A&M won the national championship the year before. Baylor, the #1 seed got upset by A&M, but would go on to win it the next year. Texas lost in the 1st round in 2011 and would again in 2012.
LikeLike
bullet says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Colorado and Nebraska left on better terms. A&M’s president tried to break up the conference.
That is your claim. The only evidence to support it is an email discussing women’s basketball. Your argument isn’t very convincing.
Then you ask: “And after he had already decided to leave the conference, what was the purpose of bringing that to OU’s attention”?
Could be lots of reasons, since Boren was actively seeking PAC membership. Perhaps Bowen asked him about the LHN contract? Since we have one side of the conversation (the FOIA request only received in-bound emails) it is really hard to say. Regardless, the topic hardly equates to Loftin attempting to break up the conference.
Regarding your next post refreshing my memory about the recent Texas A&M national championship in women’s basketball. Thank you, but I recall it quite well. That was an amazing team full of great players and classy women.
LikeLike
Yeah, it did feel like certain A&M elements wanted to damage the Big 12 on their way out. Bowen seemed to be the conduit for the UT angst of the average TexAgs poster, while Sherman and Dollar Bill were pretty classy through it all, I thought.
LikeLike
Yes, and Powers, Dodds and Ken Starr were the standard bearers of class and I could sense they were looking out for A&M’s best interests the whole time. What comedy.
LikeLike
Speaking of conduits, Chip Brown with Orangebloods.com and Deloss Dodds say hello.
LikeLike
Starr was just performing his fiduciary duty to save Baylor’s D1 football life, you can’t really blame him for his desperate attempt. Dodds is always an arrogant smart ass, that’s just who he is. I don’t recall Powers ever saying anything inflammatory. And Bellmont HATES Orangebloods, there’s no way Dodds ever leaked one word to Chip. I think his main source was a Tech guy…
LikeLike
Despite what is widely written, People in the know agree with Christian about Bellmont and Chip. Now I do think Chip has sources in the Texas AD, but its not Dodds.
LikeLike
Powers has always been nothing but class. Bowtie-another story. I find it amazing that professionals (actually I think it was Byrne, not Bowen) would send out e-mails or letters outside A&M referring to Texas as “tu.” Talk about an insular culture. Penn St. could take lessons.
LikeLike
R. Bowen Loftin decided what was best for A&M was to not follow the plans of Powers. That plan was a preemptive strike to destroy the B12 and form the P16. This was after he investigated his B1G options and his “Tech Problem”.
Yes, nothing but class. I’m sure the president’s of Nebraska and Mizzou are classless fellows too in the eyes of Longhorns.
An Aggie called Texas “tu”? That seals it. A&M is certain to follow the path of PSU as you allude. Of course Texas is the school were players are under investigation for sexual misconduct, not A&M.
LikeLike
The reason the PAC-16 fell apart had nothing to do with A&M; it’s because ESPN and Fox gave Texas a sweetheart deal that would enable them to start their own TV network and have a TV contract competitive with other powers conferences.
If not for the LHN then the PAC would have just replaced A&M with either Utah or Kansas.
LikeLike
That said, I don’t think Texas A&M was actively trying to destroy the Big XII, they were just indifferent to the possibility.
LikeLike
Not true frug. The Pac16 deal was in place before the LHN offer was even on the table. Go check the timeframe. A&M’s decision to pull out of that deal (led by Bowen and BOT Gene Stallings) scuttled it.
LikeLike
frug – sorry for the second post but I missed one of your comments. The PAC didn’t kill the deal, Texas did after A&M refused to go along.
LikeLike
The Pac16 deal was in place before the LHN offer was even on the table.
Yeah, and the deal fell apart as soon as ESPN put it on the table.
LikeLike
The initial discussions between Powers and the PAC were in the summer of 2010. That is the only time A&M was in the planning. Well before ESPN put the LHN offer on the table. At that time, most reports discussed something with Fox ala what OU was able to put together. I think Texas’ decision to end the process did include tier three rights but the driver was A&M’s withdrawal.
There is little question that if A&M agreed to the move during the initial Texas/A&M meeting to discuss Powers’ plan, Texas, A&M, OU, Tech, OSU and CU would be in the Pac16. Don’t interpret this to mean I view A&M as the lynchpin to the deal, that isn’t what I am saying. However, once A&M chose a different path, so did Texas. Without question Texas could have still moved on with their plan but chose not to.
LikeLike
A&M looking elsewhere may have given Texas pause, and thus enough time for ESPN and Fox to put together a deal that kept the Big XII together, but Texas’ still would have jumped if the PAC had been willing to let them keep their Tier III TV rights (as evidenced by the fact they tried again the next year after A&M had already decided to go East only to the deal fall apart for the same reason).
LikeLike
Sure, I agree with that Frug. My comment was only regarding the initial Pac16 deal where Texas had already agreed to jump regardless of tier III rights.
LikeLike
SDSU’s return to the MWC could be complete by the end of the week.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21516255/mountain-west-san-diego-state-talks-heating-up
LikeLike
Amazing how different the tone is in that article vs the one on ESPN a few days ago. The ESPN report made it sound almost as if the MWC didn’t want SDSU, while this one sounds like the MWC is trying to persuade SDSU to join.
LikeLike
It could well be both ~ there could be schools / athletic departments IN the MWC pushing back against a sweetheart deal for SDSU similar to Boise State’s, and the MWC itself trying to work out an offer good enough to win SDSU that can also win ]the support of the Presidents. That’s how I’d read:
“‘They want back if terms are acceptable,’ a league source said. ‘They will need to accept our terms, and presidents will need to approve a deal.'”
We’d also expect MWC officials to be cagey in earlier stages of the negotiation, when the likelihood of success is not as clear, and less cagey when the outline of the deal is on the table and they are dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.
LikeLike
Everything ESPN has said regarding MWC and BE has been spin favoring the BE, first seemingly trying to influence Boise not to alter plans and now SDSU. Other reporting has seemed more informative and less prejudiced.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical that CBS Sports reporting is unaffected by commercial considerations, but obviously their bias runs in the opposite direction, since they hold the MWC contract.
LikeLike
True. However, is any other sports broadcast entity in the same league as ESPiN when it comes to shamelessly promoting an agenda?
LikeLike
Andy, how can this be that Missouri is so lowly valued like we have been telling you?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html
LikeLike
Must be a double secret national conspiracy. I mean, with all the glaring proof Andy has provided us to the contrary. *tongue in cheek*
LikeLike
Probably because those numbers are screwy. Also, Mizzou had a ton of money witheld by the Big 12 this year and isn’t getting SEC money yet. Check back next year.
LikeLike
btw, if you doubt the screwiness of the numbers, observe:
22. Texas Tech
24. Kansas State
28. Southern cal
29. Georgia Tech
31. Arizona State
33. Florida State
41. Iowa State
35. UCLA
53 South Florida
54. North Carolina
57. Cal
60. Louisville
57. Missouri
How much sense do those rnakings make?
Does anybody really beliee Texas Tech is worth 400% more than Mizzou.
That Iowa State is worth twice as much as Louisville?
That Kansas State is worth 30% more than Florida State?
That South Florida is worth more than Cal?
Really?
I have no idea how they got their numbers. But if was related to this year’s revenue numbers, at least in the case of Missouri, it’s likely skewed by the conference move. The Big 12 withheld somehting like $14M in revenue this year, and SEC revenue won’t come in until after the season is over.
LikeLike
Also, one would think gifts might factor in, and Mizzou has recieved quite a few this year, including one for $50M and another for $10M. Maybe those don’t count? i don’t know how those numbers work.
LikeLike
Also, Mizzou ranked in the top 25 in the country in attendance, with above average priced tickets, and all of their games were on tv, 75% of them on national TV, two of them were CBS games of the week. Individual scholarship donations were at an all time high. Basketball team won 30 games, finished the regular season ranked 3rd in the country, won the conference tournament, most games were sellouts, on national TV in most games. Clearly these numbers are bogus. No way around it.
LikeLike
The numbers are for football only. So what the Missouri basketball team did (Norfolk State loss and all) is irrelevant. The 75% national television games is semi-relevant only if your are trying to measure potential exposure in valuation. If not, Kentucky gets the same amount of money as Missouri does from the conference television deals.
Stick to your first criticism about the Big XII exit fee, you have a legitimate point there. I have a feeling the reason Iowa is ahead of Nebraska is Nebraska’s equity buy-in for the BTN. Pretty much equally ludicrous. If the author’s stated goal was to determine the value of football programs, you’ve got to factor in Missouri’s SEC revenue, basically ignore last years conference distribution number from the Big XII (likely under $10 million).
LikeLike
I agree that Iowa at #11 is too high. I’d believe upper teens.
LikeLike
Like I said, I don’t know what these numbers mean, but they’re clearly bogus. If it’s football only then it must be about the Big 12 money withholdings. Still, this whole list looks bogus. They value Colorado at 4 times higher than Missouri, and yet Missouri averages 19k more fans per game than CU, and charges more per ticket. There’s something very wrong with these numbers.
LikeLike
Individual donations would not be counted as annual revenue ~ they might take an annual average of regular donations, but big gifts for capital improvements would have to be capitalized.
And, yes, obviously if there is a revenue gap because of the conference move, then that ought to have a substantial impact on a current valuation. It may well be that an anticipated five year valuation would be higher, but as described in the article, this appears to be a current valuation.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is necessarily supposed to be a current valuation though. Most “now” valuations are going concern. What is the farm land worth as farm land going forward. What is this business worth now to a potential buyer going forward. In this case what is this team worth going forward. In the brief methodology the author talks about cash flow adjustments and growth as two of the factors. One of the major things you’d want to account for going forward is the fact that Missouri’s conference distribution last year is in no way representative of the actual value of the team. Same for Nebraska over the next several years.
LikeLike
Even if financial returns 8 years down the track are considered to be locked in granite, when discounting is applied those returns do not have equal weight with returns in the current year, or anticipated returns next year.
It certainly is possible that its just a cookie cutter formula being inappropriately applied to a team in conference transition ~ the WSJ is not the publication it was five or ten years ago, after all ~ but its no certainty, either.
LikeLike
Bruce,
My undergraduate degree was in Finance. I have a full understanding of cash flows. Trust me I’ve played with the numbers here. Even at 8 years, I don’t see a scenario where Nebraska is behind Iowa. As for the Missouri example, if you want to look at 8 years forward cash flows they are basically on equal footing then with any other SEC school many of whom are in the top 20.
LikeLike
I am glad that the Rose Bowl (along with Sugar and 3rd bowl of the day) will be on January 2nd when January 1st is a Sunday instead of December 31st as earlier reports suggested.
LikeLike
Big East hitting rock bottom, laughed out of the room….
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-01-08/bcs-playoff-semifinals-2014-sugar-bowl-rose-sec-big-east?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
When a conferences loses more than 10 schools over the course of 12 years, that fits the definition of being “bitchslapped”. I have no idea whether the description of the meeting is accurate or not but I just fail to see why the BE management thought that they could demand something like that from ESPN, when they’re (ESPN) the same people that helped dismantle it. Dumb and stupid.
I have to think that’s spin.
LikeLike
Andy, Missouri not in the top 43 early 2013 college football rankings. Please provide analysis as to how this is completely incorrect and has to do with Missouri hatred.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/08/early-top-25-2013-alabama-oregon-ohio-state/1816949/
LikeLike
Well, I’d assume they’re basing it mostly on results from this season. This season Missouri played the #2 ranked SOS in the country. They played 5 teams in the top 10, 7 in the top 25. The top 9 teams Missouri played won 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 9 and 8 games. Missouri won 5 out of those 12, but also had late leads on 9 win Vanderbilt and 8 win Syracuse (a team that beat Louisville by 20 pts and West Virginia by 20 pts), before losing late in both. They also hung with Florida down to the last play of the game, falling 14-7 in Gainesville. They also had a late lead on Georgia before collapsing. That was also when the season was basically lost. Honorable Mention All-QB James Franklin was injured in the middle of that game, and Missouri went from leading that game to losing by 21 pts as the offense disintigrated without its QB. Missouri’s offense relies very heavily on QB play, and unfortunately Missouri didn’t have a credible backup. Lack of depth was an issue all over as Missouri had more injuries than I can ever remember seeing on one team in one season, including 7 offensive linemen. It was ridiculous.
Will Missouri be better next year? Well, it’s hard to imagine having two absurdly injury-filled seaons in a row, but you never know. If not then there should be some improvement. Also, Missouri plays Ole Miss next year instead of Alabama, so that should make things easier. Also Indiana and Toledo in the non-conference instead of Arizona State and Syracuse. So there’s that.
There’s also some hope that 1st Team Parade All American Matty Mauk can be a star here. He redshirted this year to learn the offense. In high school he passed for a ridiculous national record setting 18,922 yards and ran for 4,000 more. He wants to be the next Chase Daniel. He’ll have last year’s #1 rated recruit in the nation, Dorial Green Beckham, to throw to.
So what do I expect from next year’s team? Anywhere from 5 to 10 wins, depending on how Mauk pans out.
LikeLike
Ticks me off that ND is #4……so couple of ND jokes going around:
—How do you make eggs ND style? Put them in a bowl that’s too big, and beat them for 3 hours…
—What do pot and ND have in common? Both get smoked in bowls…..
LikeLike
Beamer getting a little flack and Mack Brown getting a lot of flack, but they quietly moved into 6th and 11th all time among major college coaches. Beamer passing Lavell Edwards and Tom Osborne, Brown passing Bo Schembechler, Hayden Fry and Jim Tressel. Top 20 after forfeits deducted:
1 Bobby Bowden 377
2 Pop Warner 336
3 Bear Bryant 323
4 Amos Alonzo Stagg 314
5 Joe Paterno 298
6 Frank Beamer 258
7 Lavell Edwards 257
8 Tom Osborne 255
9 Lou Holtz 249
10 Woody Hayes 238
11 Mack Brown 236
12 Bo Schembechler 234
13 Chris Ault 233
14 Hayden Fry 232
15 Jim Tressel 229
16 Steve Spurrier 208
17 Don Nehlen 202
18 Vince Dooley 201
19 Eddie Anderson 201
20 Jim Sweeney 201
Active coaches nearing 200-Brian Kelly 199, Dennis Franchione 197. Note that not all of these wins are with major colleges, but most of their careers were with major colleges. Spurrier the only other active one over 200, but Tressel will probably be back somewhere.
LikeLike
BE/MW and SDSU article
BE will be 10 or 11 in 2013. MW will be 11 or 12. MW expects to stop at 12. BE is aiming for 12.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8825986/mountain-west-conference-expects-san-diego-state-aztecs-decision-shortly
LikeLike
The best possible yet realistic playoff format….
ACC gets picked apart by B1G and SEC. Pac expansion is limited due to geography. Big 12 has no incentive to merge with ACC leftovers as it would dilute tier 1 TV contract. New structure forces ND to join a conference.
Power conferences form separate division, semi-finals allowed with minimum pod size of 4 teams.
B1G (20)
South–Fl St, GA Tech, NC, Virginia, Duke
East–Notre Dame, Penn St, Rutgers, MD, Purdue
Central–Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St, Northwestern, Indiana
West–Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny, Illinois
SEC (16)
South–Florida, VA Tech, South Carolina, NC St
East–Georgia, Tenn, Kentucky, Vandy
Central–Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St.
West–LSU, A&M, Arkansas, Missou
Pac (12)
North–Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St
South–USC, UCLA, AZ, AZ St, Utah, Colorado
Big 12 (10)
North–Oklahoma, Kansas St, OK St, Kansas, Iowa St
South–Texas, West VA, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
ACC/BE (8)
North–Pitt, Syracuse, Uconn, BC
South–Miami, Clemson, Louisville, Cincy
4 team playoff with B1G, SEC, Pac, and Big 12/new ACC each having 1 rep.
Best case it would look lik:
Fl St vs Notre Dame, Ohio St vs Nebraska
Notre Dame vs Ohio St
Florida vs Georgia, Bama vs LSU
Florida vs Bama
Oregon vs USC
Oklahoma vs Texas, Pitt vs Miami
FInal 4: Ohio St vs Bama, Oregon vs Texas
Why it works:
–Playoff within conf structure (only 2 teams playing 2 more games than today)
–Conferences retain conf playoff money, so SEC is rewarded for having best teams (TV $$$)
–Wake Forest only power conf team shut out
–No selection committees, computer rankings, etc.
–Allows for likelihood Big 12 won’t expand (with no cable network in place, expansion is dilutive)
Issues:
–Non conference games devauled? Used only for seeding of final 4.
–Would SEC live with only 1 team in final 4?
–Will ND join a conference? They wouldnt have a choice.
–Pac shares 1/4 of Final 4 money with 12 teams, Big Ten with 20 teams. This is offset by lack of conf semifinal (ideal conf set up would be 16 teams, unless cable tv economics were justified).
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call that best possible. Why would a 16 team SEC give that kind of advantage to the Pac or B12? If your conferences were that unbalanced (size and quality of teams) you’d need to give more spots to the better/bigger conferences.
LikeLike
The conferences already evenly split playoff money, so the SEC probably wouldn’t object on those grounds. Maybe you would give bonuses to teams that play in the championship, benefitting the SEC.
The SEC’s issue could be less financial and more that they wont an opportunity to have 2 teams in the championship. But it also makes their conf playoff massively valuable, and the larger 4 team playoff is more interesting ($$$) if you have teams from 4 conferences.
The proposal above is effectively a 14 team playoff with the SEC having 4 teams. Seems fair.
The constraints are that the SEC likely won’t go beyond 16 teams, the PAC is limited to expand beyond 12, the B10 won’t stop at 16, and the B12 has no incentive to expand. You need a system that can deal with these realities. 4 conferences of 16 teams will never happen.
LikeLike
Yes but only one SEC team can make it to the final four team playoff field. You force the SEC to eliminate its teams in a dog-eat-dog fashion. That won’t work and is exactly why the SEC didn’t allow the current 4 team playoff format to consist of conference champions only.
LikeLike
This scenario is many years away. It’s academic, because by then, there will be many intervening events that no one can predict.
Having said that, there are several obvious fatal flaws. A 16-team SEC is never going to accept a system where they couldn’t place multiple teams into the playoff. And they’re not going to give an equal seat at the table to an 8-team league consisting of ACC/Big East rejects.
More importantly, no one will propose a system where teams outside the Big Five conferences are systemically excluded from the playoff. The anti-trust bells and whistles would be deafening. In the current system, it is tough for a non-Big Five school (or an independent) to break through, but at least it is possible. Boise State was a missed chip-shot field goal away from playing for the national title a couple of years ago. Obviously, Notre Dame just did it, despite not being in a conference.
So no one’s gonna say, “Sorry, Wake Forest. No matter how good a season you have, you can’t play for the championship.” Although they may be the longest of long-shots, any system that passes anti-trust muster has to allow for Wake Forest to have a miraculous season. And of course, any system that allows for Wake Forest, will account for an independent Notre Dame.
That’s why it’s awfully tough to force Notre Dame into a conference.
LikeLike
I think JD will be aggressive regarding expansion because ND is no longer his obsession… When ND notified Michigan they were ending their rivalry and joined the ACC, I think he finally got the picture and started envisioning the conference without them.
IMO he will take the BiG 10 to 18 asap with UNC, Duke, UVA and GT (I would rather VT over GT). He will move quickly because ND is not clouding his vision anymore and he knows it’s essentially a race between the SEC, BiG and Big 12 over who gets the best of the ACC. Fortune favors the bold…
LikeLike
Duke and UNC won’t leave the ACC voluntarily. After Maryland’s exit fee gets reduced, Delany would grab UVA and GT; the ACC would replenish with Cincinnati and UConn, and they’d still be in good shape.
The Big 12 would grab FSU and Clemson, but the ACC would still have a dozen football schools, and wouldn’t feel seriously threatened yet. Then the SEC would take VT and make an offer to UNC, which I’m still not sure they’d take, but at least they’d start to sweat. Maybe then they’d take Delany’s phone call.
All of that is not happeneing “asap”.
LikeLike
I’m not saying anything will happen. But the new playoff starts in 2014. Membership will have an impact on distributions (not clear how much). B1G TV contract negotiations for 2016 start soon after that. SEC in re-working their deal right now. Big 12’s contract is freshly re-worked with possible expansion in mind. The ACC’s $50 million exit fee is new, so probably relatively more vulnerable if someone leaves within a year or so of its implementation. There is widespread belief the ACC is vulnerable and that teams are looking. The NCAA is looking at changing its rules under pressure to have more consideration to the gap between the haves, have-nots and have-nothings. The financial gap between the haves and everyone else is growing significantly in absolute terms.
All of that points to serious consideration of realignment in the next 6-8 months. If nothing happens in that time frame, it probably won’t happen for a while.
LikeLike
I agree with this analysis.
I think the tectonic plates of alignment will cool considerably after 2015. If anything happens in terms of movement from the ACC, it will happen in the next 24 months.
After 2015, I’d foresee the next round occurring in the mid-2020s.
LikeLike
And with the lack of movement a possibility, that has to factor into the division alignment discussion. The B10 would probably make a different decision if they knew expansion was imminent versus if they knew it wasn’t. If the B10 is still at 14 in 2016, they’ll be there for another decade at least. I’m not sure they want skewed divisions, possibly with unhappy teams, for that long.
LikeLike
Why does everyone assume that Virginia is ripe to go the BIG? I think that Virginia culturally believes itself to be much more akin to UNC than to Maryland, or anyone else in the BIG. As long as UNC and Duke (and NC State and Wake and Pitt and Syracuse) stay in the ACC, I don’t know why Virginia will jump, especially since VA Tech has shown no inclination to move to the SEC on its own, and the remaining teams, (even without FSU and Clemson) make up a decent conference for most sports (although perhaps not football). One major reason that Maryland left was because its athletic department needed the money badly, but Virginia is hardly in the same shape. Now if UNC goes BIG, I could see Virginia doing so as well, but why would it do so in combination with Georgia Tech?
LikeLike
Virginia had a $6M surplus on $78.4M in revenue for its athletic department in 2010/11, but half of the funds ($34.5M) came from private donors (i.e., gifting, PSLs) with an additional $13M from ticket revenue. More than $12.97M came from student fees or roughly $940 per undergraduate.
See http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-05-24/sports/dp-spt-teel-column-state-finances-20120524_1_student-fees-virginia-tech-hokies
UVa supports 23 sports (11 men, 12 women) on a budget with roughly 60% of that money coming from private sources and student fees. Given the rising costs of college education and large dependence on these particular revenue sources to support the athletic department, there are some real financial vulnerabilities for Virginia’s athletic department.
Keep that in mind if you’re UVa’s president or athletic director and Jim Delany makes a phone call and you find yourself at the O’Hare Airport Hilton in Chicago having a face-to-face meeting with him and the BTN execs. They give you a piece of paper outlining a non-disclosure agreement and a powerpoint presentation that you have to give back at the end of the meeting.. The presentation outlines how the 16-member B1G’s distributions will be above $40M per year by 2017 and their ticket sales are going to spike because Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State’s football teams are going to be making regular visits to Charlottesville (or Fedex Field outside Washington DC, if they prefer) and on and on and on.
Do you fly back to Virginia after that meeting thinking it’s still a good idea to charge student near $1,000 a head to support the athletic department? Or that private donors will “always be there”? Or that the state legislature is going to maintain their budgets to support the university? And, oh, by the way, you can also be part of the biggest academic/research consortium in the country as part of the deal–how does that grab you?
LikeLike
@unproductive: That’s a very good question. People focus on the ACC’s AAU schools, because those are the ones everyone assumes the Big Ten wants.
Conference switches normally don’t come out of the blue. There are often smoke signals to suggest the school is unhappy. There has never been so much as a peep out of UVA, as far as I know.
People mention Georgia Tech, because their historical ties to the ACC do not run as deep (they’ve only been in the league since 1979). And of course, FSU voted against the exit fee and is known to have flirted with other leagues. There are no such signals out of UVA.
On the other hand, athletic departments don’t have to be bankrupt to switch conferences. UVA would make more money in the Big Ten, and under the right circumstances they’d have to at least consider it. But their endowment is about 6 times the size of Maryland’s. They aren’t hurting for cash.
So I don’t believe UVA will be the first to move. They’ll move when/if they believe the ACC is doomed, or so severely compromised that it’s not the league it used to be.
LikeLike
unproductive,
“Why does everyone assume that Virginia is ripe to go the BIG?”
Not everyone feels that way. I think they want to stay in the ACC and will only leave if the ACC crumbles. Then they would have to pick between academics and culture, with the location of their rivals also a factor.
LikeLike
Virginia will join the B1G when they get worried that other ACC schools might leave, and that will be before the ACC actually crumbles.
Living through the BE mess as an RU fan has shown me that conference reshuffling is a “prisoner’s dilemma”.
UVA won’t be weighing the ACC against the B1G, they will be weighing the B1G against their risk of ending up as a B12 member or one of the handful of ACC leftovers (after everyone else leaves).
As an example, Syracuse loved the Big East for basketball, and the rejected ESPN offer would have gotten them much closer to ACC money. However, when the ACC offered them a spot they HAD to take the ACC because if they didn’t, UConn, Louisville, etc. would have.
LikeLike
Virginia will join the B1G when they get worried that other ACC schools might leave, and that will be before the ACC actually crumbles.
Living through the BE mess as an RU fan has shown me that conference reshuffling is a “prisoner’s dilemma.”
UVa won’t be weighing the ACC against the B1G, they will be weighing the B1G against their risk of ending up as a B12 member or one of the handful of ACC leftovers (after everyone else leaves).
Whomever sets the wheels in motion for a mass ACC exodus — whether it be Georgia Tech or Virginia — will in all likelihood force Delany, Slive and to a lesser extent Bowlsby into making difficult decisions. For example, if UVa goes Big Ten, does Slive immediately respond with Virginia Tech to the SEC? Unlike the Big Ten, I doubt the SEC has any intention of expanding past 16 members — it would drastically alter football scheduling — and taking Tech thus almost would certainly require Slive to invite UNC on its own, without either N.C. State or Duke, a potential deal-breaker in Chapel Hill. Virginia Tech in the SEC probably ships NCSU to that conference by default, and with it UNC (and Duke) to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Keep that in mind if you’re UVa’s president or athletic director and Jim Delany makes a phone call and you find yourself at the O’Hare Airport Hilton in Chicago having a face-to-face meeting with him and the BTN execs. They give you a piece of paper outlining a non-disclosure agreement and a powerpoint presentation that you have to give back at the end of the meeting.. The presentation outlines how the 16-member B1G’s distributions will be above $40M per year by 2017 and their ticket sales are going to spike because Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State’s football teams are going to be making regular visits to Charlottesville (or Fedex Field outside Washington DC, if they prefer) and on and on and on.
Do you fly back to Virginia after that meeting thinking it’s still a good idea to charge student near $1,000 a head to support the athletic department? Or that private donors will “always be there”? Or that the state legislature is going to maintain their budgets to support the university? And, oh, by the way, you can also be part of the biggest academic/research consortium in the country as part of the deal–how does that grab you?
UVa is gradually changing from a pure state university to a blend of private and public funding, largely the result of budget cuts from the conservative General Assembly. The state AG, Ken Cuccinelli, has also been in a number of disputes with UVa, including one with a faculty member over global warming and emails…and Cuccinelli, a Tea Party favorite, will probably be the Republican gubernatorial candidate this year.
The future of the university more and more looks to be based on private funding, and having CIC research funds on hand could persuade Teresa Sullivan — who has ties to Michigan and MSU — to ship UVa to the Big Ten if the ACC has a financially untenable future.
LikeLike
The University of North Carolina’s Athletic Department has had problems breaking even in recent years. UNC supports 28 sports with a budget of over $70M while Michigan has essentially the same number of programs and a budget that is at least $50M more. Part of UNC’s athletic department revenue comes from student fees totaling $7M. See the following articles for background:
UNC Athletic Department Struggles to Make Profit (February 2010): http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2010/02/unc_athletic_department_struggles_to_make_profit
UNC athletics budget reveals narrow profit hopes for 2011-12 (August 2011): http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/story/9944045/
Coaches may receive pay hike (August 2012): http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2012/08/coaches-may-receive-pay-hike
For the 2011-2012 season, UNC was looking at total revenue of $75.4M and expenses of $75.2M for a profit of $200K. See http://media.dth.s3.amazonaws.com/13040_public_records_response___melvin_backman_8212012o.pdf
Keep this in mind and imagine a discussion between UNC’s president or AD with Jim Delany or Mike Slive regarding the possibilities behind North Carolina leaving the ACC for the Big Ten or the SEC.
In 2010-2011 timeframe, Duke University had $67.9M in revenue with $67.4M in expenses. In 2009, the university had an annual subsidy to the athletic department to the tune of $15M and still had to make cost cutting moves. Duke currently supports 20 sports with the football and men’s basketball (and that subsidy) providing much of the internal revenue to do it.
See http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/3/20/2880533/financial-comparison-acc-athletic-department-budgets-10-11 and http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/athletics-confronts-budget-shortfall and http://today.duke.edu/2010/01/council_athletics.html
to get some background here. For the latest on their fund raising efforts, see http://www.irondukes.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5100&ATCLID=205702838
The ACC’s new television deal for football and basketball will get these schools around $17-$18M per year–a modest increase from their previous numbers. The Big Ten and the SEC are looking at markedly greater amounts when the former renegotiates its deal with the networks a few years down the line and the SEC launches its conference network.
The bottom line for programs like North Carolina and Duke is that they can continue to basically break even or be very mildly profitable by staying in the ACC or they can put themselves in a situation where they’re in markedly better financial straits by joining the B1G or the SEC. They may feel that the money from the new post-season setup will keep them afloat and they don’t have to make that sort of a move.
But, for example, if the B1G can tell them that their total conference distributions from television, the NCAA men’s tournament and net bowl revenue is going to be in the lower $40M figure by FY 2017, that has to be a major incentive for them to make the move. Or that one of the B1G basketball tournament sites will be in New York City–the #1 media capital of the world. Or that they’ll regularly be hosting football teams like Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State at their home stadiums. And, oh, by the way, you’ll be part of the largest academic/research consortium in the country.
I have a feeling that UNC and Duke would think long and hard about a deal like that.
LikeLike
Definitely. But UNC still harbors Texas-like alpha dog delusions (and seriously, Chapel Hill, how can one be an alpha dog without being a king in football?), and giving up such control is never easy. Meanwhile, Duke has to hope it can stay relevant in a post-ACC world despite a struggling football program. If Kansas was on the brink of irrelevancy despite its men’s basketball prowess, there’s no guarantee Duke will find a safe harbor above the Big East level.
The best and most logical way to go about realignment is for likely ACC candidates to be divvied into new Big Ten members (UVa, UNC, Duke, Ga. Tech) and new SEC members (Va. Tech, NCSU). Alas, Mr. Spock is not a conference commissioner.
LikeLike
“…and he knows it’s essentially a race between the SEC, B1G and Big 12 over who gets the best of the ACC.”
MIlton, well said, although I don’t think the Big 12 has much incentive to kick off further consolidation. I am surprised more expansion hasn’t been announced yet since there are clear, valuable targets in the ACC that remain for B1G and SEC to carve up. Soon, both conferences will have their own networks that can grow the revenue pie for member institutions, and there are so few attractive expansion candidates left. The only impediment to further consolidation would be the Maryland exit fees, which means ACC leadership has every incentive to draw that fight out as long as possible.
LikeLike
The Big 12 really doesn’t have an incentive to do anything.
Texas and Oklahoma have giant revenue streams (Texas will remain #1 in revenue regardless of any movement of ACC schools), and Oklahoma is over $100 million now.
Pure revenue talk doesn’t mean much to the Big 12 anymore considering they have their T1/2 setup and separate Tier 3 deals.
LikeLike
That’s all correct, and there are several other factors for the Big 12.
Texas and Oklahoma don’t just dominate the revenue. Their TV deal is so incredibly good that it probably wouldn’t improve very much if the league added new schools.
If the league splits into divisions, Texas and Oklahoma want to be in the same division, because they want to keep their annual game in Dallas, and they don’t want to diminish its value by setting up a possible re-match in a conference championship game.
History suggests that if TX/OK are in the same division, between the two of them they’ll win the division most of the time. They would rather play a regular-season round-robin, knowing that the winner is practically guaranteed a playoff spot, than risk it in a CCG, where an underdog can spoil their season.
Of course, they also don’t want to repeat the situation where the Big 12 North was perennially the weaker of the two divisions. They’d need to get two real powerhouses, to ensure the division opposite TX/OK is not perceived as obviously weak.
Realistically, Oklahoma State wants to be in Oklahoma’s division, and Texas with the other three Texas schools, because they all want to play each other. But that sets up a rather dull opposing division (Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, West Virginia), even if Clemson and Florida State are the two new schools.
And from Clemson and FSU’s viewpoint, they might hesitate to join if most of their annual games are against the Big 12’s least-sexy schools.
These are some of the problems the Big 12 has been wrestling with.
LikeLike
The B12 will expand if the new playoff rules put it at a disadvantage due to not having a CCG. The major problem is they cannot get the two football powers they need (FSU, Clemson) until the ACC is destabilized by the B1G/SEC. At 12 teams, every school will play each other at least every 2 years. If the B12 keeps its current 9 conference game schedule, it will be 2 times every 3 years. Not the same issue you have in the 14 team SEC/B1G. With a 8 game schedule and 1 locked crossover, it results in 1 game every 6 years for 6 schools in the other division.
LikeLike
Mack,
“The major problem is they cannot get the two football powers they need (FSU, Clemson) until the ACC is destabilized by the B1G/SEC.”
This is the point I think everyone forgets. The B12 needs the B10 or SEC to strike first. The B10 needs the B12 or SEC to strike first to make their preferred targets available. The SEC needs the B12 or B10 to strike first to make their preferred targets available. Someone has to go first, but they’re all dependent on someone else to make it happen.
LikeLike
So true about everyone needing to wait for someone else, maybe Maryland’s exit fee will trigger movement or maybe not. Clemson, FSU are waiting for SEC offers that probably won’t happen, that is the step that needs to happen and I’m unsure if those two see the Big XII as that big of an upgrade. That move would start the mass exodus of the ACC.
LikeLike
While it seems likely the B1G moves first, FSU may well move to the Big 12 on its own without any pre-emptive B1G or SEC strikes on the ACC. If the SEC and B1G aren’t interested in them, they may decide to take the money and run while the ink is still wet on the exit fees. Almost certainly with either Miami or Clemson in tow.
With all this open talk, I’m pretty certain the B1G is trying to pry someone loose. But its just not certain any of the 15 schools decide to leave.
LikeLike
For what its worth, Oklahoma’s president has said he’d be “more comfortable” if the conference returned to 12 members.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130109/catholic-7-tv/index.html?mobile=no
Catholic Seven are now calling themselves the “Basketball Seven” and they had a meeting with Fox.
LikeLike
Catholic 7 rolls off the tongue so easily.
LikeLike
I still like “the Big CYO.”
LikeLike
After everything we have seen in expansion, why would anyone starting a league from scratch put a number in the name?
LikeLike
That isn’t going to be the name of the conference, it is just what they are trying to get the public and media to refer to them as until a name is selected.
LikeLike
That is good news for Butler, VCU, Richmond, George Mason, and George Washington. Those are non-Catholic institutions who would make decent to great candidates for membership in a non-football league.
Furthermore, I think this indicates Butler as a shoo-in. From a basketball perspective, they’re the most obvious candidate besides Xavier.
So, I no longer believe the question should be, “Which 3 or 5 schools should join to make a 10- or 12-team league?” I now consider Butler and Xavier in, for sure. It’s just a matter of who’s #10, or who’s #11 and #12, if they decide to go that far.
LikeLike
If you look at long term history and fan support, there’s no better school available out there than Dayton. Xavier and Butler are hotter now, but Dayton is very solid. They also have history with DePaul and Marquette in Great Midwest. Dayton has 3 NIT championships, 2 back when it meant something and was runnerup to one of Wooden’s teams in the 60s.
Pretty sure they get Dayton for #10. Creighton seems to be getting lots of mentions. Not as central as Dayton, but good history and fan support. St. Louis, of course, has a bigger market. The question is what they and Fox are looking for.
LikeLike
If Fox has a say in the expansion (and if they’re dangling money, I’d say they do), Dayton is at a disadvantage. Xavier already has the Cincy market covered. SLU would bring a bigger market. Even Creighton and Gonzaga (and BYU) bring nonoverlapping states.
LikeLike
I don’t see what Dayton offers to the new conference except somebody to beat up on. I believe Dayton failed to win even one men’s conference basketball game during their time in the Great Midwest. I doubt that Marquette or DePaul look at that as a great time,
LikeLike
ESPN article Frank mentions above also says they would like to start next year if they can. And that Fox wants 12 teams. Also gives the most definitive #s I’ve seen on what BE is making now. The vicinity was known, but actual numbers by sport have been different in different reports.
I can’t see why they would stay next year unless it was just too difficult logistically to get the commissioner and office set up, get the new teams out of their current conference and work things out with the NCAA and old conference on auto bids to various sports.
LikeLike
May be more an issue of schools 8-10 being able to get out of Atlantic 10, etc. than the BE schools being able to get out. Need to move fast for next year.
LikeLike
Nebraska is adding a new sport and it isn’t ice hockey:
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=205896263
As beach volleyball grows as a collegiate sport and players are recruited for both indoor and beach vb rosters, you got to think it is going to hurt the Big Ten traditional volleyball programs.
Do you want to play indoor and beach volleyball in Lincoln, or California? Hmm… another sport that may start to be dominated by the warm weather schools.
Until global warming really kicks in, that is.
LikeLike
Beach volleyball should not be an NCAA sport. It is a sport for drunken picknickers.
LikeLike
Some of the NCAA sports are silly. Clearly beach volleyball should be for warm weather, coastal schools. You know, the ones near warm beaches. I get why NE is adding it, but it’s nonsense.
LikeLike
Thank you Iowa. With revised schedules in 2014, if Iowa isn’t interested in a black Friday game maybe someone else will.
http://thegazette.com/2013/01/09/big-ten-official-black-friday-likely-again-for-iowa-nebraska/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GazetteonlinecomDocsOffice+%28TheGazette.com+%C2%BB+Docs+Office%29
The Iowa and Nebraska football teams are likely to meet on Black Friday for the third straight season, a Big Ten official told The Gazette on Wednesday.
“I expect both Iowa and Nebraska to make that request at our next meeting,” said Mark Rudner, the Big Ten’s senior associate commissioner for television administration and in charge of league scheduling.
LikeLike
MIke,
Nobody else has wanted to play on Friday so far, but maybe that’s because their partner didn’t want it. Maybe RU or MD will want to play NE on Friday.
LikeLike
@Brian – Are you sure no one wanted to play the Friday game? It seemed that from the moment Nebraska joined, Iowa was tabbed to be that game. I would be surprised if another Big Ten team wouldn’t want to play a nationally televised game with little to no competition.
LikeLike
I agree with you.
Nebraska-Wisconsin is an intriguing alternative if the rumors of Wisconsin moving to the West are true.
I’d bet Barry Alvarez jumps at the opportunity for a spotlight national game like that with Nebraska on the final game of the season.
LikeLike
The Badgers have wanted an annual game against Nebraska since they joined and I seem to remember some talk about it being a season ending game. As Iowa seems at best ambivalent about playing annually on black friday I hope Wisconsin does replace them on the Huskers’ schedule.
LikeLike
I don’t think Badger fans would like the Friday game. Too many hunters and fans heading out of town. It’s been really tough filling the stadium for a late Saturday game after Thanksgiving. Ever since the conference added bye games and extended the season past Thanksgiving it’s been a tough draw.
By tough draw I mean a number of no shows as the games are usually sell outs.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Are you sure no one wanted to play the Friday game? It seemed that from the moment Nebraska joined, Iowa was tabbed to be that game. I would be surprised if another Big Ten team wouldn’t want to play a nationally televised game with little to no competition.”
The Friday option has been available to B10 teams, and nobody ever spoke up to say they wanted it. That’s all I’m saying. Granted, the B10 didn’t play the week of Thanksgiving until recently, but nobody has said they want that slot.
LikeLike
I’m sure it must have been posted and I missed it, but what is the approximate time table for Maryland’s exit fee tort to be resolved? That would put a potential time table on everything else.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen even a hint of a trial date, but it will settle before then anyway. I’d guess the settlement will come this spring.
LikeLike
Brian Kelly leaving Notre Dame for the Philadelphia Eagles?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8830219/brian-kelly-notre-dame-fighting-irish-interviews-philadelphia-eagles-coaching-vacancy-sources
If this happened, I wonder who the Irish would target…
LikeLike
It’s about time for the annual look at the unusual decisions players make in regards to the NFL. A couple spring to mind for me.
Not going, but should:
Taylor Lewan, OT, MI
Aaron Murray, QB, UGA
Who else should be leaving? Who is going that shouldn’t?
LikeLike
The SEC looking DT at Az St is staying. Lost part of year to injury in UO game but was very impressive when healthy. Don’t think he will (or needs to) show any more upside next year worth the injury risk.
LikeLike
Murray said the other day he is staying. I presume that is what you are saying here.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
@Brian: I am not sure the criteria that define players who should, in your opinion, leave early. You seem to be assuming that if someone is reasonably assured of being a top-X pick, it’s a bad decision if they stay.
Obviously, there are things that can go wrong if they stay, e.g., a poor senior season that lowers their draft stock, or in the very worst case, a career-ending injury that sends their stock all the way down to zero. On the other hand, Andrew Luck (to name just one) stuck around in college one year longer than he had to, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt him.
There have been cases where the draft board’s evaluation was WAY too high, and leaving early backfired. I think you should be able to enter the draft, and as long as you haven’t signed a pro contract, return to school. Until you’ve been paid to play the sport, you’re still an amateur. But that’s not the rule. Entering the draft irrevocably forefeits your eligibility.
Although I think it’s unlikely that Lewan and Murray have been overrated, nevertheless, coming out early is not without risk. Their decision to return doesn’t seem to me totally crazy.
LikeLike
Murray was told he was 2nd or 3rd round. He wants to work on some things, and apparently, to be 1st round.
LikeLike
That seems pretty optimistic for Murray, although these evaluations tend to undersell. I know that teams are QB-desperate. But despite the successes of Luck, Griffin, and Wilson, there are the Weedons, Ponders, Gabberts Lockers, and to some extent Daltons and Tannehills that don’t exactly make huge waves. They might end up being ok. And that’s just the high draft picks with big bonuses. Pretty much every 3rd round pick or lower in the last decade has amounted to nothing besides Wilson and Schaub. A chance at a national title seems worth the risk of staying.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: I am not sure the criteria that define players who should, in your opinion, leave early. You seem to be assuming that if someone is reasonably assured of being a top-X pick, it’s a bad decision if they stay.”
Yes. Getting paid to take the injury risk is always better than doing it for free. There are other reasons to stay (friends, education, improvement, etc), but if you’re a 1st round pick now, you should go. So should anyone rated well at a priority position (QB, DE, LT), because they always get picked too high for their actual talent level.
“Obviously, there are things that can go wrong if they stay, e.g., a poor senior season that lowers their draft stock, or in the very worst case, a career-ending injury that sends their stock all the way down to zero. On the other hand, Andrew Luck (to name just one) stuck around in college one year longer than he had to, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt him.”
He’ll get paid for 1 less year in his career, have a smaller pension, etc. Lottery winners will say the risk was worth it, too.
“There have been cases where the draft board’s evaluation was WAY too high, and leaving early backfired.”
Yes, but often for non-talent reasons (drug history, injuries, bad interviews, etc).
“I think you should be able to enter the draft, and as long as you haven’t signed a pro contract, return to school. Until you’ve been paid to play the sport, you’re still an amateur.”
I agree, it’s too restrained. The problem is the timing with signing day and the draft. Coaches could sign too many players when seniors come back from the draft.
“Although I think it’s unlikely that Lewan and Murray have been overrated, nevertheless, coming out early is not without risk. Their decision to return doesn’t seem to me totally crazy.”
I didn’t say it was totally crazy. But Lewan got a high to mid 1st round grade. That’s unlikely to improve much with another year, so it’s a big risk. Murray could finally win the big game to improve his reputation, but he could also cement it by losing big games again. In a down year for QBs, he’d be smart to go now.
LikeLike
@Brian: Your presumption seems to be that people ought to chase the money in all cases. There are many who do, and I don’t have a quarrel with that. But it’s not the only way to live your life.
I’m not a pro athlete, and I have never made millions. Nevertheless, in my chosen field there have been times when I didn’t pursue an income-maximizing strategy. I have certainly been comfortable, but I didn’t chase every dollar. I sought what was sufficient for my purposes (as I saw them), and beyond that, other priorities governed how I lived my life.
Because so many athletes really ARE just in it for the money, it seems to be beyond your imagination that any other rational agenda could exist. I don’t agree with the Michigan fans who are nominating Taylor Lewan for Wolverine sainthood, just because his self-interest happened to coincide with their desire to have a really good left tackle next year.
But I do think that self-interest is sometimes more than just financial.
LikeLike
I agree with you for a typical 20 – 40 year career. If someone is in line to be a first round pick for the NFL where the average career is 4 years giving up a year costs a lot more…and almost all NFL players make much less after their playing days are over.
LikeLike
I’m kinda on both sides. Early first rounder probably should come out, but perhaps another year of development decreases the chance of being an immediate “disappoint”, and gains more longevity in some cases? Luck stayed, but had redshirted and could have stayed another year (Stanford with Luck vs Alabama last week?) so he came out early. Just not as early as possible. And he is/wasn’t ever going to “need” the money.
LikeLike
FWIW, Nick Saban (who I despise but admit knows this stuff better than anyone) says he generally advises any player who thinks they will be taken in the first two rounds to leave early.
LikeLike
Here’s the article from the UM Athletic Department about Taylor Lewan’s decision to stay:
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — University of Michigan football senior/junior offensive tackle Taylor Lewan (Scottsdale, Ariz./Chaparral) announced today (Wednesday, Jan. 9) he will return for a fifth season at U-M. Lewan told his teammates at a team meeting today at Schembechler Hall and met with the media afterward at the Junge Family Champions Center.
Lewan was a 2012 All-America first team choice by the Walter Camp Football Foundation, Associated Press, ESPN.com and SI.com. He also was named the Big Ten Rimington-Pace Offensive Lineman of the Year and was an All-Big Ten first team choice by the league’s coaches and media.
A three-year starter, Lewan has opened 35 career games at left tackle, including 28 consecutive.
“I am excited to return for my senior season,” said Lewan. “I always said I would evaluate things and make the best decision for me, and that’s exactly what I did.
“I came here four years ago as a kid from Arizona and had goals but mostly individual goals. I wanted to play my freshman year. I wanted to be an All-American left tackle. I wanted the opportunity to get to the NFL. I’ve done those things.
“But in these four years, I have realized it’s so much more. There aren’t words to describe what this great university, the program and its people mean to me. This is a special place, the legacies, the expectations, the responsibility of wearing the No. 77 jersey, the fans, the great coaches and teammates. It’s an honor to be a part of this tradition and family, to wear that winged helmet and to play in the greatest stadium in the world, and I’m not ready for that to end.
“I want to graduate. I want to improve to be an elite left tackle. I want to stand out there with my family on Senior Day. I want to get my ‘M’ ring. I want to lead some of these young offensive linemen. These are all things I would have been giving up if I left.
“This program has come a long way in my time here; won 11 games, won a BCS game, and even though our record didn’t show it, I feel we made strides in the right direction this year. But we still have work to do, I still have work to do, and I’m going to spend every day working to do my best, to improve and to help Team 134 reach its goals. I know Team 134 has what it takes to win the Big Ten championship, and I want to be here for it.”
“To come back, to want to be a leader of this team, to improve, I think that tells you a lot about Taylor,” said Michigan head coach Brady Hoke. “He’s done a lot for this program, and I’m glad he feels there is unfinished business.
“I’m happy for him, and I’m looking forward to getting started with Team 134.”
See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010913aaa.html
And you disagree with Wolverine fans for granting him Michigan sainthood or the “Michigan Man” title? He passed up a major payday to spend one last year in Ann Arbor and be a primary member of next season’s team and you can’t see why they’re excited? You’re a tough nut. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course they’re excited, and young people tend to be too short-term oriented (humans don’t emotionally or mentally mature until 30, we now know), so maybe their excitement is worth a ton to Lewan now, but is it a prudent decision over the long-term? If your family is well-off (like Luck’s), then you enjoy the luxury of not focusing on maximizing your earning potential. Even if he never earned an NFL dollar, he’s not going to be hurting in terms of paying his bills. Maybe Lewan’s in the same situation. As someone who was supporting his parents first year out of college, though, I do think that not maximizing your earning potential for purely emotional reasons is a bit soft-headed.
LikeLike
Money is fleeting, and your life is a collection of your experiences. I love the choice Lewan made.
LikeLike
@cutter: Of course I see why Michigan fans are excited to have Lewan return. I am a Michigan fan too, and quite selfishly would prefer have him there. But I also recognize that the decision is a deeply personal one, and Lewan didn’t make it for my entertainment. He made it for himself. Naturally, I’m glad that his preferences and mine happened, in this case, to coincide. But players aren’t saints because they do what I want, nor are they bad guys when their self-interest takes them in another direction. That’s all I was trying to get at.
LikeLike
greg:
How fleeting money is depends on what you do with it and your collection of experiences quite often are better with more money than with less (assuming you have a good head on your shoulders).
LikeLike
Money is particularly fleeting for professional athletes.
LikeLike
No one should fault any football player who goes for the money. The NFLPA claims the average NFL career is 3.2 years. The NFL states this is brought down by a lot of busts and put out the following career times: 7.1 years if player makes it 3 years or more; 9.3 years for 1st round draft picks, and 11.5 years for pro bowlers. So even the best pro football players have a relatively short time to earn the money. The same goes if the player stays in college. Its a personal decision the player must make.
LikeLike
By your standards OT Jake Matthews of A&M has made a mistake by staying in school for his senior year (I’ve seen him projected in the top half of the first round). Considering he has a whole family of NFL’ers to advise him, I think he’s OK with his decision.
LikeLike
Correction: He has a family full of NFL money. That’s a crucial distinction.
LikeLike
He has both, actually.
LikeLike
If the Fox deal with the “Basketball 7” is virtually in place, that means Fox will have some influence on who the next 5 schools are, as any television partner would. However, the fact that the offer was based on a 12 team conference and not just 10 tells me they may have a little more say so.
Butler and Xavier seem obvious. The real discussion will be about #s 10, 11 & 12. So who are the best available basketball schools that draw the most eyeballs? Top of my head I’m thinking Gonzaga, BYU & Creighton.
This new conference may really tell us if the new wave in athletic association is all about getting the most out of media rights or if regional cohesion still matters.
LikeLike
I also hope this has some trickle down affect for my UT-Arlington Mavericks. The new arena is amazing and I hate the Sun Belt. If my dreams come true maybe UTA can trip and fall into the MVC.
LikeLike
My guess is Fox would like to have a ‘home team’ for their regional networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Sports_Networks
Here’s how I would set it up:
East –
> Providence (Rhode Island)
> Seton Hall (NJ/NYC)
> St. John’s (NYC)
> Villanova (Philly)
> Georgetown (DC)
> Temple or VCU … Temple for history/rivalries, but VCU for their program strength and territory. I’d give Temple the nod, but a TV exec would probably pick VCU.
West –
> Marquette (Milwaukee)
> DePaul (Chicago)
> Butler (Indiana)
> Xavier (Cincy)
> Dayton (Dayton, OH)
> SLU (St. Louis)
You play home and homes with your divisions, and play one game a year cross-divisionally. 16 games.
LikeLike
Villanova does not want Temple, nor does this conference need a football playign member.
LikeLike
Temple would have to commit to not chasing the will-o-wisp of the BCS brass ring, such as joining the MAC as a FB-only member ~ but there is no way to make that commitment in any credible way.
LikeLike
12 teams, 16 conference games with home and away in-division, home or away cross-division is an appealing set-up.
A variation on the above would be whether they want Creighton in the West. I expect that Dayton would be more than willing to take a spot in the East, if that’s where a spot is available.
LikeLike
If Fox wants games for FSN channels,
1. Villanova already has Philly covered. They would not want Temple (even if the football problem could be solved).
2. Fox actually doesn’t have a channel in VA (Comcast does), so VCU wouldn’t make sense.
4. StL is the main city in FSMidwest territory, so SLU is almost a shoo-in.
5. RootsSports Northwest is an FSN affiliate. Could Gonzaga be in the mix?
6. Creighton and Dayton would provide duplicates in FSMidwest and FSOhio, but they may be the best options left for #12 (assuming no BYU) or both (if no Gonzaga).
So Butler, Xavier, and SLU would be in. #11 & #12 would be 2 of Creighton, Dayton, Gonzaga, and BYU.
LikeLike
As a Butler grad, that would rock.
LikeLike
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis
LikeLike
A great line from Billy Madison…. It never gets old
LikeLike
That’s the grossest thing I’ve heard in my life!
LikeLike
Great post dude. I agree that the Big East was a bit full of themselves here. The fact that they felt cocky and over-confident in the first place was laughable. As much $$$ as the ACC? Really?
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130110/college-football-bowl-system-changes/#ixzz2HcAgsfUC
Good article tying in with earlier discussion on non-BCS bowl alignment.
Some interesting figures. Florida sells 6,500 tickets to New Orleans. FSU sells less than 1/3 of its 17,500 to Miami. Nebraska sells 4,000 to Orlando. Ole Miss sells 30,000 to Birmingham. Iowa St. sells 25,000 to Memphis.
LikeLike
Some major changes need to be made, I just don’t know what they are. Lower ticket guarantees, sure. Make bowl tickets non-transferable to kill the secondary market? Tell ESPN to pay the teams for the crappy bowls and let the bowl live off the ticket sales?
LikeLike
How would you make a ticket non-transferable – require ID to enter the stadium? I think that one is a non-starter.
LikeLike
Rather than give the conferences X amount of money and requiring the schools to sell tickets worth Y amount of money, give the conferences (X-Y) money and the tickets.
The conference can then sell the tickets through the school, lowering the prices if necessary according to demand.
Conferences get less payout this way, but the schools aren’t on the hook, and there’s likely to be more fans at the game. Having more fans at the game makes the bowl committees happy (they’re generally supporting their tourist industry) and gives a little extra buzz to the games, which may slightly increase tv ratings over time. So over time, the conferences may make some of that money back.
LikeLike
@Brian: I can’t imagine they’d make the tickets non-transferable. The reason you’ve got a glut of bowl tickets on StubHub is that people don’t want them. Making them non-transferable wouldn’t make them more desirable; it would do the opposite.
LikeLike
Some interesting figures. Florida sells 6,500 tickets to New Orleans. FSU sells less than 1/3 of its 17,500 to Miami. Nebraska sells 4,000 to Orlando. Ole Miss sells 30,000 to Birmingham. Iowa St. sells 25,000 to Memphis.
Great fans in Ames; imagine what ISU could do if it ever built a football program commensurate with such loyalty.
LikeLike