The Big Ten continues the march to increase its presence on the East Coast by adding Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse as the conference’s first-ever affiliate member and the Pinstripe Bowl based at Yankee Stadium in New York City as a bowl tie-in. These moves aren’t necessarily earth-shattering in the way that the expansion with Maryland and Rutgers was back in November, but they show how Jim Delany and the Big Ten’s university presidents are aiming to make the league as much of an East Coast conference as it is a Midwestern conference.
As far as men’s lacrosse programs go, Johns Hopkins is considered to be the gold standard with more national championships than any other school and clung onto independence in the same way that Notre Dame continues to do so for football.* At the same time, the Big Ten has long had the stance that schools with either “all in” or “all out” (hence the hardline resistance to ever offer schools like Notre Dame any non-football membership). So, it was a bit of a surprise when news broke a few months ago that the Big Ten and JHU were exploring an affiliate relationship. Johns Hopkins then formed a Blue Ribbon Committee that ultimately recommended that the men’s lacrosse team should join a conference last month in a fascinating report. Among the requirements that JHU deemed to be important were an initial membership period of 5 years and that the school could maintain its current TV contract with ESPNU. A number of Big Ten observers thought that the latter TV rights item would be an obstacle on paper (since increasing the inventory of desirable non-football/basketball programming has been a primary goal of the Big Ten Network), but that was assuaged by the fact that Johns Hopkins would not receive any conference revenue (which would make any potential complications as to how an affiliate member would partake in the BTN money trough moot).
(* For anyone that remembers the original version of The Official Preppy Handbook, I always recall that lacrosse was listed as a preppy sport simply because people from Baltimore loved it and that the city was “very prep”. That’s quite a jarring characterization these days for people that have seen The Wire.)
Looking back, this was a perfect storm for both parties to get to this position: the Big Ten needed 1 more school to create a men’s lacrosse league after it had added Maryland and Rutgers, Johns Hopkins had been concerned about how conference realignment was changing its ability to remain independent in men’s lacrosse even before it had failed to make it to the NCAA Lacrosse Tournament for the first time since it began in 1971, and JHU would provide the Big Ten an elite academic research powerhouse located in close proximity to the conference’s other Eastern members and the very best program in the history of the sport. Plus, the only sports that Johns Hopkins sponsors at the Division I level are men’s and women’s lacrosse*, while the rest of its athletic department operates under Division III. Finally, if JHU ends up joining the Committee of Institutional Cooperation (CIC), which is the academic research consortium that includes all 14 Big Ten members plus the University of Chicago, then it’s a coup in terms of prestige. (For whatever reason, Penn State’s official press release on the new Big Ten lacrosse league is the only place that I’ve seen that mentions Hopkins contacting the CIC.) All of those factors make this situation quite unique compared to thoughts of adding Notre Dame for various non-football sports or, say, Boston University for hockey. As a result, I don’t see the addition of Johns Hopkins for men’s lacrosse as any indication of a broader intent by the Big Ten to search for affiliate members in other sports. Johns Hopkins was the right program in the right sport with the right academic profile at the right time for the Big Ten.
(* Interestingly enough, the Johns Hopkins women’s lacrosse program is going in the opposite direction of choosing independence after having been a member of the American Lacrosse Conference. The ALC featured three Big Ten programs, including national powerhouse Northwestern. I’m personally not a fan of JHU going in this direction as the school would have technically been “all in” with the Big Ten for all of its Division I sports if women’s lacrosse had joined, but it’s less of an issue since men’s lacrosse is clearly the marquee program there. It’s akin to Notre Dame stating that it would join a conference football but go independent in its other sports, where pretty much any league would say, “That’s kind of weird, but HELL YES, we’ll take that deal!” Also note that Northwestern and Maryland have more women’s lacrosse national championships between them than all of the other schools that sponsor the sport *combined*, so the intense competition level may have also been a factor for JHU. That being said, there still seems to be somewhat of a door open for the women’s program to join the Big Ten down the road, as the powers that be have claimed that they “haven’t discussed it” yet.)
Meanwhile, a little further north, the Big Ten and New York Yankees announced that the conference will have a tie-in with the New Era Pinstripe Bowl for the next 8 years (with the opponent almost certainly coming from the ACC). From the standpoint of increasing the Big Ten’s mindshare on the East Coast, the tie-in makes perfect sense. The long-term goal of Jim Delany is to make the Big Ten into the de facto “home conference” for the New York City market in the same way that it is in Chicago already. To be sure, that’s a monumentally tough task (as the number of Big Ten grads in the Chicago market is massive by comparison), but the hope is that the cumulative effect of the presence of Rutgers, the Pinstripe Bowl tie-in, and the fans and alums from other Big Ten schools that have a large presence in the NYC area (particularly Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and now Maryland) will gain traction there in a way that none of the other conferences would be able to (which is arguably a risk well worth taking considering the size and power of that market). In an interesting marketing wrinkle, the Big Ten will actually have a fixed sign in Yankee Stadium along the first base line along with being part of the rotating ads behind home plate during regular season Yankees games starting in 2014, which might end up being the best advertising that the conference could get in that market.
Whether the Pinstripe Bowl will actually be a great deal for traveling fans is a different matter. Believe me – I love New York City and enjoy the idea of playing a bowl game there, but most of the Big Ten territory prefers its winter destinations to be escapes from the cold weather of the North*. At the same time, Yankee Stadium isn’t in Manhattan or even in a neighborhood comparable to Wrigleyville in Chicago. (As a White Sox fan, it always amuses me when people complain about the “bad” neighborhood that surrounds U.S. Cellular Field as being a drag on attendance since it makes it clear that they’ve never visited the Bronx.) I could see how Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland could travel up to the Pinstripe Bowl fairly easily, but it remains to be seen how the rest of the conference would travel there.
(* If the speculation is true that the Big Ten bowl rotation will consist of the Rose, Orange, Capital One, Outback and Holiday at the top, a mix of the Kraft Fight Hunger, Pinstripe and Gator/Music City at the next level, and a new Detroit Lions bowl against the ACC and maybe the Heart of Dallas in the old Cotton Bowl at the bottom, then I’ll be pretty happy with that lineup. It would hurt to lose the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl since the Phoenix area is such a large home base for Big Ten transplants, but the Kraft Fight Hunger is going to turn into a top notch game when it moves to the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara and I will always quickly find any excuse to head out to San Diego. I’ll have a more in-depth analysis of the entire Big Ten bowl lineup once it’s officially confirmed.)
The overall message from the Big Ten today is that it’s going full steam ahead in heading to the East Coast. I’ve long been confident that the strategy will work around leveraging Maryland to get into the Washington, DC and Baltimore markets (which will only be further aided by adding Johns Hopkins as an affiliate member), yet the New York City portion of this cycle of expansion and bowl contracts will determine whether Big Ten is going to end up being the second most powerful sports entity in America after the NFL in 10 years or we’ll be sitting around wondering why the conference had chased after cable network fool’s gold. There’s a better chance for the former to occur than what a lot of conference realignment skeptics believe, but the latter could certainly still happen.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Baltimore Sun)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
RTR
LikeLike
PSU #1
LikeLike
Go Huskers!
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
Hoping to someday see PSU play Pitt in the Pinstripe.
LikeLike
Pitt’s contractually obligated to play its postseason game in Birmingham… even if the ACC doesn’t have a tie-in there.
LikeLike
Don’t be so quick about that. Next bowl cycle, I actually am projecting the ACC to face the SEC in the Birmingham bowl.
You may have entire classes at Pitt who graduate knowing no bowl experience but Birmingham’s.
LikeLike
Usually with an interim coach…
LikeLike
Hysterical. I’d give you a +1 if I could. Maybe I just did.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers! On to Omaha!
LikeLike
Super Regionals are finally set. UNC holds off FAU in 13 innings. Rice also upsets #8 national seed Oregon. 14 #1 seeds and 2 #2 seeds advance.
Congrats to loki’s Rice Owls and ‘shroom & duff’s Hoosiers for advancing.
By Conference:
SEC (4) – LSU, Vandy, South Carolina & Miss State
ACC (4) – UNC, NC State, UVa, & Florida State
Pac 12 (2) – Oregon State & UCLA
Big XII (2) – K-State & Oklahoma
B1G – Indiana
Big East – Louisville
Big West – CSU Fullerton
CUSA – Rice
This weekend’s match-ups:
South Carolina at #1 UNC
Louisville at #2 Vandy
K-State at #3 Oregon State
Oklahoma (2) at #4 LSU
UCLA at #5 Fullerton
Miss State at #6 Virginia
Indiana at #7 Florida State
Rice (2) at NC State
LikeLike
Update for start of CWS
Today
Mississippi State (SEC) vs Oregon State (PAC) 3:00 PM EST on ESPN2
Indiana (B1G) vs Louisville (Big East) 8:00 PM ESTon ESPN
Tomorrow
North Carolina (ACC) vs NC State (ACC) 3:00 PM EST on ESPN2
UCLA (PAC) vs LSU SEC 8:00 PM EST on ESPN2
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
Welcome to the B1G family!
LikeLike
Gig EM’
LikeLike
XLAX?
LikeLike
The Big Ten should tell JHU it can only join the CIC if it becomes a member in women’s lacrosse. Like Notre Dame in football, Hopkins thinks it’s bigger than the game, and I’m sorry Delany acceded to JHU’s demands.
LikeLike
Perhaps JHU said it would only join the CIC if the men’s LAX could come alone? Isn’t that really the cherry here? I’m glad the COP/C accede to that.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should tell JHU it can only join the CIC if it becomes a member in women’s lacrosse.
And how does that negotiating tactic help the Big Ten? The Big Ten would take the Hopkins women’s program, but it doesn’t need them. I’d say that if Hopkins joined for the CIC plus men’s LAX, the Big Ten might arguably be getting the better end of the deal. It certainly wouldn’t be any worse off than before.
Like Notre Dame in football, Hopkins thinks it’s bigger than the game, and I’m sorry Delany acceded to JHU’s demands.
Exactly how does Hopkins think that…when THEY joined a conference, and Notre Dame football did not? What demands did they make, that Delany acceded to? Is there an inside story that you’re privy to, that the rest of us missed?
LikeLike
Something strange happened with the women’s end of this. Several sites reported yesterday that women’s lacrosse was joining too.
And if you google (hopkins “news-letter” big ten lacrosse), you see a link to the JHU News-Letter stating–on the search page–that Hopkins would join for both men’s and women’s. If you open the link, you go to the updated version, which says only men’s will join. But the search page still uses the cached version, published yesterday, and that shows that the JHU newsletter itself thought both were joining.
My guess is that women’s will join too, but they’re not ready to announce for whatever reason.
LikeLike
Most of the articles also included a statement along the lines of: ‘the B1G will be adding both men’s and woman’s LAX’. This may have confused some people into thinking JHU’s woman’s team was joining as well. With that said, I think you may be onto something.
LikeLike
I speculated earlier that that if the Big Ten was willing to tolerate the women’s team as independent, that might not extend to joining a conference other than the Big Ten women’s competition … if there is a term to the agreement that JHU women’s team would either be independent or in the Big Ten, that could easily get distorted at one or two steps remove into the women joining the Big Ten.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“I speculated earlier that that if the Big Ten was willing to tolerate the women’s team as independent, that might not extend to joining a conference other than the Big Ten women’s competition … if there is a term to the agreement that JHU women’s team would either be independent or in the Big Ten, that could easily get distorted at one or two steps remove into the women joining the Big Ten.”
I agree, it seems highly unlikely the B10 would let the women compete in another conference. I think the B10 is hoping that the men will have such a good experience that JHU will change their mind and have the women join. The B10 isn’t the American Lacrosse Conference. It has the unity and resources to make the experience better.
LikeLike
Under NCAA rules I don’t even think JHU could put their women’s program in another conference.
Supposedly their is a rule stating that you can’t divide your athletic department amongst different conferences unless one conference doesn’t sponsor one of your sports (i.e. Missouri is allowed to put its wrestling team in the MAC because the SEC doesn’t sponsor the sport but they couldn’t do the same for baseball which the SEC does sponsor).
LikeLike
frug,
“Under NCAA rules I don’t even think JHU could put their women’s program in another conference.
Supposedly their is a rule stating that you can’t divide your athletic department amongst different conferences unless one conference doesn’t sponsor one of your sports (i.e. Missouri is allowed to put its wrestling team in the MAC because the SEC doesn’t sponsor the sport but they couldn’t do the same for baseball which the SEC does sponsor).”
But what if the women joined a conference that doesn’t offer men’s lacrosse, the Big South? They’d say the Centennial Conference is their home league and their two D-I programs are split because the Big South doesn’t offer men’s lacrosse. Is there a clause that would force them to join the B10 since it does offer both? I don’t know.
LikeLike
They are presently in a single sport conference, which they are leaving to become independent in the 2014/2015 school year. That conference would be compliant, it does not sponsor men’s lacrosse.
LikeLike
Damn, didn’t think of it that way, but, yeah, they would probably be acceptable under NCAA rules.
LikeLike
That would be the case if they were a full Big Ten member. You can be an independent in a sport and not join your conferences league. You can not join another conference for a sport when your conference sponsors it.
John Hopkins isn’t a full Big Ten member though, they are just an affiliate (specific contract for a single sport) so the NCAA rule doesn’t apply to them.
LikeLike
vp19,
Like you, I also hope that Hopkins goes “all-in” and, if the tweet reported by Frank is legit, they might still go “all-in” in the near future.
Do realize, though, that Delany works for the B1G universities, not the other way around. I know that is what it looks like but the reality is different. JHU’s academic heft overwhelms whatever issues some fans may have about affiliate membership.
1. B1G gets the sixth team to start up the men’s lacrosse league
2. Having them in the CIC helps to shut up the whining elitists who think that renowned schools like Nebraska are beneath them, not to mention the added political power of Hopkins
3. Helps to turn down a few notches the chest-thumping on the part of the ACC’ers who come here, at least until they reveal their new “vaunted master plan” to defeat the B1G
Btw, in case anyone want to see the video of the press conference, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l3wk7N6LyI
LikeLike
Transic,
“Like you, I also hope that Hopkins goes “all-in” and, if the tweet reported by Frank is legit, they might still go “all-in” in the near future.”
I think all or almost all of us want that given that the men’s team is a done deal. The difference is in how upset we are by their partial membership.
“2. Having them in the CIC helps to shut up the whining elitists who think that renowned schools like Nebraska are beneath them, not to mention the added political power of Hopkins”
NE is a very good school, but they are clearly the bottom of the B10 academically. It is a fair are to complain about, as is the lack of athletic success at RU. Besides, I don’t think adding JHU will stop any of the NE complaints. Maybe if they were added at the same time, but not this far apart.
“3. Helps to turn down a few notches the chest-thumping on the part of the ACC’ers who come here, at least until they reveal their new “vaunted master plan” to defeat the B1G”
I don’t worry much about internet posters, but it was helpful to the B10 to not let the ACC reestablish themselves in MD by getting JHU’s men’s lacrosse. This solidifies the B10 as the college conference of the mid-Atlantic, from DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to Newark (NYC is up in the air, but the B10 has it for CFB), with DC, MD, DE, PA and NJ all solidly B10.
LikeLike
vp19,
“The Big Ten should tell JHU it can only join the CIC if it becomes a member in women’s lacrosse.”
Why? Their women’s team isn’t a big deal. They aren’t even very good. Yes, it would be a little more mid-Atlantic access but men’s lax is a much bigger deal than women’s.
Things the B10 wanted in this deal:
1. JHU’s men’s lacrosse team – 6th men’s lax team, lax king, more mid-Atlantic access, etc
2. JHU in the CIC – #1 research school
3. To keep JHU out of the ACC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. JHU’s women’s lacrosse team
If you get the men’s team, why would you turn down their research? That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If you want the B10 to make a principled stand on not having a partial member by having all JHU’s D-I teams join, I can understand that. But then you should be rejecting the men’s team, not their CIC membership.
LikeLike
Slight side note:
JHU continues to cling to the “most national titles” meme, while conveniently grabbing disputed titles the same way Alabama does in football. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Syracuse has won two more championships (11 versus Hopkins’ nine) since the NCAA started sponsoring a men’s lacrosse tournament. To me, the biggest issue for JHU in aligning with the B1G is its fear of becoming irrelevant in a shrinking at-large pool, first and foremost. After missing the tournament for the first time in forever this season, it lit a flame under their ass that likely would’ve stayed dormant if they’d scored an at-large bid and maybe advanced a round. They’re panicking in a way maybe Notre Dame football would’ve if not for their recent resurgence, so they grabbed the boat that needed them most (the B1G), not the one that provided the best competition and fit (the ACC).
LikeLike
These rumors/talks far predate JHU’s missing the post season. Frank’s post from February: http://frankthetank.me/2013/02/07/big-ten-expansion-lacrosse-style-potential-catholic-7-fallout-and-the-classic-east-c7-name-game/
LikeLike
Though all of this got underway well before the NCAA tournament bids went out. So this would be panicking in advance of the event that was supposed to cause the panic.
LikeLike
Competition, without a doubt. But with Maryland joining the Big Ten, the question of ‘fit’ is debatable. Yes, the ACC is dominant. Sort of like Canada was dominant in hockey before the rest of the world took up the sport. Penn State is already respectable and within a decade the Big Ten’s resources and network will help them narrow the gap.
As for your ‘panic’ theory, this article refutes that:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/lacrosse-blog/bal-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-program-to-join-big-ten-20130602,0,1998652.story
BTW, I thought you were happy for us?
LikeLike
I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but Canada is still pretty damn formidable in hockey – all levels – and they have far less people than say the US or Russia. Moreover, they continue to place the bulk of the best into the NHL.
As for BIG Lax, men’s side, people overlook Rutgers’ upside. They’re closer to Long Island than Syracuse & NJ prep lacrosse is generally top 5.
Btw, the BIG will be the dominant lacrosse conference on the women’s side from 2014 on. Md simply puts them in distant first.
LikeLike
Rest easy, you’re not bursting my bubble.
1) Canada has only won 9 world championships in the last 50 years. Same as Sweden, which is a third its size.
2) The bulk yes (50% of NHL is Canadian), the bulk of the best? Less all the time. Per capita Sweden creates the best hockey players. Last year Malkin(R) Lundqvist (S) Karlsson (S) and Landeskog (S) won the Hart, Vezina, Norris and Calder trophies with Bergeron (C) winning the Selke.
3) Who mentioned women’s lacrosse?
LikeLike
I wasn’t responding to you on the W. Lax note. A simple reminder that lacrosse dominance is not just measured on the men’s side.
Last year was a good year for Swedish NHL players, but they don’t deliver like Canada on the big stage: Olympic Gold or Stanley Cup leadership. Could they get there someday? I don’t know. They definitely need to play on this side of the Atlantic in order to stay the course.
World Championships are nice, but the NHL is ultimately the real deal, esp the playoffs. WC’s are also relegated to Olympic sized ovals if I’m not mistaken. Throw in the officiating at the WC level – the hits and fights just don’t come with regularity. Furthermore, the Olympics trumps WC’s. Canada has 4x more gold than Sweden. WC’s are simply third wheel, at most.
Technically & factually, I compared Canadian per capita talent with the US and Russia. I know Sweden, among others, have more per capita talent than Canada. But the Canucks, as stated, rule the biggest stages: Olympics and Stanley Cup. They also dominate the all time stats categories of the NHL. If I’m not mistaken, Mats Sundin is the only Swede in the top 30, all time scoring, and he’s barely there, no. 27.
Swedish players are a whole lot of finesse, but often lacking in the toughness department. Of course there are exceptions, but not enough. Toughness & skill often prevails in the NHL, long term.
I root for the Swedes, great players, but tragically soft often enough.
PS Malkin is quite Russian & Bergeron is Canadian. Great Lakes, your hockey knowledge needs some work : ).
LikeLike
Also, in terms of nations, hockey will generally remain a northern sport, it’s far from wide scale global popularity. Your first post mentions “the rest of the world.” Be more specific, because most nations could give a crap about hockey. Furthermore, most of the hockey world we know of, adopted the game soon after Canada broke ground, long ago. Russia (USSR) had a dominant run from pretty much 1956 – 1988. Sweden won a Silver by the third Olympic Games.
The fall of Communism simply brought the NHL great Eastern Europeans, that’s the last surge in the sport’s popularity.
PS My words: “Canada is still pretty damn formidable”. How did this turn into a pissing contest on your end? Reread your post. I’m just reminding you the Canadians still run hockey, which is not really debatable. Not yet.
LikeLike
G-funk
Nick Lidstrom was the best hockey player of this generation. Subject to debate of course, but not much.
LikeLike
Syracuse has more NCAA titles and Hopkins has more overall champions. The sport did in fact exist before the 70s so I really don’t see the problem.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Too bad Syracuse had to vacate one of the those titles : ). And the violations were quite severe.
LikeLike
Ah, of course. Because secondary violations where a coach’s wife co-signs for a car loan to help a player out is “pretty severe.” You’re totally right.
LikeLike
Yes, severe in my book and stupid as well. Dude why you on here hating on this decision and JHU? Chill out. Syracuse has a sliver’s edge on JHU in the NCAA era, but not overall history. The fact is they have 9 NCAA titles, that’s pretty damn impressive, better than all but Syracuse. They’re both fantastic programs.
JHU misses the tourney one time in the past 4 decades and you are predicting the Apocalypse. JHF’ngC! Sorry your team got schooled by Duke. Syracuse wasn’t even the best team in NY this year.
JHU joins Md and rising programs OSU & PSU. They’ll be fine & so will the BIG. If you want lacrosse to grow beyond the Mid Atlantic and Northeast, then JHU to the BIG is far better for the growth of the sport than say an ACC affiliate membership.
LikeLike
JohnCassillo,
“Ah, of course. Because secondary violations where a coach’s wife co-signs for a car loan to help a player out is “pretty severe.””
That sounds like something that would get a major CFB program in serious trouble. People were outraged that OSU p[layers might have gotten good deals from a used car dealer (turns out they didn’t, half paid above blue book). Co-signing a loan is very close to just giving them money since the coach’s wife was responsible for the debt and her signature probably influenced the interest rate, too. The player never really needed to make a payment. I’d expect the NCAA to take that very seriously.
LikeLike
“I promise to make your car payments if you don’t” ~ even if the intent was “I know you’re trustworthy, I’ll vouch for you”, the reality of what co-signing is makes it something the NCAA can’t turn a blind eye to without opening up the barn door. If you only want to count national championships sponsored by the NCAA, then they have to be counted under NCAA rules.
LikeLike
Um, what disputed titles has JHU been conveniently grabbing along the way? Please enlighten me.
LikeLike
According to the NCAA site, it would be 10 to 9. 10 is normally one more than 9, in decimal base arithmetic. The 1990 tournament win did not suffice to win the championship in that year, there’s a * attached to the result. You can’t both declare that championships don’t count for the more than three quarters of the century before the NCAA sponsored a championship, and then ignore the NCAA rulings on which championships do count once they did started sponsoring the sport.
LikeLike
JohnCassillo,
By all accounts the ACC showed zero interest in JHU. It’s really hard to join a league that doesn’t want you. So taking the ACC out of the equation, does another conference provide better competition and a better fit for JHU than the B10?
LikeLike
They were all over the academics in the Press Conference (youtube link above) ~ the President, the AD, the Coach. And made a point that every point they raised they thought would be a deal killer, the Big Ten said, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ Hard to see the ACC that in no way needed JHU to square a circle would have had the same reaction.
From various remarks in the Press Conference, first discussion between AD and Coach about multiple paths to NCAA tournament via a conference tournament AQ was 2 years ago, Big Ten seems to have approached JHU about six months ago (in line with it possibly following a promise to UMD to make sure its lacrosse wasn’t stranded), the AD and Coach chewed it over, went to the President to pursue it, President set up committee, committee recommended joining a conference, and since then seems like the Big Ten getting the votes in order for a unanimous decision to admit JHU as an affiliate.
LikeLike
I was just pointing out that he was creating a false choice. JHU didn’t turn down the ACC, the ACC didn’t seem to want them. So of the remaining options, which conference offered the best competition and best fit? I’d say the B10.
LikeLike
By all accounts the ACC showed zero interest in JHU.
Not disagreeing—as I haven’t searched exhaustively—but where are those accounts? I haven’t seen any story indicating that the ACC rebuffed Hopkins.
Hopkins probably would’ve chosen the Big Ten in any event, but I can’t imagine why the ACC wouldn’t have wanted them, if it ever had the chance.
LikeLike
The Sun: http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76153325/
Quote from Calder: “The ACC wasn’t an option,” Calder said. “I had tried to reach them and did not hear anything back from them. My assumption is that because they do not allow non-full time affiliate members or associate members, it really wasn’t an option.”
LikeLike
Huh? ND’s playing football in the ACC now?
LikeLike
But Affiliate member is a technical term. JHU will be an affiliate member in the Big Ten ~ which previously NEITHER the Big Ten nor the ACC allowed for.
Whether the conference allows full members to play as independents in some sport it sponsors … well, neither the Big Ten nor the ACC allowed for that previously either, but the ACC wanted Notre Dame even if those were the terms, and so now they allow for it.
Just like the Big Ten wanted JHU on THEIR terms, and so now they have some rules allowing for affiliate members.
The Big Ten wanted it to happen to make Maryland happy, the ACC did not seem to be all that interested in making it happen, so JHU joined the Big Ten, who accepted every single one of the terms that JHU laid out in their committee report.
LikeLike
Something about that doesn’t seem quite right. For one thing, the ACC already allowed a huge exception for Notre Dame. To say they were opposed to affiliate members (or whatever the term may be) would be more than a little hypocritical.
For another, unless I am miscounting, the ACC will no longer be an auto-bid league after they lose Maryland. Now, with the strength of their various teams it’s doubtful they’d ever be shut out of the tourney…still, you’d think they’d prefer to have the autobid in their hip pockets.
Lastly, for the same reasons that the Big Ten wants to grow in that region, you’d think the ACC might want to block the Big Ten if the opportunity had presented itself.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with you, but I have no basis to think he’s lying. Also, I think you need to distinguish between an affiliate member (joins for 1 sport) and a non-FB member (joins for all but FB). ND is a non-FB member of the ACC. Boise is an affiliate member of the P12 for wrestling. It’s different.
LikeLike
They can look at auto-bid down the track. Right now its no difference ~ if the fourth ranked ACC team wins the ACC tournament, those two tournament wins and a 4th place position in the ACC are enough resume for an at-large bid.
LikeLike
If the JHU to B1G move results in JHU to CIC, then this is a really great play by the B1G. In fact, I’d wager that the CIC+JHU might tip the scales for schools like UVA/UNC down the road should their presidents tire of their weak ACC research sisters (which, frankly, is the entire conference sans Duke/GA Tech). Interesting that the CIC tail might eventually wag the football dog on this one down the road.
LikeLike
We don’t need UVa or UNC. Let’s park that idea for a long while.
LikeLike
If the JHU to B1G move results in JHU to CIC, then this is a really great play by the B1G.
If UVA/UNC ever switch conferences, the decision will be made primarily on what’s best for football and men’s basketball. If you made a list of factors they’d consider, the presence of Hopkins would obviously be on the plus side of the ledger, but it would be pretty far down the list.
I’d wager that the CIC+JHU might tip the scales for schools like UVA/UNC down the road should their presidents tire of their weak ACC research sisters (which, frankly, is the entire conference sans Duke/GA Tech).
The whole ACC isn’t “weak” in research. People throw around that word far too lightly. Pitt is a fellow-AAU school. Syracuse was in the AAU until quite recently, and although they had to leave, it would be grossly exaggerating to call them weak. Wake Forest is an elite mid-size private school. VT, Miami, and FSU, could all very well be in the AAU eventually.
LikeLike
You’re argument disintegrates with Wake is an “elite” school.
LikeLike
Oh, come on. Of course it is. I mean, it’s not Harvard or Johns Hopkins. But there’s a pretty big distance from Wake Forest to “weak”. For instance, here’s Wikipedia:
LikeLike
Your first three points are entirely beside the point ~ they are undergrad. They last one is more to the point ~ if the Law School or Business School were up in the top 25 alongside the Medical School Primary Care, it might get a “Good Professional Schools” pass, just as Notre Dame would be expected to get.
LikeLike
I know it’s easly to lose track of the argument, but I was responding to the suggestion that the entire ACC, other than UVA/UNC/Duke/GT, is “weak.” Wake Forest isn’t weak. If you need a few more stats, Wake is 60th in Federal research, ahead of such AAU members as Princeton, Tulane, and Iowa State. In total research, Wake is ahead of a number of schools that no one would consider “weak,” like Brandeis, Brown, Tulane, and Georgetown.
People toss out “weak” without any sense of perspective.
LikeLike
Per Scarlet_Lutefisk, when “strong” and “weak” are vis a vis Big Ten norms, this was his list after the second lowest Big Ten school in the combined Big Ten / ACC list:
ACC 32 Notre Dame 570.6391
ACC 34 Miami (FL) 545.8323
ACC 37 NC St. 481.5926
ACC 42 Virginia Tech 420.3547
ACC 43 Wake Forest 415.1336
ACC 51 Florida St. 371.8093
B1G 60 Nebraska 301.8498
ACC 63 Boston College 269.7699
ACC 66 Louisville 234.7797
ACC 69 Clemson 211.7657
ACC 73 Syracuse 192.6929
So in ACC terms, Wake Forest would be middling rather than weak, but relative to the Big Ten, its weak. Certainly Whiskey and TSUN would object heavily to slumming it with Wake Forest ~ the next one down is Florida State, which if not for being considered “weak” in academic research status would have been the most appealing add in the ACC.
LikeLike
Syracuse left the AAU specifically because they are (relatively) weak in research when compared to other institutions within association.
Using just the 11 research focused rankings from my composite list, to compare the B1G & ACC schools:
B1G (3) Chicago 936.2152
B1G 4 Northwestern 900.7747
B1G 5 TSUN 898.9744
B1G 7 Wisconsin 894.1248
ACC 8 Duke 894.1224
B1G 10 Minnesota 837.0713
ACC 11 North Carolina 821.6055
B1G 12 Illinois 808.0424
B1G 13 Penn St. 791.8379
B1G 14 Ohio State 788.1387
ACC 16 Georgia Tech 762.1026
ACC 17 Pittsburgh 761.5447
B1G 18 Purdue 741.1839
B1G 21 Maryland 715.5550
ACC 23 Virginia 684.3797
B1G 24 Sparty 681.4953
B1G 29 Rutgers 641.0087
B1G 30 Iowa 617.7697
B1G 31 Indiana 577.3120
ACC 32 Notre Dame 570.6391
ACC 34 Miami (FL) 545.8323
ACC 37 NC St. 481.5926
ACC 42 Virginia Tech 420.3547
ACC 43 Wake Forest 415.1336
ACC 51 Florida St. 371.8093
B1G 60 Nebraska 301.8498
ACC 63 Boston College 269.7699
ACC 66 Louisville 234.7797
ACC 69 Clemson 211.7657
ACC 73 Syracuse 192.6929
The positional rankings are among BCS schools only. Schools that compete at other levels are not included. Chicago would be at #3 if it were included in the main list.
As you can see Syracuse is in fact weak in research when compares to it’s peers. And the ACC as a whole is generally not as strong as the B1G in research. FWIW Syracuse would rank in the 20’s using only the undergrad focused rankings.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that Marc’s point is that being a top 150 research school is pretty good in the big picture. It may be weak compared to the B10, but not weak overall.
Weak is for diploma mills and jumped up community colleges.
LikeLike
I had not realized quite how low Syracuse was compared to other B1G/ACC schools.
LikeLike
JHU joining the CIC is huge if it comes to pass. JHU is the number one research school overall and for federal funds by a huge margin.
http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf Page 188.
In 2009, JHU had 1.5 billion in federal research expenditures. The next highest school was Michigan at a little over 600 million. There is a pipeline of federal money flowing into JHU. If CIC schools can partner up to receive a fraction of it, that would be a huge boon for BIG schools. Not to mention the resources available and prestige for university health systems with being associated with perhaps the biggest name in medicine in the world. JHU would turn the CIC from catnip to cocaine to college administrators. If there is another round of realignment, the BIG could have its choice of schools with only geography and t-shirt fans, which still matter with booster dominated schools like Texas and Notre Dame, as their only obstacle.
LikeLike
roughly half of JHU federal research comes from the Applied Physics Lab (Defense spending). That pipeline may be in jeopardy and JHU may be looking to diversify.
LikeLike
Frank:
Small nit: The part of the Bronx where Yankee Stadium is located has cleaned up a bit. While both may be equally safe in the daytime, there are actually plenty of people walking around on the streets near Yankee Stadium.
LikeLike
Maybe now the Big Ten will go back and grab FSU. I mean they are already breaking the no partial membership rule, why not the AAU requirement? Hopkins could even serve as academic cover for the ‘Noles.
Come on Delaney you still have 27 days until the GOR kicks in…
LikeLike
frug,
“Maybe now the Big Ten will go back and grab FSU.”
Doubtful.
“I mean they are already breaking the no partial membership rule, why not the AAU requirement?”
I think we put more weight in the no partial members rule than the COP/C ever did. Or perhaps I should say we twist it into also being a no affiliate member rule. There just weren’t many circumstances where it ever made sense to consider affiliates before. In hockey, the schools were happy in the WCHA and CCHA. It wasn’t until the BTN was formed and then became profitable that the notion of a B10 hockey conference really made sense. The BTN started in 2007 and PSU decided to go D-I in 2010. That’s not much time to add someone, especially since the B10 was busy with expansion for the last year of that. Besides, I don’t think MN and WI would have supported adding an affiliate that forced them to leave the WCHA (or MI and MSU, probably). They barely could stomach it for PSU, they certainly wouldn’t for Miami (OH).
“Hopkins could even serve as academic cover for the ‘Noles.”
I don’t think the COP/C views things that way.
LikeLike
I agree with you on all counts. On the other hand, it was mostly a joke post (though you could make the case that FSU would add more value to the Big Ten than any schools besides Texas and Florida)
LikeLike
I know you were mostly kidding, but there are probably others who seriously think that. Besides, you’re correct about the value of FSU. My issue with them is location. I really don’t think the B10 can justify becoming a SE league.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Universities are forming a Cancer Research Consortium–see http://www.uofmhealth.org/news/archive/201305/big-ten-universities-form-big-ten-cancer-research-consortium
Eleven of the 15 B1G/CIC schools are part of the consortium (Chicago, Maryland, Michigan State and Ohio State aren’t included). I wonder if there’s a role for Johns Hopkins in this group given its new membership in the B1G as an associate member.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting. I just read it. Why aren’t OSU, UMD & MSU involved? I could imagine JHU collaborating.
LikeLike
It probably comes down to the administration of the cancer research centers deciding whether they want to collaborate right now on research or not. Over time, everyone will probably join.
LikeLike
Who knows? It could be a matter of specialties not aligning or being redundant. It could be other commitments for collaboration. It could be something else.
LikeLike
The University of Maryland in College Park is technically a separate institution from the University of Maryland Medical School and Law Schools. The med school isn’t part of the B1G and probably wasn’t invited.
There have been efforts to merge them so they’re all part of the same University of Maryland (by state law, only those institutions can use the UMD name) meaning that total research would be approaching $1B but the med and law schools are in Baltimore and have resisted.
LikeLike
Thanks Chesapeake, I suspect MSU is in a similar situation, don’t know about the rest.
I truly find this consortium wonderful & relieving. When other conference fans diss the BIG’s academic angle by countering the BIG is like any conference: it’s merely sports and money driven concealed in academic talk – they’re genuinely off target.
I’d like to see more similar consortiums.
LikeLike
MSU’s cancer center likely isn’t heavily involved in research. Their medical school emphasizes patient care & community healthcare.
U of C is in the CIC, but I don’t know how motivated they are in joning a B10 group.
Don’t know anything about OSU.
LikeLike
Whenever I see UMD, I think it means Minnesota-Duluth.
LikeLike
@Chesapeake
The MD Baltimore Professional Campus and UMD College Park have formed a “special relationship status” which brings benefits to both but not with a formal merging of Admins. It is true that the combined research funding would be large (close to $1B), but it was decided not to go back to the old system of “one” University of Maryland comprising the College Park and Baltimore campuses. One compelling reason presented is that several Universities tried to merge their undergrad and professional campuses to make their grant funding look impressive and grant reporting agencies saw that as a ploy and still reported their grant standings separately.
As Maryland’s Greenebaum Cancer Center just won a very large multi-year Center grant and has done some cutting edge work on things such as transplants, I think the downtown campus is doing pretty well. Besides, undergrad students at College Park will be able to do internships there, and JHU and the Baltimore campus collaborate fairly extensively now.
Nemo
LikeLike
Maybe they shouldn’t have kicked out UIC.
LikeLike
so sheer brilliance by Delaney anticipating the impact on bowl venues of global warming. Soon enough NYC will be like a Georgia bowl game
also, yes the acc is dominant in mens lacrosse like the east coast schools were in womens lacrosse until Northwestern women crushed the country out of nowhere with 5 straight championships. Don’t fool yourself, just because Maryland/Virginia was the seat of power for LAX for decades, wait and see what happens when the big states like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio flip the switch fully to LAX, its already happening in Chicago north suburbs and the power is shifting to all sorts of new schools.
This is a great investment in a growing and exciting, relatively low cost sport.
Well done B1G!
LikeLike
RTR
LikeLike
I’m not sure how the success of the Big Ten in New York City has anything to do with whether we’ll wonder why the Big Ten chased “cable network fool’s gold”. I can’t imagine NYC is that critical to the success of the BTN, especially if we’re talking about a conference with the potential to be the #2 sports entity in America; after all, the BTN launched well before Rutgers or the Pinstripe Bowl.
Whether or not we’ll remember the BTN as “cable network fool’s gold” will have a lot more to do with things like John McCain’s recent a la carte cable bill. If something like that happens, having NYC will certainly help the BTN, but the Maryland and Rutgers additions would nonetheless look very questionable, because the success of the BTN would now be determined by the overall passion and following of the Big Ten schools, which the Big Ten would have more of than any other non-SEC conference but which Maryland and Rutgers add little to while splitting the pie. How many new subscribers would Maryland and Rutgers bring the BTN if the consumer alone chooses whether or not he wants to subscribe? That’s if “success” would even still be possible, especially given the impact a la carte would have on recruiting.
LikeLike
I just can’t imagine a la carte diminishing the BTN’s potency. BIG fans are loyal, despite less success in football or basketball, NC wise. The fans will pay for it in overwhelming numbers. The BIG clearly has an advantage similar to the SEC and Pac12 – they dominate their footprint, brand wise & the flagships. Furthermore, the BTN is already in the streaming game & should continue to improve the Internet experience.
PS I’d love to see a la carte happen, but not so much in the sports world. If this option somehow forces me go down the road of watching delayed Internet games, no thanks. If I can get a suite of bundled sports packages at discount, I’ll take it.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine any but the hardcore fans justifying >$1/mo (probably a lot more than a dollar a month considering all the non-B1G fans in B1G states) for third tier football (IU vs. EKU is NOT worth it…unless you’re an EKU fan), some basketball games (B1G third tier hoops are generally more interesting than the third tier football matchups), non-revenue sports, and mostly a lot of rerun games on in prime time (esp. grating is watching reruns of scrimmages). With no chance at first of second tier programming, they won’t be able to command first of second tier pricing…even in the footprint.
I know this is a B1G site, but I can’t imagine that the BTN wouldn’t be among the first group of channels to go dark in an a la carte world.
LikeLike
I think both of you are suffering from poor imaginations.
The reality is that, in its core historic territory, the Big Ten has millions of fans who will pay to see its teams regardless of the opponent, and regardless of the format: à la carte will change nothing, except for the way the money is collected. That is why the Big Ten network won’t go dark.
In the new markets, where the BTN’s appeal is unproven, it’s hard to know what will happen. I live on the East Coast, and I receive BTN as part of a “sports package” that contains many extra channels that I would never order if they were priced separately. What I’m paying for all of those channels, I’d happily pay for BTN all by itself, a situation that would please Jim Delany very much.
If access were priced by the game, Delany would make a lot less money from me, since currently I’m paying for BTN all the time, but many months go by that I hardly look at it. On the other hand, there are probably many people who don’t want a full subscription, but would happily buy by the drink, if they could.
Obviously, new payment models involve new risks, and some of the current players will fail to adapt. But as long as there is money to be made, somebody will be making it, whether it’s the BTN or someone else. At this point, I wouldn’t bet against Delany.
LikeLike
Marc,
How is my imagination poor? I think you underscored some of my points, but in finer fashion. I think the East Coast markets with uncertainty are obviously DC & NYC, but we can’t overlook the fact that NJ & Md combine for nearly 15 million people. Maryland and New Jersey natives, generally speaking, will root for their flagship schools & pay for the BTN.
I’m sure the BIG will figure out a way to package the BTN in a post – a la carte way & they’ll have plenty of time to work it out. No way does a la carte come without a constructive, phase in process.
LikeLike
@gfunk: What I meant was, of course it’s possible that BTN will be a net loser if coverage becomes à la carte. Anytime there’s a paradigm shift, there are winners and losers. The losers are usually the ones who failed to foresee the threat to their hegemony.
Do I think that’s going to happen to BTN? No. But can I imagine it? Yes.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – You’re a good Notre Dame poster, but I vehemently disagree with that (and I’m not just saying that as a Big Ten guy but just in terms of observing how basic cable works). Remember that a cable company like Comcast is anything but a charity. The entire reason why the BTN was able to get basic carriage at a high rate was because Comcast was getting hit directly on its bottom line during their 1st year BTN carriage dispute as a result of such high demand for the channel in Big Ten markets (as they were flocking to DirecTV that carried the network from day one). There’s no magic elixer that has ever forced Comcast to carry the BTN at a high rate simply because the channel exists. The cable company agreed to that rate because the high demand was there (while very frequently fighting and/or dropping channels where the requisite demand doesn’t exist). It stands to reason that any cable channel that has been able to get basic carriage at a high rate would actually survive fairly well in the a la carte world because that indicates that non-partisan profit-driven third parties that don’t like paying high carriage fees at all (such as Comcast and DirecTV) still deemed them to be essential (which is a VERY high bar to clear). I’m not saying that a la carte is a *good* thing for the BTN or any other basic cable network, but the non-Big Ten fans that hope/dream of the day that a la carte will kill the BTN are completely misguided because they’re forgetting that the legitimate and very real high demand for the channel is what allowed the network to ever get basic carriage in the first place. Frankly, a network like NBC Sports Network (which happens to carry a bit of Notre Dame programming) would be much more at risk in an a la carte world compared to the BTN if it wasn’t already owned by Comcast itself.
LikeLike
In this house, the decision to pay $1 or $5 a month for one or two Buckeyes games that are only on the BTN would be automatic. The killer in the revenue that the BTN could drain out would be when its not football season, since its more an Indians / Browns / Buckeye FB and Reds / Bungals / Buckeye FB household, and neither BBall nor hockey are a big deal.
LikeLike
Edit: (BBall) other than March Madness, of course.
LikeLike
Bruce:
In an a la carte world, virtually all Buckeye games (besides maybe a handful) will be on the BTN. You’ll have the game of the week on broadcast TV and the rest on the BTN. ESPN would be in serious trouble.
Also, you won’t be paying by the month but for a year-long package, like the MLB/NBA/NFL season-packages.
LikeLike
ESPN would see a hit in an a la carte world, but OTOH in a lot of households it will be the first addition to the shopping cart, so being in “a lot of trouble” would be a matter of a squeeze between revenue and long term contractual obligations.
LikeLike
Flip,
I’m afraid that you’re out of your league on this one. Note that the B10 has the most living alumni of any league (4.4M _before_ adding UNL, UMD, and RU), most of whom are willing to pay for a season TV package. Plus you have places like Nebraska and central OH where seemingly every man, woman, and child is a Husker/Buckeye fan. Plus, you seriously think that the vast majority of people in IN will be willing to go without Hoosier & Boiler basketball or MN will be willing to go without Gopher hockey? Finally, when the NFL, MLB, and NBA are charging over $100 a season for their packages, an ala carte BTN will likely be around $100 a year.
If college sports revenue will come from only the most die-hard fans, the B10 and SEC will be far ahead of the rest. The B10 (with the biggest total basketball attendance & 2nd in football attendance, far ahead of everyone besides the SEC) will certainly not suffer in relative terms.
LikeLike
From my personal experience, I kept a higher level package on DirecTV just because it carried the BTN and WGN (I wanted to watch Cub games). However, I finally decided that as much as I would miss a few games, it just wasn’t worth it (besides WGN carries far fewer Cub games than in the past – when I was growing up). Turns out the channels I miss more are the ones I was watching more (a nathional geographic or history). But I have been tempted several times to order the expanded package just to see a specific game. Sports has a way of doing that. My point is that I think the BTN would propser in an ala carte world.
LikeLike
@FLP – Perhaps it would be useful to check out the number of PPV costs and buys for the schools in the SEC or B1G. Before Nebraska joined the Big Ten there was one year where Nebraska played four PPV games at something like $30 or $40 a game . I would be very surprised if you found out only the most hard core fans paid the $120-160 for the four games that year.
LikeLike
If making people pay separately was more profitable than forced carriage, they would be doing that today. You are blinded by your own fandom. If a la carte comes, there will still be a BTN, but it will be less profitable without the 50% non-sports fans and 25% non-college sports fans and 20% non-fanatics supporting it.
LikeLike
Nobody has really tried before. A few bottom of the barrel games on PPV vs the money broadcast/cable has bid to keep the rights is a comparison similar to saying conference networks would be money drains. Bundling creates leverage. Phone, cable, Internet. Buy three tires, get the fourth free. Various packages of TV channels at a discount to what they would cost individually. National sports offerings on a channel (ESPN) > regional/conference in broad attractiveness, but not necessarily intensity of interest in the crossover segment. Similar with conference networks > school specific channels, but inventory becomes the issue. I think major conference’s networks are in the Goldilocks zone. Attractive enough to their base of fans when bundled together that they create enough demand and inventory to survive/prosper in whatever future distribution model is in vogue.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Maybe, but ultimately, that just means that coaches make less and teams will have to be OK with a decade-old practice facility, since relative wealth is what matters in the arms race. If a la carte affects the BTN, they’ll affect all conferences (over the long term, after current TV contracts run out), and in relative terms, the B10 and SEC will likely be even farther in front of the rest of college football (besides Texas, ND, and maybe OU) in an a la carte world.
LikeLike
@bullet –
I’m not sure why you think I’m being blind. FLP made the following statement:
I can’t imagine any but the hardcore fans justifying >$1/mo (probably a lot more than a dollar a month considering all the non-B1G fans in B1G states)
I pointed out a situation where people were willing to pay much more than a dollar a month ($30 for one game) for much less content. I didn’t think that was controversial.
LikeLike
All the people are saying the Big 10 will make as much if we go to a la carte because they would pay for it. Just because you would pay for it doesn’t mean enough would. As I said, if a la carte meant more money, the Big 10 would do it that way now. They have decided forced carriage is more profitable.
And the Big 10 and SEC would be hurt more, because they are likely to have the most profitable networks. So they will lose proportionately more. The G5 will gain the most since they aren’t really getting anything.
LikeLike
bullet：
That doesn’t follow. Even if the B10 & SEC make less than now in an a la carte world, their relative advantage over the other conferences could very well increase because they have more die-hard fans (per-school) than other conferences. You look at stuff like attendance and donations (which consist more of die-hards compared to something like TV ratings) and the B10 & SEC outpace the other conferences even more than they do in TV revenues.
Mind you, Texas and OU (and FSU & USC & maybe UNC & KU) may be able to keep up with the B10 and SEC if they don’t have to share their a la carte revenues with the rest of their league, but that’s a minority of schools.
Why would the G5 benefit from an a la carte world? They don’t exactly have tons of die-hard fans, or else they would not be in the G5.
LikeLike
Richard:
“Mind you, Texas and OU (and FSU & USC & maybe UNC & KU) may be able to keep up with the B10 and SEC if they don’t have to share their a la carte revenues with the rest of their league, but that’s a minority of schools.”
I disagree with this. In order for anyone else to have enough inventory to drive any kind of demand, even from the staunchest of adherents, they would need to go independent. ND is really the only school that could drive enough national coverage (and perhaps BYU through the LDS) to be acceptable. And both of those schools aren’t primarily driven by the income. Individual school networks simply don’t have the live desirable inventory to drive enough subscriptions for those who are.
Everyone points to what the LHN is paying (not necessarily it’s true worth), but don’t consider what those rights would be worth if leveraged through a conference network. I recall an estimate that had the P16 happened the 3B primary media deal the P12 got would have been north of 4.5B. A difference of near the whole B12’s primary deal. That leverage would follow to the P16N also, and would likely surpass what the LHN pays UT…for all the schools.
LikeLike
The G5 benefit relatively because they don’t lose anything.
There’s no question the SEC and Big 10 networks have the most potential if things work out. But that is also an advantage that has the biggest potential to decrease.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I suppose that’s true, but it really isn’t a benefit. It’s like saying that a candidate with only 100K in campaign funds benefits if his/her opponent only has access to $2M instead of $2.2M. Technically, that’s true, but realistically, the G5 isn’t going to be in the same financial league as the B10 & SEC regardless of whether a la carte happens or not.
LikeLike
bullet-
“ESPN would lose a lot, but would still be the healthiest network out there.”
Totally disagree on that one. If you look at what ESPN gets now for its networks, they would need 25% of the country to be willing to pay $30 or so a month for the ESPN family of networks under a la carte just to break even, and they aren’t going to be anywhere close to that. In addition, although they have paid a TON for rights fees, they are structured badly to where if you are not a big NBA fan you could easily go without ESPN from April to August (and nowhere 25% of the US households are big NBA fans). They are in big trouble under a la carte pricing.
On the other hand, take something like the NBCSN, which people like to rag on. They have a lot of sports with small, niche, but devoted audiences of sports that have LONG seasons. They will be able to do well on a smaller level, because they are not going to need to charge much under a la carte to, for example, recover the rights fees they are paying for August to May coverage of the Premier League. NBC is paying for all of its EPL rights about 50% of what ESPN is paying the NFL for one Rams-Cardinals MNF game.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reminder, Frank.
The more I sit here and think about it, the bigger issue vis a vis a la cart is not just the subscribers, but Fox. If Fox is serious about their networks to take on Disney’s ESPN and ESPN2, they are going to need programming. Where would they rather have revenue sport B1G content? I would think in an a la carte world they would prefer it on a channel they owned lock, stock, and barrel that they were marketing nationally rather than using it on a regional network they only owned 51%. Of course, what I don’t know is what other programming options they would have at that point. I would assume that B1G third tier football and basketball would beat out most but not everything they would have rights to, i.e. what Disney doesn’t.
The obvious follow-up question would be how the COP/C would handle that kind of treatment from Fox. Would they be willing to pull a P12 create a network/ buy out Fox? It wouldn’t be easy…or cheap, but seeing as how the network’s creation was basically giving ESPN the finger they darn well might. I acknowledge I have no idea how the COP/C would work as network execs.
As far as the subscribers leaving, it depends on how much the price jump is as to how the channel will do. I would imagine it would do a lot worse if it was at best showing 4th tier football and men’s hoops, third tier women’s hoops, and first tier everything else. As a Notre Dame guy, and a hockey guy, and especially a ND Hockey guy, I would probably be tempted to keep NBCSN, but there’s a limit to how much a month I would pay (and it’s probably less than HBO/Cinemax/SHO/TMC, but I haven’t priced them in years). In a garbage economy, I know I can’t be the only one.
LikeLike
In an a la carte world, all general sports channels would suffer. People would be mostly signing up just for the sports/leagues/teams they follow. ESPN as we know it would cease to exist. Fox would abort their sports channel.
LikeLike
ESPN would lose a lot, but would still be the healthiest network out there.
LikeLike
What legal authority can keep entities from bundling the products they own, or have contractual rights to? Could any such attempt possibly pass legal muster? What could keep the BTN and P12N from entering an agreement that they be purchased as one (assuming the conferences bean counters arrived at an acceptable division of income)? It’s a mater of the market place. We actually are in an a la carte era now. It is simply that market forces haven’t driven every channel to be alone and independent. We do have varying levels of service we can purchase now, a broad form of a la carte.
LikeLike
@ccrider
Congress does. The FCC could also if Congress grants them the authority.
LikeLike
Cable companies have municipal franchises, so they started with a governmental monopoly. Their pricing mechanisms can be challenged on anti-trust grounds even leaving out the FCC.
Most people currently have few choices. Dish, DirectTV, local cable (usually Time-Warner or Comcast, maybe Charter or a smaller one) and maybe UVerse. In my location its Comcast or bust. There’s no satellite or UVerse service.
LikeLike
Aren’t cable companies/telecoms required to allow competing services? How can there be a claim of monopoly if competing providers exist (satellites/telecoms)?
Do you live underground? How is satellite not available in an area? (Serious question)
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Do you live underground? How is satellite not available in an area? (Serious question)”
In my case, I can’t get satellite because of trees. I’d need a dish across the street and they aren’t going to do that. For some people in big cities, other buildings block the required line of sight.
LikeLike
ccrider55:
1. Trees (the eastern US is now heavily wooded; fly over it, and most of the Northeast looks like pre-Columbian forest).
2. Apartments/condos. Apartments usually negotiate who they will get TV from (sometimes, that results in a great deal; some times not, but your choice is restricted). Condos & apartments tend to have restrictions on whether you can put up satellite dishes or not.
LikeLike
As Brian says. Buildings, trees, hills. To get satellite you have to have a clear view of the southern sky. That’s often not possible in forested, hilly Atlanta.
LikeLike
I guess lacrosse is so important that the Capital One Cup considers it a Group B sport. I’m not sure I understand the logic of Capital’s scoring system. They put M. & W. Swimming in Group A, despite the fact that there are far more D1 programs in this sport than Lacrosse, plus it has far more regional crossover.
Poor Michigan, they’d have the Cup sewn up on the men’s side if not for this odd scoring system. Clearly Michigan has demonstrated more sport’s depth than Duke this year, men’s side.
LikeLike
I originally found this place when I was excited about my alma mater potentially joining the B1G.
I can now rest in peace.
LikeLike
You can rest in peace since these people are excited about lacrosse?
When I was growing up, I never knew anyone who played soccer, let alone lacrosse. Lacrosse is very much an eastern thing. There are a few Atlanta public HSs that play it as clubs. But in Texas, I don’t know of any who play it but the elite private schools like St. John’s and Kinkaid in Houston and St. Mark’s in Dallas.
LikeLike
While in Ohio Lacrosse teams see, to be sprouting up in all of the nice suburban schools that first started soccer. The soccer players often prefer it as a spring sport to baseball, because of the higher paced tempo.
LikeLike
I assume this tie with the the Pinstripe Bowl will not hurt in future BTN negotiations concerning the YES network.
LikeLike
I want a la carte hotels. I only want to pay for the part of the bed I sleep on, the one drawer, and the towel that I use.
Restaurants where I don’t have to pay for the veggies, or the excess silver and glass ware.
Don’t need to pay for the lanes I don’t drive in.
Don’t want to pay taxes I don’t see direct return from.
These are as likely as a la carte cable.
LikeLike
Consumers and competition are going to eventually force more options. It probably won’t be full a la carte, but there will be packages. UVerse or Dish or DirectTV will offer a “family package” or “Entertainment package” without the expensive sports channels and everyone will be forced to follow.
LikeLike
But most people want to watch the expensive sport channels. Families can replace channels without live entertainment with other home video options, but channels with popular live entertainment will remain popular, regardless of the distribution system or model. This is most likely to hurt the less popular channels shoved into the a la carte arena, like TeenNick or Cloo.
LikeLike
This.
LikeLike
Methinks that JHU’s wlax team will join if, toward the end of the 5 year trial period, the B1G and JHU decide to make the mlax team a permanent affiliate member of the B1G. A possible way to avoid having to boot the wlax team if things unravel.
This is separate than the CIC, who I imagine would pull the UChicago rule and allow JHU to remain even if JHU decided to pull its mlax program.
Food for thought.
LikeLike
It might not. JHU might have settled on a strategic position that Women’s LAX is just their Title IX offset and playing as in independent with a bus league schedule is fine for them long term.
The other issue the JHU coach or AD mentioned (forget which) was scheduling ~ its starting to get harder to schedule good games toward the end of the season when the conference schools want to put their conference rivalry games on in the warmer weather. If JHU is not as concerned about whether Women’s LAX team schedule makes for a good preparation for the NCAA tournament and good resume to get selected, then that’s not as big an issue either.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9334537/big-ten-team-play-new-era-pinstripe-bowl
3 things about the Pinstripe Bowl deal stick out to me:
1. It’s for 8 years, not the expected 6 that other bowls are doing.
2. “The deal between the Big Ten and Yankee Stadium also will include additional future conference events held at the ballpark, a source said.” What other events would fit at Yankee Stadium? B10 baseball tourney during a NYY road trip? An occasional RU home FB game? Soccer, lacrosse, etc?
3. It’s in a group with the horrible SF bowl. You can praise the new site all you want, but it’s still a lower tier bowl 2000+ miles away and not in a warm location. SF is a great city, but I wouldn’t choose late December as the ideal time to visit. I don’t think you should send mediocre teams that far for their bowl game. It’s also too many CA games versus the P12.
LikeLike
@Brian – I actually think the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl is going to be a nice destination, especially with it moving to the new 49ers stadium. That venue just got awarded a Super Bowl over perennial favorite Miami head-to-head, so it’s going to be a top-notch facility. Unless we actually added another bowl in the Midwest that would truly be a short drive for middle-of-the-pack teams, I don’t think that the distance matters as much as the quality of the destination. (Whether it’s 1000 miles or 2000 miles, it means getting on a plane for most people.) Pretty much the only bowl that I don’t like losing is the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, but that one was drastically reducing its payout according to Stewart Mandel (while the Kraft Fight Hunger was substantially increasing its payout with its new stadium).
LikeLike
Also note that Santa Clara (where the new 49ers stadium will be located) is warmer than San Francisco proper. I’d take that winter climate way over places in the non-Florida South like Nashville, Atlanta and Charlotte.
LikeLike
Santa Clara is hotter than SF, but only during the summers. In fact it is much hotter than SF during the summer. But, they’re about the same in the winter. Much of the Bay Area is surprisingly cooler than most think in the winter – rarely above 60 & often below 40 from evening to early morning.
Regardless, the new stadium will be a huge upgrade on Candlestick. It should be a solid bowl venue.
LikeLike
It won’t be on the bay like the SF sites. That’ll be a big improvement.
I don’t think natives have ever seen a snow shovel, except on the weather channel.
LikeLike
Having spent the summer within spitting distance of the new 49ers stadium and being from Texas, it aint hot at all. I cannot comment on the winters however.
@Frank: Lisa Birnbach wrote the Official Preppy Handbook, and also a College Review in the early eighties (follow up in 92) That was absolutely hysterical. Rating things like favorite drug, drinking game, etc at each school. if you can find it, its a 30 year old time capsule of large and small schools.
LikeLike
“rarely above 60 and from evening to early morning often below 40” sounds like fine football weather.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Also note that Santa Clara (where the new 49ers stadium will be located) is warmer than San Francisco proper.”
It’s 1 degree warmer for the high on 1/1 and 4 degrees colder for the low (57/41).
“I’d take that winter climate way over places in the non-Florida South like Nashville, Atlanta and Charlotte.”
They all suck, but the others aren’t 2500 miles away. Besides, Atlanta would be indoors.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I actually think the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl is going to be a nice destination, especially with it moving to the new 49ers stadium. That venue just got awarded a Super Bowl over perennial favorite Miami head-to-head, so it’s going to be a top-notch facility.”
It’s in a pool with the Gator, Music City and Pinstripe supposedly. They could hold it in the Vatican and it still will be a mediocre bowl game. It’s picks 5-7, but that’s assuming a 2nd B10 team isn’t in the CFP or one of the big 6 bowls. The 8th B10 team is not going to be a stellar team and most fan bases won’t be excited about an expensive bowl trip. This will be in the 9 game era, so that team is likely to have an extra loss, too.
“Unless we actually added another bowl in the Midwest that would truly be a short drive for middle-of-the-pack teams, I don’t think that the distance matters as much as the quality of the destination.”
Nashville is drivable for several schools. NYC is drivable for at least 3 schools plus it’s home to thousands of B10 alumni. Jacksonville sucks, but it’s in FL and about 1700 miles closer. Lots of groups are talking about creating new bowls. The B10 should start a bowl in St. Louis with the B12 and one in Indy with the MAC and drop Detroit.
“Pretty much the only bowl that I don’t like losing is the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, but that one was drastically reducing its payout according to Stewart Mandel (while the Kraft Fight Hunger was substantially increasing its payout with its new stadium).”
I agree on losing the BWW, and losing Houston is also bad. Overloading in CA doesn’t help anything. Bowl payouts shift all the time and can be a strong driver for the bowl line up, but we’re still talking about a low bowl in the B10’s slate. Even if it pays $1M more per team than the BWW, that’s only $71k per B10 school per year. OSU spends that on bowtie cookies. Playing the ACC in Detroit is also a bad idea. The MAC fans were the only ones that went to the Pizza Bowl, and no ACC fan is going to show up.
LikeLike
Depends on the ACC school. Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville are within driving distance. Granted, they may not go. Plus, playing a MAC school in a bowl fills most B10 fans with zero enthusiasm.
Playing an ACC school might be worth the short drive to some fanbases.
I liked Houston as well, but I don’t think that was entirely the B10’s choice.
LikeLike
Agreed, not all bowl decisions are up to the B10. But I know we agree that keeping Dallas but losing Houston is not the best outcome for the B10 in TX.
LikeLike
Miami didn’t approve the stadium improvements, essentially knocking themselves out. So it was basically just San Francisco and Houston going for 2 years. SF got 2016 and Houston got 2017.
LikeLike
And New Orleans should get the Super Bowl for 2018, breaking its tie with Miami for hosting the most Super Bowls.
LikeLike
I don’t know that it wouldn’t have been chosen even had Miami approved the improvements.
I think it’ll be fine.
https://www.google.com/search?q=49er+stadium+progress&client=safari&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kI-uUYmcAYrbigLfhoDoCA&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=672#
I have no idea how busy or usefull it is, but the Mineta San Jose international airport looks to be only a few miles away
LikeLike
“You can praise the new site all you want, but it’s still a lower tier bowl 2000+ miles away and not in a warm location”
If it pays out as much as the Pinstripe Bowl or Gator Bowl, It’s a mid-tier bowl with higher payout than most other bowls.
As for warmth, the South Bay has a desert climate, so they get more sunshine and much less rain than SF. It’s cooler at night but figures to be nice and mild in the sun in the day time.
BTW, from where I am in the Midwest, looking right now, a flight to SF actually costs about the same as one to Orlando and a little bit less than a flight to Jacksonville in late December.
I think you just like to whine, Brian. I can’t think of another bowl (that’s not in the projected B10 bowl order) that’s willing to take the B10 #5-7 & pays as well as the Pinstripe (and is in a better location). I don’t think you can either.
LikeLike
“If it pays out as much as the Pinstripe Bowl or Gator Bowl, It’s a mid-tier bowl with higher payout than most other bowls.”
Not for the B10 it isn’t. That’s all that matters. It’s a lower tier bowl for the B10.
“As for warmth, the South Bay has a desert climate, so they get more sunshine and much less rain than SF. It’s cooler at night but figures to be nice and mild in the sun in the day time.”
See weather info in my reply to Frank.
Kayak 12/26-1/3 trip cost:
Chicago to Nashville – $235
Chicago to Jacksonville – $347
Chicago to New York – $296
Chicago to SF – $382
Plus, a lot more alumni are in driving distance of the eastern 3 than SF.
LikeLike
Actually late December, Christmas time, is a huge tourist draw time for NYC. Other sports tie-ins with the Knicks and Rangers at MSG, in addition to Rockefeller Center, Macy’s, Radio City, etc. There is lots to do in NYC in late December. Sure it may be cold, but its still NYC.
LikeLike
Right. Late December, Manhattan Midtown is absolutely packed. There’s really nothing like it in the rest of the country (and that’s coming from a guy who’s lived in the heart of the only other American city with a real vibrant big big-city downtown; Chicago).
LikeLike
I agree, but Manhattan generally has dense foot traffic. Question is, how’s the foot traffic in the South Bronx? Far less, I actually know the answer. South Bronx is also a decent commute from Midtown.
Btw, SF has plenty of foot traffic, in fact more than Chicago, my opinion. It’s actually a much denser city. Also, LA’s density and foot traffic has become increasingly on par with Chicago. It won’t be long before LA surpasses Chicago’s density & its area is roughly twice the size of Chicago, believe it or not. LA & Houston are shockingly large in area, though the latter was zoned by a bunch clueless, schizophrenic planners.
I like the Pinstripe Bowl agreement. Screw other conferences who duck out because of the colder weather. I didn’t know the BIG signed up for the SF bowl as well. I like both bowls, BIG teams have better chances of winning either than say bowls in the southeast or Tx against Big12 – SEC opponents.
The BIG would have a decent lead in Rose Bowls, all time, if not for USC. I think USC & UCLA are the obvious beneficiaries of a Rose Bowl appearance, but match ups become more even against the rest of the Pac12. Interestingly, this SF bowl would be the same sort of advantage USC & UCLA have down south, just exchange Stanford and Cal. Thank God, neither have USC’s football pedigree.
LikeLike
Erm? I’ve lived in both SF and Chicago (city proper as well as the burbs). I love the Bay Area and SF does have foot traffic in places, but it doesn’t have the downtown that NYC and Chicago have. You don’t feel that frisson in the air in SF that you do in NYC or Chicago where there are 10 things going on at once and you could spend the whole day just people-watching out of a second storey cafe from noon to 11PM and not get bored.
As for density, I’m not talking about residential neighborhoods. There’s just no place in SF like the Mag Mile in Chicago or Broadway in NYC.
LikeLike
SF doesn’t have Chicago’s vertical density, but there are so many heavy walking areas. SF Chinatown rather comparable to Magnificent Mile in terms of density, of course not towering Skyscrapers, as well as the the piers & parts of Golden Gate.. In fact the piers are becoming a nuisance in terms of crowds, parts of Market Street and the Castro as well. Just two months ago, I found the piers simply too crowded, almost unsafe & returned to my uncle’s place in the Mission. I’m usu in SF a few times a year – family. Chicago at least 4x a year, merely a 7 hour drive, lots of friends and I’m a record collector.
I’m also quite certain SF has interesting characters. There’s definitely a greater sense of diversity in SF than Chicago.
But hey now, I’m a huge Chicago fan. I can’t live without doing quarterly vinyl runs to Chicago. My favorite city for record shopping & architectural walks – subway rides. I have to hit the Seminary Co-op at the U of Chicago as well, my favorite university bookstore in the country. I also prefer the CTA over any other public transportation system in the U.S. due to it’s elevation and views. NYC’s subways inevitably make me sick, almost always underground unless you’re in Queens, & parts of Brooklyn & the Bronx.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“The BIG would have a decent lead in Rose Bowls, all time, if not for USC. I think USC & UCLA are the obvious beneficiaries of a Rose Bowl appearance, but match ups become more even against the rest of the Pac12.”
Actually, only USC has had a home field edge.
Rose Bowl Records:
P12: 48-42-3
USC: 24-8
UCLA: 5-7
P12 – USC: 24-34-3
B10: 30-37
B10 vs USC: 6-16
B10 not vs USC: 24-21
“Interestingly, this SF bowl would be the same sort of advantage USC & UCLA have down south, just exchange Stanford and Cal. Thank God, neither have USC’s football pedigree.”
More importantly, they don’t have USC’s fan base either.
LikeLike
GFUNK: It is not that bad a commute (Try 15 minutes). How? You can take Metro-North (A local suburban Railroad) one stop from Grand Central (Mid-town Manhattan), to Yankee Stadium. Realistically speaking, someone can see a Broadway show (Not my thing but lots of people love it), sightsee at Times Square (One subway stop from Grand Central), and Rockefeller Center (A must during Christmas Season), shop at Macys, have lunch, get to the Game and have dinner at the Stadium while attending, all in about 12 hours.
LikeLike
Manhattan generally has dense foot traffic. Question is, how’s the foot traffic in the South Bronx? Far less, I actually know the answer. South Bronx is also a decent commute from Midtown.
Granted, no one walks to the South Bronx from midtown, but who walks to the Fiesta Bowl? Same answer: almost nobody. Yankee Stadium regularly attracts an affluent audience. It is actually easier to reach than most stadiums in most cities, as it’s served by commuter rail and two subway lines. It’s FAR easier to get there than, say, the Meadowlands, or any stadium you have to drive to. No one minds that it’s in the South Bronx.
LikeLike
@gfunk
You don’t know much about Houston. Houston is NOT zoned. Its said that Odessa, Texas is the 2nd largest unzoned city in the world, so that may be hard to understand, but Houston does it without any zoning at all (You can’t build a chemical plant next to single family homes or an adult bookstore next to a school or church, but other than that you can do pretty much what you want).
LikeLike
DaveBrown,
I don’t have an issue with the commute, nor the Pinstripe Bowl & I would likely seek a hotel closer to the South Bronx if say my team was playing this bowl game.
I think you mentioned in a previous post that you’re a NYC native, thus you may be unconsciously overlooking the fact that a subway commute also includes station entrance-exit times, waiting for the subways, time of day, navigating crowds – there’s plenty of walking and more time spent during these processes. I don’t mind, but just like any commute I consider all of the above. Walking just a block in Manhattan is a lot different than doing similar in my home city (Mpls) & of all the subways I’ve ridden in the world, NYC’s right up there with say Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, or DC – it often seems greater time is spent on getting in and out of the stations.
But I honestly don’t mind. When I get older, I might : ).
Bullet,
I didn’t spell it out in my post, but yes I’m quite aware of Houston’s so called “de facto” zoning – it doesn’t have a formal zoning code like similar cities. But, civic leaders and citizens generally get some say in a development process, and Houston does have geographic borders. The city does use formal neighborhood distinctions (just not enough) & there are certainly wards for governing and policing.
I think we all have a tendency of reading too much or little into these posts. I don’t have the gift of explaining myself fully in a post (one of my many limitations). Moreover, most of us have never met in person.
Brian,
Yes, UCLA does have losing Rose Bowl record, but it’s still their actual home field. That’s not exactly fair.
Also, I may be wrong here, but I think USC has a losing bowl record once they leave California.
I do think the SF bowl, whatever it’s called, will be a more level playing field for any conference stacking up against a Pac12 opponent.
LikeLike
“The city does use formal neighborhood distinctions (just not enough)”
In general, zoning is bad news for a metropolis. They protect entrenched interests (current property owners) at the expense of everyone else and lead to housing bubbles due to artificial restrictions on supply.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/67818/big-12-says-goodbye-to-the-pinstripe-bowl
The B12 found some downsides to the Pinstripe, mainly logistical and weather based.
Kansas State played in the inaugural game back in 2010 and encountered major snow storms that produced travel difficulties for fans and the team and forced the Wildcats to practice in a hotel ballroom. West Virginia dealt with nearly identical troubles last season and played the actual game in a blizzard.
The Big 12’s 0-3 record in the game (Iowa State was beaten by Rutgers, 27-13, in 2011) doesn’t help. Difficulty for teams and media to reach practice sites during bowl week also drew complaints, and the open-air press box in a frigid New York December isn’t exactly the product of well thought-out genius. Press box inhabitants have been given gloves and hats for past games.
Trekking to New York City the week of New Year’s Eve isn’t exactly cheap for teams or fans, either.
Having a bowl game in Yankee Stadium and giving fans a reason to spend New Year’s Eve in New York City sounded cool in theory. The logistical issues in making it happen, though, produced quite a few headaches.
LikeLike
Houston didn’t have any zoning except for deed restrictions in certain neighborhoods until the last 20-25 years. What goes where is still determined entirely by the market. They have added some density regulations and parking and traffic regulations and some other changes, but zoning has been defeated several times at the ballot box. The city has really only challenged one major development that I am aware of and they lost all the court battles. And the only reason they tried was the neighborhood was wealthy and didn’t want a high rise condo near them and the mayor was running for governor (he lost badly).
Houston’s planning basically concerns infrastructure, not what type of development occurs. The “schizophrenic planner” is called the free market. It in many ways makes it an easy city. You don’t have to drive 7 miles to find a grocery store, although typically Texas cities use a light hand with zoning. Contrast that to the city of Atlanta which has something like 46 zoning categories, 7-9 of which are for single family residential and you have to get through neighborhood planning groups before you can do anything. There was an article recently saying it took an average of 42 weeks to get a business permit in the city of Atlanta (which is why so much of Atlanta’s growth occurs in their far flung suburbs and you don’t see a lot of small businesses inside the city).
LikeLike
Bullet,
I saw the high rise article you may be referring to (Southhampton & Boulevard Oaks). But, If you think Houston is an fine example of an American city planning, or city in general, your standards may need to rise. And despite what you call it, Houston’s planning is poor. It’s filled with surface parking blight, industrial waste, it’s incredibly sprawled and too car oriented, & the city lacks feasible interconnectivity throughout its borders. It also needs a much better public transportation system, which I know the city is attempting to address (good sign). I say the above because there is so much potential in that city. Tremendous diversity and cultures throughout the city, really cool art scenes, big time businesses, and some wonderful universities.
Please don’t give me the free market crap either. Nothing is free in this country, not in capitalism, nor government processes. If it’s not zoning, it’s something else & that’s why I used the term “de facto zoning”, but the better term is “bad planning”. I engage public-private development processes at least 3x a week. I can’t truly pick a side between private and public, for it’s best when they work together, but the private side too often lacks transparency & of the worst kind. There seems to always be a hidden agenda that bites everyone else in the ass down the road.
As mentioned, I do find Houston fascinating, most of the people I’ve met there are really nice, the Vietnamese community is especially wonderful, some of the wards have incredibly history – historical preservation, & of course neighborhoods-areas, like Midtown, Montrose, West University Place and the Museum District are always worthwhile. I used to visit annually because my good friend and old neighbor is an art car junkie – “Houston Art Car Parade”. But honestly, I can think of at least a dozen cities and two in Texas, alone, I’d rather visit and live in than Houston. The lack of actual zoning makes the city incredibly blurry to me.
You’re standards of being able to drive and find a grocery store within 7 miles, versus say Atlanta, needs to raise. Such a comparison is hardly an issue in Minneapolis – Saint Paul, where legal zoning does factor into growth & development & the assurance that rational food choices are nearby. We’re doing our best here to make walkable neighborhoods the norm within the next 20 years. I fortunately live in one, and much of Mpls already has walkable neighborhoods. Also, as it stands now, most Mpls residents are no more than 5 blocks from a park & less than a mile from a grocery store. Our park system is vastly underrated and there is nothing in Houston, wide scale, that compares. And damn it, if we had Houston’s weather, our park system would truly be year round.
No doubt Tx and many of its cities are booming, but it won’t last & I suspect there will be huge repercussions for Texans in general. You can’t sustain such population growth when the water cycle can’t keep up. The public education system seems genuinely challenged there as well. But I root for Texans to figure it out. They are, after all, fellow Americans & humans.
PS Zoning is not the restrictive, suffocating reality you claim. In some cities it works far better than others. It’s up to each respective city. Thus, I accept there is horrendous zoning, or lack thereof, just as there is rather efficient and sustainable zoning.
LikeLike
Nobody complained about the Pinstripe Bowl. Or at least I certainly didn’t. My complaint is with the SF Bowl.
LikeLike
Yankee stadium is hosting a couple of NHL outdoor games next year. I could see Yankee Stadium also hosting a college hockey game in January. Michigan vs Penn State might make the most sense, but I don’t see why you couldn’t also do Michigan State vs Ohio State, too.
LikeLike
Or play an OOC game versus Cornell.
LikeLike
Bad idea: Cornell does Madison Square Garden every year (Quite well), so they make no sense. In addition, Penn State will be doing Philly (Where they drew 18,000 versus Ohio State), and Pittsburgh. Finally, remember how many people UM drew against MSU in The Big House for outdoor Hockey? For that reason alone (not to mention travel expenses), I bet that when UM does outdoor hockey again as the home team, it will be in Ann Arbor, rather than Yankee Stadium or another neutral site.
LikeLike
The game in the Big House was seen as a rare special occasion. Do it every year, and it loses its luster.
However, UM vs. someone at Yankee Stadium (Wisconsin? They also get a bunch of NYC kids) would still be pretty special, at least the first time.
LikeLike
Michigan has played four outdoor games recently – one at home and three on the road. At Michigan State in the Cold War in 2001 kicked it all off. At Wisconsin followed in 2009-10, Michigan hosted Michigan State in 2010-11, Ohio State hosted Michigan in Cleveland in 2011-12.
While it may not be a huge money maker, it is a tremendous recruiting tool and a marketing tool for the program. If Michigan is invited to play an outdoor game at Yankee Stadium, I would be shocked to see them turn it down.
LikeLike
Brian: “2. “The deal between the Big Ten and Yankee Stadium also will include additional future conference events held at the ballpark, a source said.” What other events would fit at Yankee Stadium? B10 baseball tourney during a NYY road trip? An occasional RU home FB game? Soccer, lacrosse, etc?”
For Lacrosse, the baseball regular season has already started by the time the Big Ten tournament will be rolling around, so it would have to be an early season classic, while the Yankees are still in Tampa, say mid-March. But the Big Ten Soccer championship game is played after the World Series is finished, so a soccer championship game would work on the calendar.
LikeLike
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ticketing/soccer.jsp
They play soccer there during the MLB season. I think a week long road trip would be room enough to sneak in a lacrosse tournament.
LikeLike
How flexible is the American League in scheduling Yankees road trips to suit an NCAA sports calendar? European national soccer teams in the summer between the Euros and the World Cup years would seem like they’d have flexibility to schedule their trip to hit an existing schedule.
I don’t know what the logistics are for converting the field to a soccer pitch in terms of lead time both ways, but a lacrosse field would be the same lead times. A western road trip would seem plenty of time, if the dates fell right.
They play the Konica Classic in the Meadowlands at the end of April and draw 25,000, but that is, eg, Princeton vs Cornell and the Irish vs the Orangemen.
LikeLike
Big Ten lacrosse or soccer isn’t going to Yankee Stadium. I think the most likely non-bowl event would be the Big Ten baseball tourney, which I believe was held this year at the Twins’ Target Field. I could also envision Nationals Park, Citizens Bank Park and Camden Yards as possible future sites.
For lacrosse, the Ravens’ stadium could be a venue.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9338542/pac-12-limit-hits-contact-football-practice
A sign of the times. The P12 is drawing up conference rules that limit hitting in practice beyond the NCAA’s rules. Look for that concept to spread to the B10 soon (maybe not to the SEC, though).
LikeLike
I would look for the B1G to fight this tooth and nail. Most of the B1G schools recruit developmental athletes. Limiting their practice time of fundamentals/tackling etc… would really hurt the programs and the conference competitiveness.
Urban Meyer has been outspoken on this issue.
LikeLike
There are a lot of ways to practice without hitting. You can do a lot of of drills with dummies/sleds, run through plays, etc.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. Full contact practice is not necessary 80% of the time. There is plenty of development that can be done without Oklahoma drills.
LikeLike
With JHU officially onboard for men’s lax, the next obvious question is the CIC. The only relevant report about it is PSU’s announcement as Frank said, and I prefer to see multiple sources for something like that.
If JHU joins the CIC, it reopens the question of adding CIC-only schools. Obviously the CIC has avoided that so far, but JHU would be a bridge. The UAA schools would be ideal candidates, since Chicago is already a CIC member and JHU is a former member.
UAA (schools and cities, for those that don’t know):
Brandeis (Boston)
Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh)
Case Western Reserve (Cleveland)
Chicago
Emory (ATL)
NYU
Rochester
Washington U (STL)
JHU (Baltimore) is a former member.
These are smallish (except NYU), private schools that are all AAU members, and they don’t lack for resources.
Total Enrollments:
BU 5300
RU 9700
CWRU 9800
CMU 10,900
EU 12,800
WU 13,500
UC 14,800
NYU 42,200
NW is over 19,000 and OSU just under 57,000 for comparison.
Endowments:
BU $700M
CMU $1B
RU $1.6B
CWRU $1.7B
NYU $2.8B
WU $5.3B
EU $5.4B
UC $6.5B
JHU $2.6B
RU is at $700M and UMD at $800M, but the current members are all over $1B with IA at $1.0B and MN at $2.5B and the rest in between except for NW at $7.2B and MI at $7.8B. In other words, the UAA schools would be a good match in this measure.
Total research ranking (National/Private):
19/6. WU
34/13. EU
38/16. CWRU
42/17. RU
45/19. UC
63/22. NYU
82/26. CMU
172/46. BU
1/1. JHU
B10:
2. MI
3. WI
9. MN
12. OSU
15. PSU
25. IL
28/9. NW
33. PU
39. UMD
47. MSU
57. IA
59. RU
78. NE
104. IN
The UAA schools would fit in terms of research money except for Brandeis, and being a top 50 private school isn’t bad. Brandeis is the smallest of the schools, so it should have the lowest total.
LikeLike
Don’t see how the CIC adding a BigTen member puts adding a non-conference member onto the agenda. I think the decision made in the previous decade stands.
LikeLike
With Delany’s focus on New York, I could see NYU coming in. According to Brian’s numbers, they’re easily the largest of the UAA schools. And unlike most of the others, they have an actual sports history (including decent basketball through the ’60s).
They also could eventually be part of a Big Ten fencing conference (because fencing allows cross-division competition). Imagine the BTN ratings boost. Incidentally, Hopkins fences too.
Not really kidding though. In some sense, the Big Ten probably could use NYU to help its presence in New York.
LikeLike
Adding an affiliate member wasn’t really on the agenda until it was brought up by UMD. Suddenly the old decision changed.
LikeLike
Both the CIC and the Big Ten make most of their decisions in the shadows, with no obligation to share the process or the reasoning by which those decisions were made.
For the Big Ten, their decisions produce visible output that receives tons of media coverage, which we can all observe and measure. Most of what the CIC does remains in the shadows, largely out of the public eye.
We have enough trouble arriving at consensus on what the Big Ten might do about things like rules, expansion, scheduling, etc. And on those subjects, at least the main facts are known to all of us. And there are other conferences facing similar decisions, to which the Big Ten can be compared. For the CIC, we really don’t know what’s important to them, and there aren’t many similar organizations we can compare them to.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060313aaa.html
As was mentioned on the last post, the B10 released the 2015 schedule. All the games flip locations but there are no opponent changes from 2014.
UMD – MI, @OSU, bye, PSU, @IA, WI, @MSU, IN, @RU
RU – @PSU, bye, MSU, @IN, OSU, @WI, @MI, NE, bye, UMD
That’s a tough start for UMD. If they survive until late in the year, the finish is soft. RU has a tough slate in the middle with OSU, WI, MI and NE in 4 straight weeks.
One interesting note:
UMD will host PSU at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore instead of at home. This replaces the VT game UMD was supposed to play at M&T, so I think they were contractually obligated to move a game there. UMD’s other home games are BGSU, USF, MI, WI and IN with 2 OOC games not scheduled yet. MI is the other school most likely to fill the place in Baltimore, but PSU’s proximity makes them the better choice. MI at home should make sure that season tickets sell well.
LikeLike
Oops. I also wanted to add that I’m not sure if UMD plans to routinely play in Baltimore. I’m sure they want to get lots of big games at home, too. Maybe when the B10 goes to 9 games they’ll play their 5th home game at a neutral site (DC or Baltimore).
LikeLike
@Brian
Maryland generally HATES the idea of playing offsite. My understanding is that the 2015 game in Baltimore was to replace a game that was cancelled (an ACC opponent – VaTech). Two sides to this issue: some want to get Baltimore fans involved while others want ALL the games played at College Park forcing the stadium to increase in size. Lots of discussion on how ticket allotments are allocated and whether Maryland really IS the home team. If the game was turned around, the game would be played at State College which IS the home of Penn State.
LikeLike
From here on in, I expect any Maryland games scheduled in Baltimore or Landover to be solely against elite non-conference opponents (e.g., Texas at FedEx in 2018). Penn State was shifted to Baltimore to fulfill an agreement after Virginia Tech left the schedule in the Big Ten move, and I predict PSU’s next game at Maryland (either in 2016 or 2017) will take place at Byrd Stadium.
LikeLike
It’s quite possible. I saw some UMD blogs discussing rotating the site for the home game against PSU between Byrd and M&T, but it was pure speculation. I’d much rather see UMD keep home games on campus. If you build up the team again, then you could play a weaker OOC game (Navy?) in M&T instead of at the other school.
LikeLike
Nemo,
“Maryland generally HATES the idea of playing offsite.”
When you say Maryland, do you mean the fans or the school or the team? I’d have to think many UMD fans like playing in Baltimore because it’s closer to them and/or they’re Ravens fans. The school probably started doing it for the money and they may be hooked on the extra cash. Maybe it was a short term money grab and will stop once the B10 money is coming in.
“My understanding is that the 2015 game in Baltimore was to replace a game that was cancelled (an ACC opponent – VaTech).”
Yes, I mentioned that.
“Two sides to this issue: some want to get Baltimore fans involved while others want ALL the games played at College Park forcing the stadium to increase in size.”
Shouldn’t they focus on paying off debt, like from the new luxury boxes, before they even consider expansion? I’d guess UMD is at least a decade away from even considering expansion based on how bad their finances were. They’ll want years of sell outs and time paying off debt and building reserves before starting a large capital project.
“Lots of discussion on how ticket allotments are allocated and whether Maryland really IS the home team.”
Well they can always adjust the distribution. The B10 only requires that 3500 (I think) seats be set aside for the visiting team. My guess is UMD gave more to the opponent because UMD fans wouldn’t fill the place.
“If the game was turned around, the game would be played at State College which IS the home of Penn State.”
PSU’s stadium seats 30k more people than M&T. That’s the difference. UMD would never play in Baltimore if Byrd held 100k+.
LikeLike
While I think I agree, is it possible that getting the financing to expand in the current economic climate might be less expensive than waiting to pay down their debt? If its going to happen either way, that is.
LikeLike
True, but I think they need proof that expansion is justified. It’s not like they have a waiting list for season tickets.
LikeLike
@Brian
I have to agree with vp19 here:
“From here on in, I expect any Maryland games scheduled in Baltimore or Landover to be solely against elite non-conference opponents (e.g., Texas at FedEx in 2018). Penn State was shifted to Baltimore to fulfill an agreement after Virginia Tech left the schedule in the Big Ten move, and I predict PSU’s next game at Maryland (either in 2016 or 2017) will take place at Byrd Stadium.”
As for paying off debt, we have luxury suites to fill that were built just before the housing crash. So, if games are played at alternate sites, what point is there in buying a luxury suite? The draw for such “high hitter” perks is to see a premier game against a premier team.
Nemo
LikeLike
Nemo,
That’s why I thought they might use M&T for a game like Navy instead, with M&T as the home site for Navy in a home and home series. Play the big games at home to max out Byrd. Do you think a game like UT will draw more than MI or OSU or PSU?
LikeLike
That’s a tough start for UMD. If they survive until late in the year, the finish is soft. RU has a tough slate in the middle with OSU, WI, MI and NE in 4 straight weeks.
I suspect that what drove the league was tryiing to get “king” games into the East Coast TV market in the first 2/3rds of the season, when they’re more likely to get the national network pickup. (In the final third of the season, traditional rivalry games and games with league championship implications tend to predominate.)
LikeLike
Note that the DC, Baltimore, and New Jersey markets will not just get a heavy dose of the Michigan schools and Ohio St. and Penn St., but they also get Nebraska and Wisconsin in the first two years. Brilliant move for the Big Ten. Although the offset is few marquee cross over games (both Nebraska and Wisconsin miss Michigan, Ohio St., and Penn St.), but the newly expanded markets will get a lot of quality opponents into town.
LikeLike
For Wisconsin, this means their conference membership is practically on hold for a while. They have no games against Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, or Penn St for at least two straight seasons from 2014-15. Which makes the scheduling of Alabama in 2015 and the yet-to-be-finalized attempt to schedule LSU in 2014 make even more sense.
LikeLike
My Gopher “tin-foil” hat says that Barry has been doing some “dirty-work” in the B1G offices in Chi-Town… basically given a free pass to the conference title games with their sked…
Gopher’s gotta get that Axe back and “spoil” some Badger football…
LikeLike
http://www.baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/jhu-mens-lacrosse-joins-the-big-ten/
An excerpt from a letter from JHU’s president to the JHU community.
The special committee looked into several possible conference affiliations in the course of its deliberations. In the end, Athletics Director Tom Calder and Coach Dave Pietramala recommended that Johns Hopkins join the Big Ten for several reasons, including:
* We are a good fit with the Big Ten institutions, research universities with whom — in most cases — we already share close connections through the Association of American Universities;
* The commitment of the Big Ten and its members to the academic success of student-athletes;
* The opportunity for Johns Hopkins to help to launch Big Ten lacrosse play, including the adoption of competition rules and procedures;
* The opportunity for Johns Hopkins to contribute to the creation of the league’s lacrosse culture, bringing to bear the experience of our 44 national championships and the traditions and history of the nation’s most successful lacrosse program;
* The chance to continue a historic series with arch-rival Maryland, which is also joining the Big Ten;
* The conference’s understanding and encouragement of our desire to maintain as many of our other traditional rivalries as possible;
* The conference’s understanding and encouragement of our desire to maintain our agreement with ESPNU for national telecasts of all games from Homewood Field; and
* The strength, stability and resources of the Big Ten, which bode well for the success of its venture into a new sport.
It also means a great deal that the Big Ten is so enthusiastic about welcoming Johns Hopkins into its ranks. Commissioner Jim Delany and other Big Ten officials and coaches have made it clear that they consider Johns Hopkins central to the league’s strategic decision to expand into lacrosse competition.
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
JHU didn’t join in women’s lax because it’s just too expensive for a mainly D-III athletic program with no TV money (other than a modest amount for the men’s games) to finance multiple airplane trips for large squad non-revenue sports like women’s lax. That’s why Hopkins left the UAA some years ago — too many trips to Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, Boston without any compensating revenue to pay for it. Being in the ALC meant at least 3 airplane trips a year, with no TV or other conference revenue to pay for it. Being in the Big 10 for women’s lax might have meant slightly lower expense (no Florida or Tennessee trips), but given the large number of potential Middle Atlantic opponents and the relative de-emphasis of the women’s team (compared to the men’s team), independent status for the women’s team made more sense overall. Also, as noted, the Big Ten didn’t need the women’s team, so I think they just left that decision to JHU. And JHU had nothing to gain in terms of exposure, etc.
If the Big Ten had demanded it, JHU probably would have included the women’s team in the mix. I would have preferred that approach myself, as a fan/alum. But it just wasn’t that important to either side, and I think the travel costs were just too high to include them.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the problems you cited, which led JHU to go independent in women’s LAX, have been faced by many other schools that play the sport?
LikeLike
Look at the league footprint of many of those leagues ~ they don’t require much flying. But I expect joining a “lesser league” would grate on JHU alumni sensibilities. Independence allows them to play an east coast bus league schedule.
LikeLike
Obviously this is not as big as a true conference expansion, but it could be a very influential middle step in the way of future expansion. Could certainly be another rung to getting UT or UVA/UNC to join. Time will tell.
LikeLike
I have trouble seeing that. Obviously, the conference is better with JHU than without. Still, among the factors that would induce UVA/UNC to abandon the ACC, or Texas to abandon the Big XII, it’s pretty far down the list. So far, in fact, as to be practically irrelevant.
Should UVA/UNC decide to abandon the ACC, it’ll be because that’s best for football and men’s basketball. Sure, they’d be glad to be in a lacrosse league with JHU, but not to the extent that it would prompt a different decision than they’d otherwise make. It’s even less of a consideration for Texas, which doesn’t even play lacrosse.
LikeLike
Bingo. This will matter down the road. As someone in the industry, I can tell you that if JHU to B1G means JHU to CIC then this makes the B1G more attractive to places like UVA/UNC should they jump ship down the road. Sure, the lax is a great fit at the moment, but this has everything to do with the CIC and the hard scrabble of STEM dollars which is currently running the show in higher education (when football isn’t) in case you haven’t noticed. I can’t speak to UNC, but UVA is under enormous pressure to increase its STEM profile and this will matter down the road should either UVA/UNC decide to look elsewhere (I exclude Duke because I don’t see the B1G wanting them for sports reasons when you can get the others).
LikeLike
Duke basketball is a powerhouse, in case you haven’t noticed.
Considering that Gee mentioned Duke in the same breath as UVa and UNC, I think they’re in if they want in.
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, I never understood how people have thought that the Big Ten would somehow object to Duke. An elite academic powerhouse that is consistently the single biggest national TV draw in college basketball in one of the fastest growing (and most well-educated) metro areas in the country isn’t getting passed over no matter how bad their football program might be. I’ve seen some fairly ridiculous suggestions for Big Ten additions for purely market or academic reasons over the past few years, but Duke is perfectly aligned with what the Big Ten would want in expansion despite being a private school. To be clear, I loathe Duke more than any other sports team (including the Packers, which is saying something for this Bears fan). I’m also far from the only person that loathes them (Grantland had a 64-player NCAA Tournament-style bracket of the most hated players in college basketball history a few months ago and dedicated an entire “region” to only Duke players in order to avoid having an all-Duke final four), so that’s probably coloring a lot of people’s hopes/wishes that Duke would get left behind in conference realignment. That’s simply not going to happen with an institution of that academic caliber that is also to basketball what Notre Dame is to football.
LikeLike
The problem with Duke is they don’t really give you anything you don’t already get with UNC. I don’t think they would be a bad addition, I just think if the Big Ten was expanding and could get UNC without Duke they probably would.
LikeLike
Surely ~ Duke would undoubtedly be a 16th, not a 15th. As a 16th, and arguably unlike Pit, it would be gross revenue positive, even though likely not average revenue positive, and average revenue neutral at best.
LikeLike
The problem with Duke is they don’t really give you anything you don’t already get with UNC.
Of course they do. For starters, it gives you every Duke basketball game. Duke basketball games are like Notre Dame football games: they’re a huge draw, regardless of the opponent. Duke is also extremely strong academically, better than almost all of the current Big Ten.
It’s not like Iowa State or Pitt, which give you hardly anything when you’ve already got Iowa and Penn State. Duke is a national brand, and you never have too many of those. I mean, what’s better than having UNC/Indiana on your basketball schedule devery year? Having UNC/Indiana, Duke/Indiana, plus UNC/Duke twice!
I just think if the Big Ten was expanding and could get UNC without Duke they probably would.
If you mean that the Big Ten would actually turn Duke down, I think you’re quite mistaken.
LikeLike
If you mean that the Big Ten would actually turn Duke down, I think you’re quite mistaken.
If they are already getting UNC then schools like UVA, Kansas or even Georgia Tech would provide more marginal value than Duke, so yes under the right conditions they would turn them down.
For starters, it gives you every Duke basketball game. Duke basketball games are like Notre Dame football games: they’re a huge draw, regardless of the opponent.
True; but the problem is they also give you Duke football games which would detract from the Big Ten’s football value at least as much as they would add to the basketball side, and since FB is far, far more important than MBB that would be a problem.
Duke is also extremely strong academically, better than almost all of the current Big Ten.
Academics are a qualifying condition. Either you meet the standard or don’t. How much better or worse you are than the standard isn’t really relevant. Obviously Duke meets the threshold but so do other schools.
I guess to some up my thoughts on Duke, if the Big Ten is already getting UNC I do think they would try and find other alternatives to Duke.
LikeLike
Well, we are talking hypotheticals, anyway, since none of those major schools are available any time soon. But if we’re talking Duke, then we’re really talking about a #17 or a #18, not a #15 or #16. Remember that Duke/Carolina ARE the ACC. UVa is still sort of tied in to Carolina. Who would be #18? There are a few possibilities: Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Connecticut. If football is more important, we’re looking at FSU or Miami (or OU/Texas if they become available). But we’re looking at going so far south that the regionalists would have a big problem with it. If academics is still more paramount, then we’re looking at UVa/UNC/Duke/GT as more likely the play. But does the B1G really want to go as far south as Atlanta? They didn’t the last time, which makes me doubt they’d want to. So there’s still Connecticut. They’re not AAU but they could be in twenty years’ time. Could Virginia and UConn be the better play? I have no idea but I’m baffled why they didn’t go the last time.
LikeLike
@transic: Remember that Duke/Carolina ARE the ACC. UVa is still sort of tied in to Carolina.
That’s the key point: the ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas. Once that happens, the conference as we’ve known it is dead, and it’s every university president for himself. That means the Big Ten would pretty much have its choice of schools for #16, 17-18, or 19-20, assuming they want to go that far.
But does the B1G really want to go as far south as Atlanta? They didn’t the last time, which makes me doubt they’d want to. So there’s still Connecticut. They’re not AAU but they could be in twenty years’ time. Could Virginia and UConn be the better play? I have no idea but I’m baffled why they didn’t go the last time.
They weren’t going to take GT without a 16th school, and as far as we know, no acceptable 16th was available. For that matter, we don’t even know for sure that GT was available. Beyond that, various Big Ten sources have stressed geographic contiguity as a priority, in which case they wouldn’t take GT without both UVA and UNC, and that wasn’t going to happen this cycle.
I think UConn would need to be AAU to even be considered. I question whether they could get there within 10 years, which is when the next realignment cycle is likely to happen. I’m sure UConn would like to be AAU, but so do a lot of schools.
LikeLike
@ Transic- Are you really baffled why the Big Ten didn’t take UConn? If so, I’m baffled that you’re baffled.
Connecticut has 3.6 million people (compared to 5.9 million for Maryland and 8.9 million for New Jersey). It’s 29th in population, but 42nd in growth rate, so will fall even lower. It also has no football history to speak of, so its base of fans can’t compare with schools that have been playing big-time football for decades. And of course, New England in general is no football hotbed.
I can’t imagine that the Big Ten will ever seriously consider UConn, AAU or not.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think it’s a no-brainer that the Big Ten would take Duke, in the hypothetical that they’re also getting UVA and UNC. Duke is extremely weak in football, but they’re a national powerhouse (practically like an Ivy) in academics and research.
And of course, they have a basketball team you might have heard of. UNC/Duke basketball is one of the nation’s best rivalries in any sport. The Big Ten would gladly swallow Duke’s weak football team, to get all of that.
LikeLike
Is this even on the table anymore? Or is it in the 10-year plan?
I think it would be cool to see a 20-team Big Ten with four or five “pods”, but the rejuvenated ACC seems like it can put some decent product together.
LikeLike
Its 10-20 year plan thinking ~ which is an advantage of the JHU move, building B1G LAX is a nice little side venture right now, and long term the worry UMD had about the future of its Lacrosse program won’t be an issue for Duke or UVA or UNC in 10-20 years time.
LikeLike
@bobscatar: I think the broad consensus on prior FTT threads, is that the major conferences are now untouchable until their GORs get closer to expiration in the 2020s. Some people think there might be a way out of them sooner, but that’s not a majority view.
The Big Ten has proven it can be patient: it waited for over a decade with just 11 teams, waiting until the right #12 was available. It’ll wait a decade again, if need be. JHU can be seen as a move in their strategic direction, even if the strategy will take a long time to pan out.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 could hypothetically get UVA and UNC, I’m not sure they would take Duke. They would first have to decide they were willing to go to 18. Then they would have to decide that Georgia Tech or Pitt or Kansas or Missouri was ok as #18. Then they would have to be able to get one of those that was acceptable.
And Duke would have to decide it wanted to be in the Big 10 if the ACC disintegrated as opposed to dropping football and moving to Big East. TV $ would probably be big enough to make the decision easy, but not necessarily.
LikeLike
@Bullet- I agree with you. I think it should be phrased that the B1G would take UVA and either UNC or Duke, but not both. Either one will give BTN sufficient entry into North Carolina. Adding both does little more than dilute the impact of one. We can debate the merits of Duke vs UNC (amount of alumni, relative football success, etc…), but at the end of the day, either would fit very well in the B1G.
In the same vein, its why the SEC is comfortable with only one Florida school. UF gives the SEC sufficient entry and presence in Florida markets; FSU–a powerhouse in its own right–would not do much inside Florida that UF does not already do, relative to what it would receive in distributions. I mean, that the SEC opted for Mizzou over potentially adding FSU shows that adding markets is the critical driver of expansion; doubling down in a state add enough relative to the equal distributions.
LikeLike
Frankly, if the B10 moves to 16 teams, I see no reason why it wouldn’t go up to 18 or 20. I concede that with each additional school you liekly create more instability than with the previous added school. But unless the next two schools are UT and ND by themselves, I think the B10 will always have room to go above 16 just to get a school it highly covets. I could easily see UNC (and UVA) making Duke a contingency on acceptance. That hardly seems like a difficult sell the way taking OSU (with OK) or TT (with UT) would be.
From a long-term perspective, I think Duke’s basketball program will be more valuable than Nebraska’s football program. Only because I think football is on a slow death spiral in this country. If a president shared that perspective, then it makes sense for the B10 to diversify its sport holdings, which it has done with hockey and lacrosse, and to to strengthen others, baseball, soccer and most importantly basketball.
This is one of the benefits of the three ACC core universities.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 could hypothetically get UVA and UNC, I’m not sure they would take Duke. They would first have to decide they were willing to go to 18. Then they would have to decide that Georgia Tech or Pitt or Kansas or Missouri was ok as #18. Then they would have to be able to get one of those that was acceptable.
I think it’s beyond obvious that in a scenario where the ACC loses UVA, UNC, and Duke, then GT is available. You think it’s at all doubtful that the B1G would take those four in a heartbeat??
And Duke would have to decide it wanted to be in the Big 10 if the ACC disintegrated as opposed to dropping football and moving to Big East. TV $ would probably be big enough to make the decision easy, but not necessarily.
Duke has played football since 1895. They’re not dropping football. Do you seriously think that Big East money would be anywhere close to Big Ten money? Like, even in the same zip code?
LikeLike
Wainscott – what if UVA/UNC says you either bring Duke along or we don’t go? Does the B10 forfeit Virginia and North Carolina the states simply because it won’t go above 16 or because Duke/UNC will take a spot from another market? I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that both Duke and UNC are valuable enough brands in their own right that you might make that exception. I htink that is a harder question to answer than a scenario where UVA says to get us you have to take VT. I think in that latter scenario the B10 walks. Just my opinion of course.
LikeLike
@SH: Certainly, if UNC and Duke are handcuffed, that would complicate matters. If the B1G wants no more than 16 teams, then they might walk and see if UVa will join, and find a different #16 (GT? Mizzou? Kansas after 2027?). If the conference wants to go to 18 0r 20, then having Duke and UNC could be a tremendous positive for reasons unrelated to the BTN (such as owning college basketball).
I also agree that VT just would be a nonstarter, and if UVa was handcuffed to VT, than the B1G might cast its gaze elsewhere (as Gee mentioned, maybe Mizzou and Kansas once the Big 12 GoR expires) or simply stand pat at 14.
LikeLike
Wainscott – I don’t underestimate the standing pat option. My whole point with going above 16 teams is this. If B10 wants the VA and NC markets, and it decides it must have UVA/UNC. I just don’t see a Duke from preventing that from happening. But if Duke went another way and untethered itself from UNC, and the B10 has a perfect 16 team league, well it would certainly open the doors back up to get UT or ND (despite Gee’s comments). So I just don’t think that 16 is a magic number.
Expounding from my previous comment, no doubt football is the big revenue drive, but there is no guaranty that it will remain that way. As I stated, I am of the belief that football is on a slow death spiral. I’m certain not everyone shares that opinion. But it does offer a rationale to diversify and strengthen basketball where you can.
My only beef with Kansas is that apart from basketball (and 2 senators) what else does it offer? I say this even though I have advocated that it is a very valuable brand and I have stated that it must be takent care and placed in a power conference for political purposes.
LikeLike
I don’t think that UNC will ever join the Big 10. UNC doesn’t need Big 10 money for research or sports. It gets plenty of both in the ACC. Honestly, UNC would be one of the only schools which could feasibly handle independence in all sports. There are more than enough programs in the state of North Carolina alone that the school could schedule every year (every one of which would play the Heels in any sport in a home and home if offered). Plus, UNC basketball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. are all such strong brand names in their sport that the school could easily fill out its schedules with big time national opponents. If UNC does ever leave the ACC, which I don’t think will happen in our lifetimes, if ever, it won’t be to the Big 10. The vast majority of UNC’s fanbase, and a very sizable portion of it’s alumni base consider themselves Southerners. They don’t want UNC in a Northern Conference, aka the Big 10. UNC fan support is so overwhelmingly in favor of the SEC to the Big 10, that I don’t think it would be politically feasible for the school to go to the Big 10 over the SEC if both were options, and I don’t think the SEC will expand again without UNC. For similar reasons, I don’t think UVA will ever join the Big 10 either, especially if UNC joins the SEC. An SEC with UNC would mean that UVA could be in a conference with the flagship (or at least co-flagship) universities of every former state of the Confederacy, which I promise is more appealing to most Virginians (at least those outside of the D.C. suburbs) than the research money of the Big 10. If the Big 10 really wants to expand it’s market when the ACC GOR expires, I think it needs to focus on schools that are realistic gets culturally, such as Maryland or Rutgers. The University of Miami is the first that comes to mind. Fantastic location, tremendous television draw, likely eventual AAU status, and virtually no pro-southern culture. And even though Miami is in a prolonged slump right now in football, based on its location, tradition, and huge appeal with many South Florida athletes, Miami will be back, and I say that as a UF fan. IMHO, the best move that the BIG 10 could make would be to take UM and FSU (which lacks much of the strong southern cultural identity of other ACC schools) and put both in the West, and move Purdue to the east. That would make for much more balanced divisions long-term
LikeLike
Perhaps. But things change. This is why I think the incremental approach of Hopkins may matter. It further changes the identity of the B10 as simply a midwestern conference. The B10 doesn’t have to do anything for now. But if the revenue inequality grows between B10/SEC and the B12/ACC, then the schools in the latter may start looking to maximize their opportunities. Other factors could come into play as well. For Texas, they have already unhooked themselves to A&M. And A&M is rising at a time that UT is falling (football wise). Who knows how this may play into conference realignment. Obviously there is a lot of uknowns in the future. But I know how gravity works. Power is attracted to power. Now maybe they will all just orbit around one another, but maybe they will get sucked in. In a day and age where Rutgers gets invited to the B10 and A&M splits from UT, I think anything is possible. At the end, I simply cannot discount the fact that the B10 offers just about everything a college president and board could wants as far a conference goes (other than location). And it is obviously open to expansion. With Hopkins they have shown they can manuever around a rights contract (admittedly, on a very small scale). The best move for the B10 to make would simply be to be patient until it gets a school or group of schools it really likes.
LikeLike
Yes, and the media market will be a very different place by the mid 20’s. There is no telling whether the coming turbulence will amplify the disparities, leave them where they are today, or narrow them. And even if a conference leadership were to guess right which way its heading, there’d be no big benefit in worrying about it very much until the GOR’s come closer to their expiration dates.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey: Neither agreeing nor disagreeing about the likelihood of getting UNC, because I am agnostic.
Every scenario involving UNC presumes a VERY substantial revenue disparity, over time, between the Big Ten and the ACC. In the modern history of conference alignment, no school I’m aware of has tolerated a long-term substantial revenue disparity in its current league, when it had options in a far more lucrative league. If the gap is large enough, no school is going to say, “We have enough money. We don’t need more.” The only real argument is how big the gap needs to be, before UNC considers it intolerable.
My understanding, is that Swofford was able to persuade the wobbling members that future deals would narrow the revenue gap to a “tolerable” amount. Exactly what he promised, obviously, is not exactly on the public record, but he was able to make it fly. This does not mean the conference is stable if he is unable to deliver on those promises.
LikeLike
Marc, that probably best summarizes the whole situation. For those reasons, I think the odds are in favor of UNC/UVA will join the B10. I really think it just a matter of time.
LikeLike
Agreed, with Notre Dame as the notable exception.
LikeLike
Agreed, with Notre Dame as the notable exception.
That’s why I included the words, “in its current league,” which leaves out independents.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard: Such is the peril of quickly scanning for the gist of an argument rather than reading every word.
LikeLike
@jeph: Maybe so, but the composition of both Virginia and North Carolina is rapidly changing. Northerners fleeing high taxes and cold weather are moving in at a rapid clip. The demographics are such that both states might resemble Maryland within a generation–southern in location, but northern in attitude and interests. In such a case, joining a northern conference might very well appeal more to the average Virginian or North Carolinian within 20 years than it may today.
LikeLike
Very good point. Ultimately, the B10 and SEC will likely overlap in some states, and I don’t see that as a bad thing. Rivalries are in general good for sports, and this will likely make the conference rivalry more interesting.
LikeLike
I agree that perhaps the ACC could get to a point where it is at such a monetary disadvantage compared to the Big 10 and the SEC that UNC and UVA will be forced to jump, but I think that both with choose the SEC to the Big 10. I think that the Big 10 can shed it’s identity as a Midwestern Conference by moving to the East Coast, but I don’t think it will ever be able to shed it’s identity as a Northern Conference, at least in the minds of most Southerners. The problem for the Big 10 and UNC/UVA, (and for that matter Va Tech and NCSU) is that as long as the SEC is an option for both schools, the Big 10 will always be at a huge disadvantage. While I agree that the demographics of both Virginia and North Carolina are changing, I don’t think that 20 years will be nearly enough time to change them into “Northern” states. Florida has had many times the number of migrants from the north, and over a much longer time than Virginia and North Carolina, and Florida is still much more of a Southern State than it is a Northern State. Honestly, I think Penn State and Nebraska, both of whom were in unique positions at they time they joined the Big 10, gave the Big 10 the feeling that they could get anybody that they wanted to join. While the Big 10 is certainly an incredibly desirable conference, which at least 80 FBS schools would kill to get into, there are still a number of schools that would have little to no interest in the Big 10, or would at least prefer another conference. If the Big 10 really could have anyone for the asking, I suspect they would have taken Notre Dame, Texas, Florida, Nebraska, and either Georgia (which I know is not AAU) or North Carolina in that order, not Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, and Johns Hopkins.
As for Johns Hopkins somehow convincing UNC and UVA to join the Big 10, I don’t think that UNC and UVA care anything at all about what Hopkins does. If they did, they could have invited them to the ACC. I do think that Hopkins could be used to lure a number of exceptional private schools which don’t sponsor D1 athletics into the CIC only, which I think would be a fantastic move. For example, if the Big 10 really wants to get into the New York market, NYU as a member of the CIC would be the way to go about doing so.
LikeLike
Fans may want the SEC but I doubt the administrators and professors want it. Would be interesting to see what alums want. There is certainly a faction that more easily identifies with the South and one that more easily identifies with the B10 schools. The ones in the latter camp will likely be the ultimate decision maker. But these being public schools you have to convince the fanbase at large to some extent. One way to do is is to show that the B10 makes more money than the SEC. Another way is to make sure the other state schools end up in a good spot – VT and NCSt. No way they end up in B10. So either those schools split with some going to B10 and some going to SEC or they stay together.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I think you’re letting your bias cloud your judgement. UNC and UVA are two different animals. I agree that UNC would commit cultural Hari-Kari by joining the Big Ten. I can’t imagine under any circumstance that UVA would choose the SEC over the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The SEC could offer UVa and UNC an answer to the “Tech and State” problems. I doubt the SEC would work with the B1G and take NC State and VA Tech to enable the B1G to get the schools they really want. The B1G won’t take NC State and VA Tech is probably a non-starter too. The SEC wouldn’t have that problem though. The SEC could offer take all four schools, but add that it won’t take VA Tech without UVa, and it won’t take NC State without UNC.
That would be a tough offer for the trustees/politicians to turn down, especially when the fans/constituents would be for it. The eggheads might be in a box with an offer like that.
LikeLike
Conference realignment really is like a big game of chess. There are so many different moves that cann be made and many depend on your opponent. I just wish we could get to the end of it.
LikeLike
Yeah, that would be the SEC’s biggest advantage, and, frankly, the only way I see UVA ever going to SEC if they had a competing offer from the Big Ten (compared to UNC who I could envision preferring to the Big Ten straight up).
LikeLike
The SEC’s biggest advantages are geography and alumni. The SEC is closer to UNC and UVA and there are a lot more alumni in the southeast than in Chicago or Detroit.
LikeLike
Its not so much what the alumni want, but how does the university reach them. CU moved to the Pac 12 because its alumni were on the west coast. FSU’s president liked the ACC because its alumni were mostly in Georgia and the east coast. The Big 10 picked Maryland and Rutgers to connect with alumni in those areas. If UVA and UNC ever decide to leave the ACC, where their alumni are located will be critical.
LikeLike
But how many are in NY, NJ, Maryland, DC area? In ten years that will be established B1G territory (regarding college identification).
LikeLike
Bullet:
I’m not as certain about UNC, but UVa definitely tends more to send its grads north to the northeastern corridor than south in to SEC country. Same with Duke. These days, that’s probably true for UNC as well. Lots of Tarheels in NYC nowadays.
LikeLike
Granted, the states of NC and SC are very tied together, so the UNC t-shirt fans would strongly favor the SEC. Already, however, VA is more tied to the northeastern corridor than to any place south of it.
LikeLike
I don’t think the ACC will break up. and I don’t think UNC is up for grabs. But if ever they were, the general population of fans and alums would favor the SEC. I would have to think that that would be a major factor. Also, I think the SEC would let UNC bring whoever they want with them, be it NCSU or Duke or UVA or all three.
I don’t think the SEC expands without UNC. So I don’t think the SEC will expand again. I think it’ll be 14 for the long haul.
LikeLike
You talk cultural fit and then mention UVA going into the SEC? You have a point about states having a cultural identity. This is a fact but if you think people from North Carolina or Virginia have a more kindred spirit with the gulf states because of the Civil War, you don’t know the same people I do from those states. North Carolinians and Virginians, especially Virginians, look about as far down their noses as possible at those from the gulf states. There is southern and there is Deep South. You have a point about culture but you are misplacing it in regards to geography and fans, which in all probability won’t matter. The only culture that matters here is acedemic.
Academics is a culture onto itself. Most high end administrators travel from school to school, completely insulated from the outside world. Gordon Gee is a perfect example. He went to Columbia then worked at BYU, then West Virginia, then University of Colorado, then OSU, then Brown, and then Vanderbelt before returning to OSU. The Administrations of every major university is littered with these academic nomads, who spend most of their adult life away from the culture of states they work in and strictly in the company of similarly traveled professors and admins. These people collectively look down their noses at anybody without a doctorite. The only time they have any contact with people from the outside world are politicians and well heeled boosters and board members. If you think anybody in that world cares about t-shirt fans and average alumni, who are sadly mistaken. The only letter writing campaigns that matter have checks with lots of zeros in them, which can no doubt dictate a schools conference. The SEC schools and the old Southwest comference schools are booster dominated. The boosters in these areas care about football and nothing else. That is not the case with UVA, who have as much as an academic snobbery as you will find outside the Ivy League. Same with Duke. Those schools wont be joining the SEC over the BIG anytime soon. UNC is slightly different from those schools in that basketball is as important as football is down in SEC land, with boosters to boot. But I find it hard to believe that well heeled basketball boosters would choose the SEC over the BIG, against the overriding support for the BIG by the top administrators.
This is a conversation to be had in 10 years time. A lot can change by then, but one thing that won’t change is the desires of the average alumni and fans. Unless those alumni and fans are donating 7 figure checks, they don’t matter. In fact, they will be the last to know just like Maryland fans were.
LikeLike
I agree that the academics at UNC and UVA would almost certainly prefer the Big 10. However, Notre Dame academics were overwhelmingly in favor of joining the Big 10 in the 90’s, and the school remained independent. If UNC and UVA were not publicly funded state schools, the opinions of academics would matter a great deal more, but that is not the case. If the leadership at Syracuse or Boston College decided to join the Big 10, they wouldn’t have politicians to answer to. UNC and UVA receive the vast majority of their funding from those who are neither employees nor alumni of the schools, but rather the populace of the states. If the legislatures of North Carolina and Virginia decide that those schools aren’t going to join the Big 10 because that is what their constituents (the much derided T-Shirt fans) want, there really isn’t anything those schools can do about it.
And just to clarify, I do not think that UNC or UVA are going to join the SEC. I think that they will remain in the ACC. What I believe is that both would choose the SEC over the Big 10.
LikeLike
“UNC and UVA receive the vast majority of their funding from those who are neither employees nor alumni of the schools, but rather the populace of the states.”
If you mean money from the state legislature, that’s actually not true these days. UVa gets barely any of its budget funded by the VA legislature these days (some crazy small percentage, like 5% or something; OK, I looked it up; it’s 5.8%: http://www.virginia.edu/finance101/answers.html). That’s why there had been talk of UVa going private.
UNC gets more from NC, but state funding is now less than 20% of UNC’s budget.
LikeLike
Honestly, UNC would be one of the only schools which could feasibly handle independence in all sports.
No one could go indy in all sports. It’s not possible anymore. If it were possible Texas would have done it years ago.
The vast majority of UNC’s fanbase, and a very sizable portion of it’s alumni base consider themselves Southerners. They don’t want UNC in a Northern Conference, aka the Big 10
Since when do what the fans care matter? I mean the Maryland fan base didn’t seem thrilled with the Big Ten move but they’ll get over it (most of them already have). And in case you didn’t notice, FSU fans weren’t exactly dancing in the streets after they signed the GOR.
UNC fan support is so overwhelmingly in favor of the SEC to the Big 10, that I don’t think it would be politically feasible for the school to go to the Big 10 over the SEC if both were options
I’ve never seen any evidence of this.
I don’t think the SEC will expand again without UNC.
A year ago I would have agreed with you, but if the Big Ten thinks it can get sufficient value from Rutgers who the hell knows.
An SEC with UNC would mean that UVA could be in a conference with the flagship (or at least co-flagship) universities of every former state of the Confederacy, which I promise is more appealing to most Virginians (at least those outside of the D.C. suburbs) than the research money of the Big 10.
You do realize that NOVA’s tend to wealthier and better connected politically than the rest of the population don’t you? Plus, the rest of Virginia is starting to resemble the D.C. much more than the Southern part of the state (just look at what has happened to the state from an electoral perspective over the past decade).
If the Big 10 really wants to expand it’s market when the ACC GOR expires, I think it needs to focus on schools that are realistic gets culturally, such as Maryland or Rutgers.
A. UNC and UVA have just as much in common with the Big Ten as they do the SEC. Sure the SEC has geography, but the Big Ten schools are more similar structurally. They are elite public research universities and are far more similar athletically. UVA and UNC both larger athletic departments than any SEC school and a move to the SEC would require UNC to find a separate home for a half dozen of their sports. The Big Ten meanwhile sponsors (or will soon sponsor) all those sports.
More importantly, UNC as a BB school, is a much better fit economically in the Big Ten.
B. Cultures change. If you had gone to UMD 30 or maybe even 20 years ago you would have found yourself at a southern school similar to present day UVA.
LikeLike
Good points, and I admit I could very well be wrong on my assessments. I do disagree with you on one point. Maryland was not really a Southern state 30, 50, or even 100 years ago, which I think makes a major difference. Also, Maryland and its fans had been discontent with ACC leadership for many decades.
LikeLike
I agree that the academics at UNC and UVA would almost certainly prefer the Big 10. However, Notre Dame academics were overwhelmingly in favor of joining the Big 10 in the 90’s, and the school remained independent. If UNC and UVA were not publicly funded state schools, the opinions of academics would matter a great deal more, but that is not the case. If the leadership at Syracuse or Boston College decided to join the Big 10, they wouldn’t have politicians to answer to. UNC and UVA receive the vast majority of their funding from those who are neither employees nor alumni of the schools, but rather the populace of the states. If the legislatures of North Carolina and Virginia decide that those schools aren’t going to join the Big 10 because that is what their constituents (the much derided T-Shirt fans) want, there really isn’t anything those schools can do about it.
And just to clarify, I do not think that UNC or UVA are going to join the SEC. I think that they will remain in the ACC. What I believe is that both would choose the SEC over the Big 10.
LikeLike
Also, I apologize for posting that twice. My computer did something really strange.
LikeLike
“However, Notre Dame academics were overwhelmingly in favor of joining the Big 10 in the 90′s”
I keep hearing this, but it isn’t true. While the faculty senate voted in favor of joining the CIC, and the relatively tiny GSA was also highly in favor of joining, the faculty at-large were split around 50-50 according to all reports and everything I ever heard.
That is all.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is also a booster driven school much like the SEC and Texas. They are a small private school beholden to donators more so than larger universities.
As far as politicians, they might be want to appease the constituents in the state who’s primary issue is the conference of the local university but do you know what drives politicians more: money. The ability to bring in research money and the jobs it creates, and thus more tax revenue to spend, is a lot more appealing than pissing off a couple of college basketball fans. Like all politicians, they would probably announce their disapproval and solitary with the average UNC fan then share a toast with Jim Delaney that night. Again the only people who matter in college realignment is the high end administrators, who will want to be associated with similar prestigious universities, and the big time donors. For UVA and Duke, academics matter to everyone associated with those universities. The boosters at UNC could be a different story.
LikeLike
Jeff, you need to read more history (read up more in general). Maryland was definitely a southern state back when H.L. Mencken was writing in Baltimore about 100 years ago.
LikeLike
On top of that, I can’t imagine any VA or NC school saying, “Whooppee! We get to be re-united with our old Confederate buddies.”
LikeLike
I’m surprised you said that North Carolina doesn’t need Big Ten money for research (which I assume you mean the CIC) or sports.
Let’s start with the latter. In the 2011-2 fiscal year, UNC’s athletic department barely broke even. See http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/story/9944045/. The department’s revenue was $72.4M with expenses at $72.2M. Among the revenue the UNC AD receives is $7M in student fees.
UNC supports 28 sports under this budget Per the UNC AD Bubba Cunningham is looking to increase the annual athletic department budget by 40% to $100M. See http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/04/unc-ad-i-want-to-increase-athletic.html
So how does UNC get to that $100M, let alone pay for the inevitable increases in expense they’ll incur (their budget was $61M less than five years ago)? Part of it will come from the new ACC television deal, but that’s nowhere near $30M per year. They also talk about increased ticket sales and donations, but with a rather smallish football stadium, there’s not a lot of new revenue you can generate there.
IRT the former, UNC’s research budget revenue actually went down. Here’s a recent article on the UNC website about the effects of sequestration on their research budget–it’s pretty enlightening. Go to: http://research.unc.edu/sequestration/
Note that a lot of UNC’s research money comes from the federal government, and in particular, from the National Institutes of Health. UNC’s research dollars peaked in 2010 at $803M and is now down to $767M in 2012. See http://research.unc.edu/about/facts-rankings/research-funding/
So if you don’t think that UNC would be interested in the CIC consortium vis-a-vis research dollars (especially one that now includes Johns Hopkins), then I think you misunderstand the situation.
One other very important thing to keep in mind is that the current North Carolina state government’s policy calls for major budget cuts and austerity. NC’s governor is looking at a $139M cut in support for the state’s public university system. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324125504578508981551931820.html
So why would the Big Ten look good to North Carolina? How does an opportunity to join the most power university research consortium coupled with a conference that is looking at paying its member athletic departments in excess of $40M per year by 2017 look if you’re running UNC and you have a governor and a state legislature that is going to cut your budget even more?
LikeLike
I think it’s funny you guys are still fighting the same fight over UNC and UVA to the B1G or SEC. It’s not happenin, folks. That ship has sailed. Find a new topic.
LikeLike
Sadly, most people associated with Chapel Hill — despite its status as a top-tier state university flagship — are more concerned with preserving the status of its men’s basketball team. They’ll let everything else at UNC wither on the vine, finances be damned, until they develop a similar passion for football (where the real money is).
LikeLike
Breaking News: OSU President Gordon Gee to retire July 1.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/06/ohio-state-president-gee.html
LikeLike
Shocker.
LikeLike
Triple smile & good f’ing riddance.
LikeLike
Good.
LikeLike
LikeLike
When they tell you to scale back your public speeches and hire a cpersonal oach, and you’re 69, that’s a pretty clear signal that it’s time to go. He’s obviously a talented guy — you don’t get to run all of those universities without being good at something — but his public comments were increasingly embarrassing.
LikeLike
There is no question Gee had a big mouth and make stupid anti-Catholic remarks (Of course, Notre Dame’s biggest priorities are 1: Football. 2: Independence. 3: Everything except Traditional Catholic Teachings). That said, Gee cannot be any worse than what we have at Penn State with Rodney Erickson or his predecessor Graham Spanier. I remember when Spanier embarrassed himself and wore the Nittany Lion mascot suit, and after the Sandusky Incident, the Board of Trustees replaced that Lion, with a different species of Lion…. The Cowardly version.
LikeLike
Gee cannot be any worse than what we have at Penn State with Rodney Erickson or his predecessor Graham Spanier.
I cannot recall quite so many really dumb things being attributed to Erickson or Spanier, as Gee has blurted out in the last couple of years.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Spanier saying that Schultz and Curley had his full and unquestioned support right after they were indicted was way way dumber than anything Gee said.
LikeLike
In fact, it was dumber than all the crazy stuff that Gee has ever said combined.
LikeLike
But Spanier was fired very shortly after that, which confirms my point, rather than contradicting it.
I mean, it’s not as if Spanier made that sort of comment for years and years, and got away with it.
LikeLike
What about Sandusky in the School President’s Box on the day Paterno “Broke” the record of Eddie Robinson? That tops anything Gee ever did. Naming the “Child Care Center” after Gary Schultz (one of the indicted Sandusky enablers), is another example of this.
LikeLike
The relevant comparison is stupid public comments, not stupidity in general.
LikeLike
@David Brown: “Notre Dame’s biggest priorities are … 3: Everything except Traditional Catholic Teachings…”
Gotta love the fact that FTT has been invaded by idiots.
LikeLike
Loki:
That duck roast taste good yesterday?
Feed enough rice to a duck and it blows up.
LikeLike
Soon, we’ll see what happens when you feed enough rice to a wolf.
LikeLike
Gonna be an interesting weekend in Raleigh, weather permitting. Projections are for TS Andrea to be in the area on Friday.
LikeLike
Would Gee have been forced out if his comments had solely been about the SEC and Louisville? I tend to doubt it; Notre Dame is still a sacred cow.
LikeLike
That interview, if you read it, was full of comments he frankly had no business making. Nor is this the first time he has made such comments, and it probably wouldn’t be the last. He’s a walking gaffe machine.
Exactly what would have been the tipping point? I don’t know. Whether you like ND or not, his comments were an offense to more than just the school, and have no place in polite company. Obviously, if you’re just knocking back beers and wings with friends at the bar, you can say whatever you want. When you’re addressing a larger group and your remarks are recorded, then not so much.
LikeLike
The problem wasn’t the references to ND, it was the reference to Catholics in general.
LikeLike
I didn’t see any reference to Catholics in general, just sloppy phrasing in talking about those particular Catholics running things at Notre Dame. As far as I could tell, converting it into a reference to Catholics in general was just normal internet hysterical over the top hyperventilating … not that far different to the reaction in some quarters to the reveal announcement of the XB1:
LikeLike
Why won’t Julie Hermann follows Gordon Gee’s example!
LikeLike
Because she doesn’t think she did anything wrong? They offered a job and she accepted. Is RU prepared to pay a lot to buy her out? They don’t have cause to fire her.
LikeLike
And sorry, Rutgers fans, you’re not getting Tim Pernetti back. You need to hire an AD with legitimate experience at a school in a “big five” conference.(and I’m not necessarily saying Hermann is that person).
LikeLike
will now be the case for lacrosse as the B1G Network will certainly be carrying the conference’s contests throughout the country
LikeLike
Go Bucks
LikeLike
http://www.testudotimes.com/2013/6/3/4390928/conference-realignment-johns-hopkins-to-announce-joining-the-big-ten#comments
I have no idea if this is true, but here’s a rumor:
The news out of BIG HQ is a trial period for CIC
CIC integration is a huge expensive drawn out process. It is a full integration of the libraries, research, and university computer systems. Besides the Google digital library project, it also includes High fiber cables and internet linking all the campuses. For the students this also includes Online distinct classroom and subjects. So a Iowa senior can technically attend a online course or subject at Maryland for instance. JHU trial period kind is put on hold. For now we will have some increased colloboration but no integration for the duration of the 5 years. The hope is after 2 years we will increase and show JHU the benfits of the CIC and within year 4 they will decide early on joining fully. If that is the case full integration to the CIC immediately in the 4th year along with full time membership in the BIG, but in the respect of the D1 teams, kind of like the University of Chicago has.
by Vortex51 on Jun 3, 2013 | 2:20 PM
So JHU would be a partial CIC member until they agree to join the B10 permanently, then they’d also become a full CIC member.
LikeLike
As usual, nice work Brian.
LikeLike
At the end of the trial period is when I would imagine the WLax teams to join the B1G, too.
LikeLike
It’s certainly plausible.
LikeLike
This threads like a runaway train.
LikeLike
Delany said he will be at Rutgers on Thursday and Friday, when he is expected to meet with Hermann and Rutgers officials. Reports over the weekend said that Hermann’s meetings with officials this week had been postponed, but a Rutgers spokesman confirmed Monday that Hermann will be on campus.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/commish-big-ten-stays-fray-article-1.1362256
LikeLike
Jim Delaney’s wish list:
1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Georgia Tech
5. Virginia
6. Florida State
7. Duke
–
8. Miami
9. Missouri
10. Kansas
11. Syracuse
12. Pitt
13. Boston College
I don’t think the B10 is interested in anyone other than the top 7. I also feel the B10 AD’s/presidents want the B10 to remain contiguous (outside of Texas), so everything hinges on Virginia to move further southward.
LikeLike
If “everything hinges on Virginia to move further southward,” then Virginia would have to be above North Carolina and Georgia Tech on your list, no?
LikeLike
The most likely scenario is Virginia, North Carolina, Duke & Georgia Tech as a foursome; as Virginia is tied to the ACC pretty tightly and probably only leave when and if NC does too. Yeah, Virginia & GT need swapped around imo. Jim Delaney really wants the Atlanta market but I think the B10 presidents, AD’s pretty much are demanding expansion to be contiguous which is pretty critical for stability.
LikeLike
Yeah. In any case, no way UVa is below GTech. Gordon Gee is pretty connected in the B10, and if he mentions UNC, UVa, and Duke as desirable (and talks of those schools being available if FSU goes to the SEC or B12, it’s a good indication that the first 3 are the B10’s top 3 ACC targets & that FSU isn’t on the list of desirables.
So the list is really
1./2. Texas/ND
3. UNC
4. UVa
5. Duke
6. GTech
–
7./8. KU?/Mizzou?
9+. Some elite research school like Rice, Tulane, Pitt, or maaaybe BC/TCU/Baylor if adding them is the requirement for getting Texas or ND to join.
Others (doesn’t matter as the B10 won’t want them).
LikeLike
One interesting point from the infamous Gordon Gee speech, was that he favored taking Kansas and Missouri, but he couldn’t muster the votes for that. I believe expansion requires a 2/3rds or 3/4ths super-majority, so that doesn’t mean most of the conference disagreed with him. It only means he couldn’t get 2/3rds (or whatever the number was).
LikeLike
1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Virginia
4. North Carolina (not contiguous without Virginia)
5. Duke
6. Missouri
7. Georgia Tech (not contiguous)
8. Kansas
9. Pitt
10. Iowa State
11. Rice? Buffalo? Who’s left?
AAU only other than Notre Dame. That means no FSU. No Miami. No VATech.
LikeLike
GT is above Missouri on the Big Ten’s list for sure.
I might even rank Kansas above Missouri, not because Kansas is better, but because it could actually happen. I don’t envision Missouri leaving the SEC, even though they would happily have accepted a Big Ten offer when they were still in the Big XII.
Anything on the list below Kansas/Missouri is so remote as to not even merit serious consideration. I mean…Buffalo??
LikeLike
Buffalo only because it’s AAU.
Yes, Kansas is way more likely but less desirable.
I only ranked GT so low because they’re such a bad fit geographically. Academically of course they are superior to Missouri. Markets, I don’t know. Atlanta’s good, but they don’t carry much further than that. And sports-wise GT is less than or equal to Missouri.
But I agree, Missouri is highly unlikely to ever join the B1G at this point.
LikeLike
Slives\Delaney\everybody’s wish list:
1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Virginia
5. Duke
6. Georgia Tech
7. Florida State
8. everybody else as filler or requirements for 1-3
LikeLike
FSU’s higher on my wish list, but doesn’t make the cut for the B10 presidents.
OU is probably somewhere on the SEC list as well. Not all lists will be the same or in the same order.
LikeLike
Two of the three who were most against FSU, Gee and Coleman are out. I still believe if the B1G expands to twenty, FSU will be included.
I think the SEC’s wish list would be
1. Texas
(Notre Dame won’t join)
2. North Carolina
3. Duke
(UVA won’t join)
4. Oklahoma (alone)
5. VT
6. NC State (if UNC/DUKE won’t join)
7. WV
LikeLike
To be consistent, Texas will never join the SEC either.
I think the Big Ten’s final six will include two from the Midwest and four from the Southeast.
Controversial as it may be, I think UNC may well join the SEC but not DUKE who will join the Big Ten. Accompanying them will be UVA, GT and FSU. From the Midwest Kansas and Oklahoma, unless, of course Texas is interested. I was not surprised by CBS report that the B1G did homework on Oklahoma (I know, AAU, blah, blah blah)
The only other possibilities are Vandy (also not surprised CBS named them) or prying Missouri away from the SEC. This ‘homework’ supposedly went well beyond an initial review and I believe the six named in the article ARE the actual targets.
LikeLike
I was not surprised by CBS report that the B1G did homework on Oklahoma (I know, AAU, blah, blah blah).
I am not surprised either. It’s standard business procedure to evaluate a broader candidate set than you are actually prepared to consider. Beyond that, I am not convinced that AAU membership is an absolute requirement. If the reports are correct, a large contingent within the Big Ten was willing to at least consider Florida State.
And the Big Ten took Nebraska while knowing it was at least possible, and perhaps likely, that the school wouldn’t be in the AAU for long. There’s not a whole lot of substantive difference between taking an AAU school that promptly gets kicked out, and taking a good non-AAU school that has never been in the group at all. They wouldn’t stoop as low as Louisville, but a Texas/Oklahoma combo is not beyond the realms of imagination.
LikeLike
“good non-AAU school that has never been in the group at all”
I don’t think the B10 presidents put OU in that group.
Going by ARWU, OU is closer to Louisville than they are to Nebraska (FSU, as well as KU & Mizzou, is/are between Nebraska and OU). Rutgers is far above all of them.
LikeLike
SEC Wish List:
1. UNC – and without them they probably don’t expand
2. Virginia
3. Duke
4. Texas (so unrealistic as to not be a priority)
5. Oklahoma
6. Virginia Tech
7. Florida State
8. NC State
Nobody else would really even be considered, and those last 2 are questionable. Notre Dame is so much not a fit that it’s not even worth putting them on the list.
LikeLike
UNC – and without them they probably don’t expand.
I am not predicting that UVA/UNC will ever join the Big Ten. But IF they do, I think the SEC covets the NC/VA markets sufficiently, that in that case it would take Virginia Tech and N. C. State (or Duke, if the Big Ten didn’t take them first). Of course, as long as UVA/UNC remain in the ACC, the SEC will wait for them.
One could argue that, for a football-first league that doesn’t insist on AAU membership, VT is pretty much equivalent to UVA. UVA is, of course, the flagship school, but VT is considerably more competitive in football.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how valuable NCSU is. Duke could work. VT could work under the right cicumstances. But I don’t think the SEC would make a move unless UNC is joining or is already gone.
LikeLike
If FSU even gains AAU status (and that probably isn’t happening anytime soon), it would replace Duke in any foursome with UVa, UNC and GT.
LikeLike
oops…”ever gains AAU status”…
LikeLike
I think you’re right about that; however, the question is whether the Big Ten would prefer (in that unlikely scenario) to add six, and if so, then who would the sixth be?
My guess is: A) Yes, in that scenario they would like to add six, including Duke; and B) Kansas would be sixth. I don’t see ND or Texas in the Big Ten, and adding Kansas would assuage the fears of the western schools that the conference was becoming too Eastern-centric.
LikeLike
We are, of course, assuming Kansas could break the shackles with KSU, which I don’t think is as much a certainty as some here believe. What makes it inherently different from Oklahoma and Okie State?
LikeLike
A lot of folks thought there was no way Texas A&M could split from Texas. The reason it could happen is that the Big XII remained a viable league without A&M. (Yes, it also helped that the governor is an Aggie.)
With that precedent in mind, I think that Kansas could leave, because they’re not a big enough loss to kill the league. The Big XII could replace Kansas. K-State would still be in a Big Five league, and KU would have upgraded its circumstances considerably. Depending on which schools are available at the time, the Big XII might even be better off with a new school in a new market, rather than having two schools in a relatively small and slow-growing state.
LikeLike
So the Kansas BOT (don’t the schools share a board?)is going to leave KSU’s fate to the whims of the longhorns?
LikeLike
So the Kansas BOT (don’t the schools share a board?)is going to leave KSU’s fate to the whims of the longhorns?
It’s subject to the whims of the Longhorns already. Basically, the Big XII is going to exist if UT wants it to exist; otherwise, it won’t.
Remember when UT and OU flirted with the Pac-12? KU and K-State would have been relegated to the Big East (along with Iowa State), and Texas wouldn’t have cared They avoided that fate because Texas decided that the Big XII was more aligned with its own interests, not because Texas gave a damn about those schools.
So if KU has a chance to upgrade itself (and a Big Ten invite is about the biggest upgrade imaginable), and you’re the BOT, you’ve got to say yes. K-State’s fate will be the same as it was before: subject to whether Texas wants the Big XII to continue to exist.
LikeLike
I should have phrased it “So the Kansas BOT (don’t the schools share a board?)is going to leave KSU’s fate to the whims of the longhorns, with no protective cover should the longhorns bolt?”
We disagree. Whether it would be wise to let KU go its own way or not, much as with OU/OkSU I don’t think they want to, and perhaps politically can’t.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: If you’re the KU/K-State BOT, your job is to maximize the potential of both institutions.
If you think K-State is “safer” because it’s in the same league as KU, you’re crazy. In either scenario, it’s dependent on what UT, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, decide they want to do. They would no doubt be aware of what very nearly happened, when the two kings thought they might join the Pac-12.
Allowing KU to join the Big Ten would improve KU considerably, while leaving K-State in exactly the same position it would be in anyway. It would be a travesty if they failed to take advantage of that opportunity, assuming it was presented. Maybe they’d mandate that the annual football and basketball games continue. That could easily be done, much as Iowa continues to play Iowa State and Northern Iowa.
Of course, one should never underestimate the stupidity of politicians, but the Texas A&M case provides a way of understanding how it could work, in a case that was long believed to be “impossible”.
LikeLike
Iowa didn’t play ISU for how many years/decades?
aTm was the one leaving, not UT (and aTm would have been in no trouble had it been UT). Isn’t the TT problem what kept UT from potentially leaving for B1G membership?
LikeLike
Isn’t the TT problem what kept UT from potentially leaving for B1G membership?
Exactly, but the difference is: if UT leaves the Big XII, then the Big XII (as we’ve known it) probably can no longer exist. That would leave TT homeless (or with a FAR worse home).
If KU leaves, it doesn’t kill the Big XII. In fact, as I noted upthread, there’s a good chance that KU’s replacement would be an improvement. The Big XII doesn’t really need two schools in a lesser-populated, slow-growing state. By the time this would happen, better options might be available to them.
The Big XII will exist as long as UT and OU want it to exist, and that doesn’t change whether it has one Kansas school or two. Forcing the two to remain together only means that if the Big XII meets its demise, both schools will be in trouble. If you have the chance to move KU to a better home, you take it.
LikeLike
“In fact, as I noted upthread, there’s a good chance that KU’s replacement would be an improvement.”
Who? SMU? Houston? Would Rice again crawl out on that broken branch?
LikeLike
Kansas and OK are two very interesting schools because I could potentially see them joining the P14, B10 or SEC. And they both have their own Tech problems. There are just so many different scenarios for both those schools. Makes for interesting discussion.
LikeLike
@ccrider
Personally, I don’t think the Big XII would rebuild if KU bolted. I just don’t think OU and UT would consider a Kansas-less Big XII would be worth saving.
That said, if they did choose to replace them, then they would either go with Cincinnati or UConn or maybe BYU.
LikeLike
“In fact, as I noted upthread, there’s a good chance that KU’s replacement would be an improvement.”
Who? SMU? Houston? Would Rice again crawl out on that broken branch?
No, obviously not. Bear in mind that that we’re considering the scenario 10+ years from now, where the ACC and the Big XII have fallen far behind the Big Ten and the SEC, and the weaker leagues are once again unstable. So you’re talking about any ACC school that the Big Ten doesn’t take, such as Pitt, FSU, Louisville, or Miami. Any of those (and I could name others) get the Big XII into new markets, and they’ve still got the state of Kansas market with K-State. And that’s before we consider wild-cards that might be available and desirable by then, like BYU, Boise, Cincinati, UConn, Utah State, etc.
You are certainly right about the worst case.
LikeLike
@frug “I just don’t think OU and UT would consider a Kansas-less Big XII would be worth saving.”
Wow, what an insane statement. That might just break the record.
LikeLike
I’ll give you it was a complete butchering of the English language (I really should have learned to proof read my posts by now).
LikeLike
vp19,
“We are, of course, assuming Kansas could break the shackles with KSU, which I don’t think is as much a certainty as some here believe. What makes it inherently different from Oklahoma and Okie State?”
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6937826/board-regents-prefers-ku-k-state-stay-together
Kansas chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little said last week that Kansas and Kansas State are not necessarily connected should the Big 12 dissolve, but McKechnie said the Board would prefer that the two schools stick together.
LikeLike
http://www.crimsonandcreammachine.com/2011/8/12/2360002/are-oklahoma-and-oklahoma-state-really-a-package-deal
Legally, OU and OkSU are less tied together than KU and KSU. This article explains how they are governed. There’s a BOR for each system, plus a higher level BOR that oversees all of them but only for academic matters. The final say comes down to the governor who appoints the BOR.
LikeLike
Read the actual quote from the ESPN article about KU and KSU. The chair–who is, of course, just one regent–stated that “our first hope is they stay together in the Big 12, and until something happens, I’m just not going to speculate on what else there could be.”
What else would you expect him to say? That the board’s first hope is that the the Big 12 breaks up or that one or both leaves the conference?
I think it’s much more important that no one was quoted as saying that they NEED to stay together as opposed to the board’s “hope.”
LikeLike
The boss saying he hopes disciplinary measures won’t be necessary is not a weak statement of intent.
Hope in this situation equals firm desire, intent, and expectation as far as they can influence the situation and its various potentials.
LikeLike
The boss saying he hopes disciplinary measures won’t be necessary is completely different. The equivalent in this context would be a regent saying he hopes that it won’t be necessary for the board to force KU to stay where they are. He didn’t say that.
Again, it’s to be expected that the regent would say that he “hopes” KU would stay in the conference that they’ve shared with KSU (in different iterations) for 100 years. But a hope is different from a requirement.
LikeLike
If you “war game” the options for the combined KU/K-State BOT, here are the main possibilities (of course there are variations):
1. The Big XII falls apart. Now, if you give the BOT an option where KU/K-State both go to the MWC, or KU punches the golden ticket to the Big Ten, which do you think they’d choose?
2. The Big XII remains healthy, but KU gets a Big Ten invite. Do the BOT stand in the way of a huge upgrade for KU, just because K-State can’t come to the party? That would be a very irrational decision.
3. The only tough case, I think, is if the BOT believed that KU’s departure would be the straw that breaks the Big XII’s back. Then, perhaps, they might hold KU back, in order to keep both schools in a Big Five league. I do think this is the unlikeliest scenario, because I don’t see KU as a linchpin school in the Big XII.
Note that the OU/OKSU situation is very different, because the league probably cannot survive in its current form if Oklahoma leaves. So Oklahoma’s departure (or the threat thereof) would be more like #3 above, where the BOT would insist that the two are linked at the hip.
LikeLike
bikemore,
I gave a quote that explicitly shows the two aren’t tied together legally. The comment asked what made KU/KSU different from OU/OkSU so I wanted to show what the two cases were. Since you can’t put two links in one comment without waiting for moderation, I showed KS in one comment and OK in the other.
The OK system is even a looser tie than in KS, but the point was just to show how exactly the schools were tied in each case. It was just for education of those reading the thread.
LikeLike
Fair enough. My comment was mainly a reaction to previous posts on this board where people have made incorrect but definitive statements that the two are irrevocably tied together (and have even stated that KU wants to be tied). I’m hoping that people look beyond the misleading headline of the ESPN article and fairly assess what was actually said.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/56239/crossover-scheduling-hurt-by-expansion
A look at the negatives associated with the ACC’s new 6-1-1 schedule. The ACC has released the crossover schedules for 2014-2024.
For the most part, the ACC got it right with the permanent crossover opponents from the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions. Florida State and Miami might never meet in the ACC championship game, but at least they’ll play each other every year in the regular season. Clemson and Georgia Tech will continue their thrilling rivalry every season, and so will instate rivals North Carolina and NC State, and Wake Forest and Duke. Former Big East rivals Syracuse and Pittsburgh will play every season, and Boston College and Virginia Tech were paired together. Louisville was matched up with Virginia as a permanent crossover opponent when it joins the league.
For the most part, the ACC kept its longtime rivalries intact and created some new ones.
But here’s the worst part of crossover scheduling: ACC teams will play one crossover opponent only once in the regular season over 11 seasons, and each of those meetings occurs in the 2020 season.
BC/VT and UL/UVA seem pointless. They could at least rotate those pairings. Duke/WF isn’t really a big game either, but they are sort of Tobacco Road rivals so I understand why they kept it.
Playing a conference team once in 11 seasons is ridiculous, and it could be even longer. Schlabach cherry-picked data to point that out, though. The reason it happens is that those games will be played in 2013 (well, those that can be played) which was released earlier, so they don’t happen to play again until 2020. Over the 12 years of 2013-2024 the schedule is balanced. UL doesn’t join until 2014, of course, so they do only play VT once in 11 years (UMD plays VT this year).
LikeLike
BC/VTech and Louisville/UVA actually seem wrongheaded.
If anything, they should have matched up the school that thinks it’s an Ivy (and sends a ton of grads to the northeastern corridor) with the private school that is by an Ivy located in the northeastern corridor while both VTech and Louisville are both located in Greater Appalachia and are closer to each other. Furthermore, I expect VTech and Louisville to be better at football going forward than UVa and BC as well.
LikeLike
I think they took the lazy way out and simply replaced UMD with UL. Maybe they think BC/VT has become established, but I don’t think anyone cares about that game. Your pairings make much more sense if they insist on locking games.
LikeLike
I think the real problem for the ACC is their hybrid division philosophy. They blended a zipper with a geographical split and got the worst of both.
Better Zipper:
In order of locked rivals:
A – BC, UL, VT, NCSU, WF, GT, FSU
B – SU, Pitt, UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Miami
Geographical:
N – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, VT, UVA, Duke
S – Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, WF
No locked games.
Better Geographical (more balanced):
N – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, VT, UVA, UNC
S – Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NCSU, WF, Duke
Lock UNC/NCSU only.
LikeLike
I’d switch Miami with Duke in your 1st geographical alignment. Miami is so far south in Florida its north. Let Miami/FSU play ooc 4 out of 8 years and play 4 in conference in 8 years. Get everyone else 2 out of 8. Maybe give UNC/UVA same setup. Don’t have any of them play ND in those 4 ooc years.
LikeLike
I still the best alignment is modified North-South (i.e. ACC-Big East a.k.a. F*** Wake Forest)
North – BC, ‘Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, V-Tech, WF, Miami
South – UVA, UNC, NC-State, Duke, Clemson, G-Tech, FSU
The only locked rivalries would UVA-VPI, Miami-FSU and maybe Wake Forest and one of the triangle schools.
Really, I think this best way. Divisional balance is alright, everybody gets equal access to Florida and it best represents the way the teams are natural aligned. Really outside of Wake Forest who would be pissed (but who has no leverage) the school that might have a problem with this split is V-Tech who would probably prefer to be the ACC schools, but I doubt they would make it an issue.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’d switch Miami with Duke in your 1st geographical alignment.”
I was going for pure geography in that one, the KISS approach. I did swap Duke and WF for cultural reasons, but clearly Miami is in the South (just not of the South).
“Let Miami/FSU play ooc 4 out of 8 years and play 4 in conference in 8 years. Get everyone else 2 out of 8.”
There’s no way they’d agree to that. Why should they have to play OOC?
LikeLike
frug,
“I still the best alignment is modified North-South (i.e. ACC-Big East a.k.a. F*** Wake Forest)
North – BC, ‘Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, V-Tech, WF, Miami
South – UVA, UNC, NC-State, Duke, Clemson, G-Tech, FSU”
With 9 games, you might be right. Not with 8.
“The only locked rivalries would UVA-VPI, Miami-FSU and maybe Wake Forest and one of the triangle schools.”
That’s what kills it. That means the other 12 teams see FSU or Miami only once every 6 years. 6 teams see VT only once every 6 years. You can’t lock up most of the major powers like that, especially in a league with few big FB names.
“Really, I think this best way. Divisional balance is alright, everybody gets equal access to Florida and it best represents the way the teams are natural aligned. Really outside of Wake Forest who would be pissed (but who has no leverage) the school that might have a problem with this split is V-Tech who would probably prefer to be the ACC schools, but I doubt they would make it an issue.”
Miami will object to all those cold weather games, especially since no other southern school will get many of them. The travel for them would be ridiculous, too. VT will be mad at losing several good FB teams, but mostly they just want to play UVA annually. WF would probably insist on locking in Duke and nobody else would object to that (see PU/IN).
LikeLike
“The only locked rivalries would UVA-VPI, Miami-FSU and maybe Wake Forest and one of the triangle schools.”
That’s what kills it. That means the other 12 teams see FSU or Miami only once every 6 years. 6 teams see VT only once every 6 years. You can’t lock up most of the major powers like that, especially in a league with few big FB names.
I don’t understand the problem. The North schools don’t have any history with FSU and the South schools don’t have any history with Miami so it’s not like they are losing rivalries. And everyone still gets an annual game with either FSU or Miami.
Miami will object to all those cold weather games, especially since no other southern school will get many of them.
They did just fine with those cold weather games when they were in the Big East. And the fact that other Southern schools won’t play as many cold weather games won’t effect Miami’s ability to compete for the the division title.
The travel for them would be ridiculous, too.
I don’t get this. Even in a straight N/S split Miami is still going to have to fly to all their games. In fact, the actual travel times might shorter than in if they were placed in a South division since BC, ‘Cuse, Louisville and Syracuse are all located in cities with major airports meaning no 2 hour+ bus rides after the plane lands (of the South schools only GIT has a major airport).
LikeLike
frug,
“I don’t understand the problem. The North schools don’t have any history with FSU and the South schools don’t have any history with Miami so it’s not like they are losing rivalries. And everyone still gets an annual game with either FSU or Miami.”
They all want to play both FSU and Miami as much as possible.
“They did just fine with those cold weather games when they were in the Big East.”
That was a league with no other southern teams. The ACC isn’t. When they have to compete with FSU in recruiting and on the field, these things matter.
“I don’t get this. Even in a straight N/S split Miami is still going to have to fly to all their games.”
Playing BC is the same as playing FSU to them in terms of travel? You keep believing that.
LikeLike
“I don’t get this. Even in a straight N/S split Miami is still going to have to fly to all their games.”
Playing BC is the same as playing FSU to them in terms of travel? You keep believing that.
They would play FSU annually in my scenario…
LikeLike
“They did just fine with those cold weather games when they were in the Big East.”
That was a league with no other southern teams. The ACC isn’t. When they have to compete with FSU in recruiting and on the field, these things matter.
They were competing against FSU on the field and in recruiting from ’91-’04 and seemed to do just fine. In fact, during their time in the Big East Miami went 8-6 against FSU compared to 3-6 since joining the ACC.
“I don’t understand the problem. The North schools don’t have any history with FSU and the South schools don’t have any history with Miami so it’s not like they are losing rivalries. And everyone still gets an annual game with either FSU or Miami.”
They all want to play both FSU and Miami as much as possible.
Probably true, but if it was a major priority they wouldn’t have had any protected crossovers to begin with. The bigger issue is everyone wants equal access to Florida and annual against one of them.
LikeLike
frug,
Playing BC is the same as playing FSU to them in terms of travel? You keep believing that.
“They would play FSU annually in my scenario…”
They would in mine, too. But they wouldn’t play BC annually in mine. You seem to think they won’t care about whether a game is in Boston or Tallahassee because they fly everywhere, and I think that’s silly.
LikeLike
frug,
“They were competing against FSU on the field and in recruiting from ’91-’04 and seemed to do just fine.”
Only head to head. They were in different conferences.
“In fact, during their time in the Big East Miami went 8-6 against FSU compared to 3-6 since joining the ACC.”
Miami was better in those days. They’ve been down since Coker. And playing in the same conference as FSU but being in the North while FSU is in the South would be a disadvantage they wouldn’t accept. That’s why they have a modified zipper now.
“Probably true, but if it was a major priority they wouldn’t have had any protected crossovers to begin with. The bigger issue is everyone wants equal access to Florida and annual against one of them.”
All that means is they need to split Miami and FSU. It doesn’t mean they should do a N/S with Miami in the N. A zipper achieves the same thing, which is why they did it in the first place.
LikeLike
They would in mine, too. But they wouldn’t play BC annually in mine. You seem to think they won’t care about whether a game is in Boston or Tallahassee because they fly everywhere, and I think that’s silly.
Sure a game in Tallahassee is different than a game in Boston. It’s also different than a game in Durham or a game in Blacksburg. I don’t get what you are trying to argue.
Only head to head.
Yes, that is how teams compete. Then, now and always.
They were in different conferences.
Yes.
Miami was better in those days.
So was FSU.
And playing in the same conference as FSU but being in the North while FSU is in the South would be a disadvantage they wouldn’t accept. That’s why they have a modified zipper now.
No. They have a modified zipper because everyone wanted to be in a division with either FSU or Miami ensuring them an annual game against one of the conference’s big guns and giving everyone equal access to the state of Florida.
All that means is they need to split Miami and FSU. It doesn’t mean they should do a N/S with Miami in the N. A zipper achieves the same thing, which is why they did it in the first place.
Just because they did a zipper the first time doesn’t mean they have to (or even should) do it again.
LikeLike
frug,
“Sure a game in Tallahassee is different than a game in Boston. It’s also different than a game in Durham or a game in Blacksburg. I don’t get what you are trying to argue.”
You claimed that since they fly everywhere, Miami wouldn’t care that the rest of their division were the 6 schools the farthest away from them while FSU got all their nearest foes. I think that’s a silly notion.
Only head to head.
“Yes, that is how teams compete. Then, now and always.”
They can also compete in conference and even in division. They used to be in different conferences, but they aren’t any more. That changes things.
“No. They have a modified zipper because everyone wanted to be in a division with either FSU or Miami ensuring them an annual game against one of the conference’s big guns and giving everyone equal access to the state of Florida.”
No, that’s why Miami and FSU are separate. You don’t need a zipper to have everyone in a division with one or the other. They did the zipper because neither FSU nor Miami would accept being stuck in the north.
“Just because they did a zipper the first time doesn’t mean they have to (or even should) do it again.”
I never said it did mean that. But claiming Miami would be fine with a geographic split except with them in the North needs some support. When has any person in power at Miami indicated they’d rather play the northern schools than the southern ones, especially if it meant that FSU played the other group?
If you list the division requirements, it tells you how to split them. If everyone demands to play in FL, then you have to split FSU and Miami. But FL isn’t the only strong recruiting area. Teams also want into GA, SC, NC and VA. That requires a zipper. A zipper also keeps new members from feeling isolated (BE division vs ACC division, essentially). That’s important for conference unity, especially if you worry about losing schools to expansion.
LikeLike
No, that’s why Miami and FSU are separate. You don’t need a zipper to have everyone in a division with one or the other. They did the zipper because neither FSU nor Miami would accept being stuck in the north.
Yeah, that was my bad; I didn’t complete my full thought. After they decided they had to split FSU and Miami the ACC felt a zipper was the only to preserve historic rivalries
N – BC, Maryland, Virginia, V-Tech, WF, Miami
S – UNC, NC-State, Duke, Clemson, G-Tech, FSU
Maryland, UVA and Wake were not going to live with that.
LikeLike
frug,
“Yeah, that was my bad; I didn’t complete my full thought. After they decided they had to split FSU and Miami the ACC felt a zipper was the only to preserve historic rivalries
N – BC, Maryland, Virginia, V-Tech, WF, Miami
S – UNC, NC-State, Duke, Clemson, G-Tech, FSU
Maryland, UVA and Wake were not going to live with that.”
Miami wouldn’t have liked it either. That’s why I take issue with your current plan – you still have at least 2 schools that will hate it (WF and Miami).
North – BC, ‘Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, V-Tech, WF, Miami
South – UVA, UNC, NC-State, Duke, Clemson, G-Tech, FSU
It might help to swap UVA for WF while locking UVA/UNC instead of UVA/VT. That would appease WF, but might upset UVA just as much (they’d keep their top 2 rivals, though). That’s why a modified zipper works best for the ACC in my opinion. Nobody loves the outcome, but nobody despises it either. Everyone gets most of what they want.
In order of locked rivals:
A – BC, UL, VT, NCSU, WF, GT, FSU
B – SU, Pitt, UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Miami
1. Miami and FSU are split so everyone plays one of them.
2. NC schools are split evenly with 1 locked rival meaning they each play at least 2 of 3.
3. Rivalries are preserved – VT/UVA, UNC/NCSU, GT/Clemson, FSU/Miami, etc.
4. Recruiting grounds are spread out. Everyone gets equal access to FL, NC and VA, and they all get SC or GA.
5. Cold weather/BE schools are spread evenly.
6. The division are reasonably balanced.
A true N/S split would work if every school didn’t demand FL access. The N would still have access to MA, NY, PA, VA and NC for recruiting, plus anyone can recruit in FL (B10 does).
LikeLike
The ACC wanted to set up the possibility of a Miami/FSU championship game. Naturally, the football gods took their revenge, and such a game has never happened. With three new schools entering, they should have scrapped the zipper and re-done the divisions from scratch, as the Big Ten did.
It would take an ACC expert to opine on which rivalries are considered indispensable. But according to Wikipedia, UNC/UVA is the second-most played active annual rivalry in FBS (behind only Minnesota-Wisconsin). I have trouble imagining that they would ever eliminate that from the ACC schedule.
Of course, schools have killed long-standing rivalries by switching leagues without a partner, but while they remain in the same league, I have to think that UNC/UVA would be contested annually, no matter what the divisional structure.
LikeLike
I don’t mind John Hopkins as men’s only. Regardless of whether its one sport or two, we are still talking an affiliate membership so being all in or not doesn’t seem like a big deal.
LikeLike
What somebody doesn’t mind and what rubs somebody the wrong way is partly a gut reaction, so there’s only so far stepping through the rational pros and cons can go. For me, I actually would be a bit annoyed if JHU women were in a different conference when there is a Big Ten women’s conference. But I don’t mind it nearly as much if they are playing as independents.
LikeLike
Pingback: Lacrosse & The Future | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
I think that the addition of Johns Hopkins means that the Big Ten is a lot more pragmatic about affiliate membership than most fans had assumed. Johns Hopkins is in for a test period only, it gets to keep its TV contract, its women’s team doesn’t have to join, and it’s not required to join the CIC. However, the Big Ten gets to sponsor a Big Ten lacrosse league with an auto-bid to the NCAA tournament, it gets to market to affluent families that might not otherwise consider a Big Ten school, the BTN gets a bit of a stronger foothold on the East Coast, and the COP/C gets to associate more closely with an academic powerhouse (even if Johns Hopkins never joins the CIC). These positives outweigh the “all for one” mentality that the Big Ten has required for full members, especially considering that this is is for a traditionally non-revenue sport.
LikeLike
The Confidential’s take on the Big 10’s win with Johns Hopkins & lacrosse generally:
Look forward to your comments, of course. Here or there.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, that IF the ACC had a chance at Hopkins, and passed, they made a big mistake. In my view, Hopkins would’ve chosen the Big Ten anyway, but the ACC had nothing to lose by at least trying to make their own compelling case. And certainly, the ACC had points in their favor, had they chosen to make them.
The comparison of football to boxing seems way off-base. Football is a contact sport with the objective of putting the ball in the endzone. Boxing is a contact sport with the objective of bashing the other guy’s brains. You can make changes to football to make it safer, without changing the basic idea of the game, whereas the very essence of boxing is to cause injury to the opponent. That’s a pretty significant difference.
Even in its heyday (whenever that was), boxing never had the fan support that football does now. Football engenders lifetime and multi-generational team/fan relationships that transcend the identities of particular individuals (i.e., you’re an Alabama fan, regardless of who’s on the team at a particular time). Boxing is all about the individual competitor. And as you noted, you could pay $50 for a fight that ends in 30 seconds, whereas a football team is guaranteed to offer 3 hours of entertainment, 12+ times a season.
LikeLike
WSJ (if I remember right) had a very interesting article about the eventual ‘death of football’.
Primarily, it concerned the growing unwillingness of parents to allow their kids to play football or even acquire a taste for it in Pop Warner. It was a staggering percentage that, unless helmet/equipment technology can assuage their fears in the next decade, could eventually cut off it’s supply line. Couple this with the nanny state tendencies of the government and I absolutely think football faces a long term dilemma. Who, only two years ago, would have believed the Pac would limit contact for practices. People will claim this is ridiculous because of the money involved, but if you think the majority of parents are going to let their kids play a game that could threaten their children’s or teen’s long term health, you’re mistaken. And the research could only get worse. I think ‘football’ has a decade to remedy this problem before you’ll see it’s rapid decline. Not only on the parent front, but colleges will no longer be willing to risk the health of their students (for moral and legal reasons). Delany & Co. are obviously cognizant of this.
Obviously science/engineers are working hard to solve this problem and I hope they do.
LikeLike
Here’s the NYT backing up that logic:
For all of the talk about the physical toll of football, the most imposing challenge for the N.F.L. will be moral issues as parents decide whether their children should play the game. As more studies are completed and more high-profile players experience postcareer complications, the industry and parents are faced with ethical questions: How can football executives continue to sell the game? How can fans continue to watch? And how can parents continue to allow their children to play?
Here’s CNN:
Knowing this, and knowing how prevalent and often undiagnosed concussions are at even the lower levels of football (to say nothing of all the other serious injuries accepted as ‘just a part of the game’ in football), why would any parent choose to enlist their child to join these ranks? To volunteer them to have their head smacked around inside a plastic cage? Children have been playing tackle football for generations, yes, but only recently have we become aware of what it’s doing to them.
This is not some fringe point of view and is already a cause celebre with the chronically outraged.
LikeLike
So where are the chronically outraged with boxing in decline and being replaced by the even more violent MMA?
I’m not saying there’s not a risk to the sport, but its overstated based on current knowledge. Most of those parents are upper middle class who don’t produce much of the Division I football talent. The top players are disproportionately lower income. Which is why the stipends are such a big deal.
LikeLike
Because colleges aren’t giving scholarships to kids to participate in MMA. High schools aren’t fielding MMA teams, and MMA pee-wee leagues won’t be popping up any time soon.
The chronically outraged feed off of lobbying congress (government regulation) or targeting advertisers.
I absolutely agree that lower income kids will decide to keep playing, right up to the moment that choice is taken away from them. Do you really believe that Washington is going to allow poor minority kids to continue playing a game that they know to be harmful?
The only way football survives the next twenty years is if they can eliminate concussions.
LikeLike
Working against this, football is a very expensive sport, and one that is only for one genders. School districts will eventually abandon the sport due to costs and declining support and out of fairness to girls. Legistlatures will impose additional restrictions. Wealthy parents whose kids play soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and golf will wonder if their tax dollars couldn’t be better spent. This is why I see football dying (or at least becoming less mainstream). It may not die out completely (though that would not suprise me), but it may shrink. I’d say football’s future is unknown, but if I were to wagers, I’d wagers that in 50 years baseball, soccer, and lacrosse are the more popular sports in all the various ways in which you can measure popularlity.
LikeLike
This is why I see football dying. . . .
There’s just no evidence for this at all. Obviously, nothing is impossible: Kodak failed to foresee that film would die, and look at Kodak now. But to reach your preferred outcome, you’re making a vast number of unsubstantiated assumptions, and failing to consider many other possibilities. If you want football to die, then you can resolve all doubts in favor of your prediction, and voila! In your mind it becomes a practical certainty.
LikeLike
ESPN (of all places) has a great article up addressing why Football is doomed, and why its not.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/Mag15footballisdead/jr-moehringer-120-reasons-why-football-last-forever-espn-magazine
11. Buzz Bissinger, Malcolm Gladwell, George F. Will, they’ve all recently declared that football is going bye-bye. Or maybe that’s the wrong way to put it. Maybe what they meant is closer to what George Carlin said about climate change. The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are. Pack your shit, folks.
12. After all, boxing didn’t go anywhere. Boxing is still here. No, honest, it’s around here somewhere. You can still fly to Vegas this weekend, take in a prizefight. Just be prepared to feel the peculiar enervation of total irrelevance. Boxing, which once stood at the center of American cultural life, glistening arms aloft, now slouches punch-drunk on the tattered fringes. So while you’re seated ringside, watching that fight, which won’t even make the morning papers, and not simply because there are no morning papers, bear in mind: Messrs. Gladwell, Bissinger, Will and others say the same pall of obsolescence should hang over football games, pro, college, high school, peewee. Until the games vanish altogether.
LikeLike
@Marc – of course it is just my opinion. Though I don’t think an unreasonable one. Several people have written about the same scenario. But legistlatures are already getting involved. School districts are already cutting it. I may be wrong, and hope I am. I love football, even though I would never let my kids play it. You are right, they are my assumptions, but they are grounded in some reality. The fact is that football is expensive and only going to get more expensive. Teams are big and insurance is going to go up. Tax revenue for football is not going to increase in the aggregate. The supply of players is going to decrease as more parents take the same approach I will take. This may simply just lead to a changing sport and not a dying sport. I really don’t know. But in my opinion, I think it will eventually die out.
LikeLike
FWIW – I don’t want football to die, it is not my preferred outcome. Sure I’ll take some “I told you so glee” when it happens since my wife thinks I’m nuts to even think it. I just see too many things working against it.
LikeLike
It isn’t about ‘violence’. It’s about the long term effects of continuous head trauma inherent with certain sports. Football is bad & boxing is far worse. MMA is not in the same ballpark as either when it comes to TBI.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen any studies, but I find it hard to believe MMA isn’t worse than boxing. Maybe people get beat up so bad they can’t do it for 20 years. Maybe its just that the sport hasn’t been around very long.
@SH
IMO the idea that lacrosse will be bigger than football in 50 years is pretty unreasonable. For that matter, baseball, which is in decline, and soccer, which has never been able to take off as a spectator sport, being bigger than fb seems pretty unreasonable as well.
Football is a pretty cheap sport for kids to play. Just need an open field and a ball. You can do it with 2 players, although 4 is much better. Lacrosse is more expensive. It and baseball are more difficult to on a sandlot. More players, more space, more coordination.
My idea, as I’ve stated on here before, is to do away with unlimited substitution. You aren’t going to have as many 300 pounders if they have to play both ways. And if the players are smaller, the damage is less. If they’re slower (and if they play both ways, they will slow down from fatigue) the damage is less.
LikeLike
“IMO the idea that lacrosse will be bigger than football in 50 years is pretty unreasonable. For that matter, baseball, which is in decline, and soccer, which has never been able to take off as a spectator sport, being bigger than fb seems pretty unreasonable as well.”
I admit it is probably only reasonable if you think football will die, which I do. So it is less lacrosse overtaking it and more just fading away.
“Football is a pretty cheap sport for kids to play. Just need an open field and a ball. You can do it with 2 players, although 4 is much better. Lacrosse is more expensive. It and baseball are more difficult to on a sandlot. More players, more space, more coordination.”
True – except organized football will become expensive. The insurance will be what really drives the cost up.
“My idea, as I’ve stated on here before, is to do away with unlimited substitution. You aren’t going to have as many 300 pounders if they have to play both ways. And if the players are smaller, the damage is less. If they’re slower (and if they play both ways, they will slow down from fatigue) the damage is less.”
These are very interesting ideas. Maybe with some radical changes football will stave off death. But those are the changes that fooball will need to explore.
LikeLike
Bullet – I also just believe that 50 years is a lot of time. Football has been king for a long time now. To remain on top for another 50 years would be one great run. All good things typically come to an end. I guess I would just take the field and assume another sport will top it.
LikeLike
“Do you really believe that Washington is going to allow poor minority kids to continue playing a game that they know to be harmful?”
They haven’t outlawed boxing yet.
LikeLike
Maybe Washington would be better off by dropping its paternalistic attitude towards group they claim to care about. Then they wouldn’t be much hated by the vast majority of the public.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Because colleges aren’t giving scholarships to kids to participate in MMA. High schools aren’t fielding MMA teams, and MMA pee-wee leagues won’t be popping up any time soon.”
Actually, there are lots of youth MMA classes out there and some competitions. It’s growing.
“I absolutely agree that lower income kids will decide to keep playing, right up to the moment that choice is taken away from them. Do you really believe that Washington is going to allow poor minority kids to continue playing a game that they know to be harmful?”
They already do. They haven’t banned any sport that I know of, and all sports are dangerous. Youth boxing still exists. Extreme sports are thriving. Hoops sends more people to the hospital than any other sport last time I saw the stats.
“The only way football survives the next twenty years is if they can eliminate concussions.”
Bull.
LikeLike
“I haven’t seen any studies, but I find it hard to believe MMA isn’t worse than boxing. Maybe people get beat up so bad they can’t do it for 20 years. Maybe its just that the sport hasn’t been around very long.”
—The long term danger is due to the use of heavier gloves. They help to prevent acute injuries (cuts, fractures etc) but they also expose boxers to many more blows to the brain. Without 8oz gloves two quality heavyweights would be completely unable to sit and pound each other in the head for 14 rounds. Yes an MMA fighter is more likely to suffer broken bones over the short term but over the long term they are going to be less likely to suffer the chronic debilitating cognitive loss that many boxers exhibit.
LikeLike
Catching bullets is much safer than catching RPG’s…
The big advantage that MMA held over boxing was they would stop the fight much quicker. No ten count, standing eights, proving you could survive being wobbled. That seems to have diminished significantly. I’ve seen many serious beatings go on far longer than they should. Will the public demand and reward the earlier, questionable stoppages to restore some lost safety? Will they stop idolizing the undefeated, and the ability to overcome any damage to remain so?
Sure, bare knuckle fights were less deadly. Hands break easier than skulls. Elbows and feet don’t.
We are at the beginning of a 40+ year trial period. Perhaps after that time we’ll have data to support one argument or the other. I just don’t think educational institutions should be involved in the modern Roman Circus.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
The counter to that is that MMA athlete get kneed, kicked and elbowed in the head regularly. Those are heavier blows than any gloved punch and do more damage internally. They also get punched in the head while on the ground, so they get double hit (fist to face, back of head to mat). To top it off, they get choked unconscious too so the brain is being deprived of oxygen.
LikeLike
GLS,
Suburban parents may be doing this, but I doubt poor families in football hotbeds are. Football is still the ticket out of poverty for many kids and their parents will encourage them to play. Rural areas also are less likely to follow this trend.
For all the talk about the dangers of sports, people are generally pretty clueless about the facts. Rugby is a growing sport and it hits just as hard as football. MMA is replacing boxing and it’s equally risky. Studies have shown repeated headers to also cause brain damage but soccer is thriving. Hockey helmets are less effective than football helmets but youth hockey thrives and every player ditches their full face mask as soon as they turn 18 or leave college. Extreme sports are growing tremendously and they’re all very dangerous.
Newsflash: All sports are dangerous. Moving fast means a lot of inertia and a forced stop or rapid change of direction means potential injury, to the brain and elsewhere.
LikeLike
“The only way football survives the next twenty years is if they can eliminate concussions.”
Bull.
What a typical nothing answer from the human drone.
LikeLike
A silly statement like that deserves a simple answer. Not a single sport can eliminate concussions, and none of them will disappear in 20 years.
http://www.momsteam.com/softball/concussion-in-high-school-sports-rising-fifteen-percent-new-study-finds
A study of concussions in HS sports in VA. The second most “dangerous” sport was girls’ soccer. Is soccer also going to disappear in 20 years?
Concussions per 1000 Athletic Exposure (game, practice, etc per player)
Boys:
1. Football – 0.60
2. Lacrosse – 0.30
3. Soccer – 0.17
4. Wrestling – 0.17
5. Basketball – 0.10
6. Baseball – 0.06
Girls:
1. Soccer – 0.35
2. Lacrosse – 0.20
3. Basketball – 0.16
4. Softball – 0.11
5. Field hockey – 0.10
6. Cheerleading – 0.06
Being a VA study, hockey isn’t on the list. Neither is rugby, a growing college sport.
If concussions are going to kill football, then soccer and lacrosse and maybe hockey will also have to die. All rational people know that is not going to happen, though.
LikeLike
Rationality has to come into play regarding concussions/injuries in general when playing sports.
One underlying problem is our media and our government seem to think that it is their responsibility to educate/regulate/dictate what we as individuals should and shouldn’t do.
Of course, a lot of this “education” is sold via emotion—hence, young, suburban house-wives are scared their little Johnny or Julie is going to be forever scarred if they play any “violent” sports… “Violent” being defined by the “self-proclaimed/media-proclaimed” expert of the day…
No more nanny state B.S. please…
I survived without a bicycle helmet, I survived football, I survived wrestling, I survived my teens and twenties… We all do really stupid stuff—sometimes we get lucky, sometimes not-so-much…
If life is to be lived—there is inherent risk…
LikeLike
“And look where college football is headed… from all-over-the-air networks to ESPN, and then ESPN to conferences having their own networks. The money is starting to change access to sports.”
This is a big part of my disappointment with the mainstream (ESPN, Fox) becoming part or full owners of supposedly school or conference networks. The non monetary benefit, that can legitimately be claimed as important by schools, is unimportant to them. Making money directly and quickly is the goal of a quarterly profit driven business.
I’m not sure lax will fare any better than hockey for the general sports fan on TV. They both have a very small ball/puck in a fast moving game. It’s not like following a basketball, or even a football. Both are easy, and in FB there are breaks after every five or ten seconds of action to reset the frame of reference if you did lose track. I’m one of the odd ones who actually appreciated the glowing puck (but not the tracer) precisely for that reason. I think a newer, improved, more discrete tracking method could make both sports as easy to follow the action on TV as mainstream sports.
LikeLike
High-definition TV has made hockey a far better viewing experience, and the same improvement may apply to lacrosse.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
True, but its not completely easy for the non hockey fan. Rather than a glowing, larger circular overlay I’d like to see if a fairly bright pinpoint (perhaps a strobe at 30 to 45 cycles/second, or not) would assist without being distracting.
LikeLike
I agree with you, but those partnerships may be imperative to a nationwide network. The PAC12 network will tell the tale.
LikeLike
I think hockey and lacrosse could benefit from that camera that they have for football– I forget the full name–the camera that moves on wires. Imagine being able to watch the attack flow from an angle like that. Moreover, there are few passes that are high enough to trip that camera. And none in hockey. But being able to see the play facing the goalie, rather than from the side or the perspective of the goalie might be helpful. And maybe 3-D TVs will help.
Who knows?
The point was not that football would disappear, but that the erosion of football support may be replaced by lacrosse. Instead of revenue being 80%football/20%basketball, maybe it becomes 65%/25%/10% lacrosse. If so, great move by the Big 10 to get JHU.
Also, TV viewership is also impacted by people watching live. Not a causal relationship. If lacrosse game attendance goes from 5,000 to 20,000… that makes it a lot more likely to generate TV interest. Lacrosse is played in stadiums with greater capacity than basketball.
Did anyone in the 1960’s think that a Final Four would be played in a Dome? You just never know where things go in a generation or two.
LikeLike
1968 Astrodome sellout-UCLA vs. Houston.
You can never say never, but if lacrosse attendance went from 5,000 to 6,000 that would be a major accomplishment. Its a small niche upper middle class/wealthy east coast sport that has as much potential upside as rugby and less than ultimate.
LikeLike
Eeeeeee!!!
Aaaaaaa!
The birth of the goggles in BB was precipitated by Hays elbow catching Alcindor’s eye that day.
LikeLike
A ton of kids are now playing lacrosse in Oregon and Utah. I could see lacrosse making a long-term push somewhere along the lines of 72%/18%/10%.
LikeLike
I think that is right. In the future, the concentration of revenue will not be all tied up in one sport. I’d be concerned that football may be a dying product. Like any other business venture, you have to find new products and revenue streams. The B10 seems to be the most forward-thinking conference in this regard.
LikeLike
Then again,
Pele signed with the Cosmos? Soccer is going to be huge in the US!
Beck signed with the Galaxy? Soccer is going to be huge in the US!
LikeLike
Soccer is just never going to be big here. We like offense.
Basketball–shot clock. Baseball–PEDs. Football–nearly every rule is pro-offense.
Lacrosse offense > soccer offense. By quite a bit.
LikeLike
I’d say soccer is huge (maybe big reserving huge for the big 3) in the US. It has an expanding league that does not appear to be in trouble in any way. ESPN is paying a lot of money for foreign league broadcasts. It has not overtaken the big 3, but it is doing well enough and will likely only grow.
LikeLike
@acaffrey – Right now soccer is biggers than lacrosse. But lacrosse could quickly overtake soccers. As you say, their is far more offense, plus it offers some contact. I think also because it is uniquely American, which will appeal to our independent streak.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood this attitude about soccer. I don’t know how big it could get but it has its believers. The US game against Germany this Sunday sold out. More over, the women’s team game against Canada in Toronto sold out minutes after tickets went on sale.
LikeLike
If you benchmark every sport against the wildest predictions of its most naive supporters, every sport will be a litany of failure to meet those wild projections. As far as realistic expectations, soccer is now the fifth team sport by value in the US, so either the biggest or second biggest of the second tier, depending on whether you put hockey at the bottom of the first tier or top of the second tier.
There are two big differences between College Lacrosse and College Soccer that stand to the benefit of LAX. First, Soccer is a Fall Sport while Lacrosse is a Spring Sport. College Football castes a much bigger and darker shadow on College Soccer than College Baseball casts on College Lacrosse. Second, College Soccer is much further from the top ranks of the sport, since the US professional league is more or less a AAA or AA minor league in the world of soccer, with the “majors” being played in England, Italy, Spain and Brazil ~ the more generous you are about some other leagues being top tier leagues the better the claim MLS has to being second tier. And College is not the only development ladder, with paid development ladders both with the semi-pro leagues in the US and, for same, the option of going overseas and seeking a place in big money club’s development system.
LikeLike
@Accafrey
I agree. The slow pace of baseball was better suited to a different era. Soccer’s low scoring condemns it to the 2nd tier.
Basketball is the sport that could overtake football, but has the disadvantage of fewer players and requiring genetic advantages (Calvin Murphy and Spud Webb are once in a generation players-shorter fb players are much more common).
LikeLike
Soccer is still growing at the youth and high school level, but it is pretty saturated. Lacrosse has fewer teams and schools, but the growth is booming. But just because the kids are playing doesn’t mean that they will automatically start watching MLS or EPL, or attending MLS games. Same thing with watching/attending college/pro lax.
However… as the percentage of immigrants in America grows, the growth of soccer will continue, as many of these immigrants are existing fans of pro soccer (including the national teams).
LikeLike
Football on TV is great and i think that has really helped it grow.
Hockey on tv looses a lot and that hurts it. But that tracer or glower or whatever was totally asinine. It is not that hard to follow a puck on tv if you have any idea what the flow of a game is. Does it get lost on ocasssion, yes. But who really cares? You can typically find it in about 1 second. Maybe they could take some ads off the ice. The NHL and hopefully B10 hockey need to understand that the vast majority of existing fans don’t care about being popular. They appreciate tradition, the game, and the quirks. They need to put the market research back on the shelf and let hockey be hockey.
I honestly cannot see the average sports fan giving a crap about LAX on tv or otherwise.
LikeLike
LAX combines the two sports 90% of Americans don’t like – hockey and soccer.
LikeLike
@JJ ‘LAX combines the two sports 90% of Americans don’t like-hockey and soccer.’
Great observation. As far as football losing, or rather, declining, from its pre-eminent position in American sports, I believe its saving attribute is that it is played by all shapes and sizes and abilities of individuals. It is also helped by the sheer number of participants. This is true especially at the high school level where a deep love of a sport is developed. And, those various individuals go on in life relating to Friday nights, and Saturdays and Sundays. IMO, the only thing that will bring football down is the concussion issue.
LikeLike
ESPN sees value enough in soccer to be showing Czech Republic v Italy in a World Cup qualifier on the main channel.
LikeLike
“LAX combines the two sports 90% of Americans don’t like – hockey and soccer.” ~ yes, combining the fourth and fifth most popular team sports, into a sport that’s more accessible than either.
My experience is its easier for a novice to tell where the ball is than tracking the puck in ice hockey, from following my Alma Mater the Miami Red{something}s in their effort to make the Frozen Four and the Buckeyes in their two games in the NCAA Lacrosse tournament.
And the scoring comes at a regular enough pace so that its a lot easier to follow who has the run of play than in soccer. It took several years of following the Newcastle Breakers in the old Australian NSL before I could really follow the run of play in soccer.
LikeLike
Nice take. Bottom line, my resolve remains firm: the sport grows better with JHU to the BIG, not the ACC. Plus it helps the ACC in the long run, there is simply more depth on the men’s side. Adding JHU only makes the annual bids a constant controversy. The sport’s growth is more important than a particular conference’s dominance (men’s side). I’ve never been a big fan of BIG dominance in wrestling, plus OkSt. Unfortunately, the sport’s popularity is on the decline. I could also insert a Water Polo argument as well : ).
On the other hand, I do want to caution lacrosse’s so-called growth. There’s a bit of hype with all of this. I argued earlier that Duke’s M. Lacrosse NC should not outweigh Michigan’s M. Swimming NC – Capital One Cup, at most they should be the same. I’m not exactly a fan of the Director’s Cup assigning equivalent points for all sports either. But, there are simply far more swimming programs on the landscape than lacrosse, swimming has greater regional diversity as well.
LikeLike
“I’ve never been a big fan of BIG dominance in wrestling, plus OkSt. Unfortunately, the sport’s popularity is on the decline.”
No, the popularity is higher than ever in HS and younger. More schools, men, and a very quickly growing number of women. A number of states now have enough participants they sponsor a separate women’s state championships.
Wrestling isn’t dieing in college. It is being murdered at D1, but growing at the lower levels.
LikeLike
CC,
Sure, but if the college or olympics route ceases, then all that hs growth hits a wall. MMA or other alternative professional MMA leagues may become the norm, post high school.
I’m disappointed about what’s happening to NCAA wrestling. I’d like to see the sport grow. It doesn’t seem to have the damaging, long term health risks of say football, boxing & even ice hockey. It’s the biggest sport at my former high school – Apple Valley, MN (consistently one of the nation’s best high school wrestling programs). The UofMn is a respectable wrestling program & Augsburg College in Mpls, is one of D3’s blue bloods.
LikeLike
I believe Putin has had members of the IOC over for dinner and made a “Godfather” like proposition. Wrestling will remain (and actually has made some dramatic changes in the last month, returning more to the sport before the IOC and TV execs got involved in trying to make it more soccer mom, broadcast window friendly) is my considered opinion.
MMA is not an acceptable change from wrestling. As with boxing, the goal is to break, submit, or render the opponent unconscious. Wrestling rules sanction such intent and bar holds likely to produce those results. Barbaric exhibitions are not really a good fit for an academic institutions athletic offering.
UofMn is significantly above “respectable”.
LikeLike
I like your thinking. That sounds about right.
LikeLike
I know we’re “significantly above respectable” but in general, Minnesnowtans don’t pat themselves too much on the back. On the other hand, we can be extremely critical, esp with our hockey team. This year being a fine example. We were better than Yale on paper, and throughout much of that heartbreaking, boneheaded loss. They prevailed and went on to win the NC. Oh well, nice to see an Ivy League team win it all.
I do notice a lot of former wrestlers in MMA, more so than say boxers. But maybe not as much as those with a jiu jitsu background. Sure I see the differences between wrestling & MMA, but there’s a lot of crossover. It’s often a submission that ends an MMA match, though the “unconscious” knockouts have increased : ).
Of all the sports I watch, wrestling so often brings the drama. You are right, there is a definite form of grace in order to win the match & it doesn’t include supercharged, vicarious howling screams by male types like an MMA circus. Nothing like a Mn vs OkSt, Iowa, PSU match. I’ve seen plenty.
LikeLike
GFunk – I concur with your assesment. Lacrosse as a sport is better off with JH in B10. Gives that league instant credibility and they have the schools to grow it. Here is Texas it is really taking off. Obviously it is not football, but one wonders when it will become mainstream – at least like soccer is now.
One thing about lacrosse is that it is uniquely American – like baseball once was and football still is. As oppossed to soccer. You could look at this as a positive or negative. But I think it probably helps.
LikeLike
I have read this whole thread with some interest. In full disclosure, I live in a rural area near Madison, Wisconsin. My take is that, at least in the upper Midwest, that football is somewhat in decline among youth. It is still very popular, and likely will always be, but I think the best middle-class athletes aren’t playing football anymore. I think Soccer has begun to make big inroads against football for youth, and may overtake it at some point in the next generation. La Crosse does not have a significant youth following, but a big ten la crosse conference could help change that. I am old enough to remember soccer being the same way. The point is that I think football will be impacted by these changes, and won’t be as dominant among younger generations.
LikeLike
Nice article. I complete disagree with anyone who compares footballs future to that of boxing. Boxing didn’t die because it was dangerous. It was much more dangerous back in the day than now. Boxing died in this country (still a very popular nitch sport but it was once the biggest sport in the world) because it went PPV and cutoff it’s own feeder system. Boxing, like football and basketball now, was a way of upward mobility in this country for blue collar workers and those below the poverty level. When the sport went to PPV, it destroyed its exposure to the lower income people that made up its ranks; those willing to sacrifice their health for upward mobility. Rich suburbanites, the very same that are now keeping their kids out of football and worrying about long term health affects, hardly ever participated in the sport to begin with even in its hay day. It was made up of the poor trying to climb the latter thru athletics. Those same kids now turn to basketball and football because that is who they see of TV, Unless in the future, Football takes themselves off the TV’s of lower income families, the will not be hurting for participation. As long as fame, money, and even something like a free education are there for the taking, kids will still participate. I would wager that the majority of NFL players came from small beginnings except maybe the quarterback position. With the likes of Katherine Webb and Gisele waiting in the wings for successful quarterbacks, you will have plenty of rich kids badgering their parents to play that position. Football will be fine for a long time.
LikeLike
I’ll tell you what, though. The more likely harm to football will be continued modification of the rules to placate the need to pretend it is safer. We already have so many rules to protect the QBs. Then the hits by DBs. Now RBs are not allowed to do this or that. At what point does making football safer keeper it from being football? We are not there yet, but there is a slippery slope that can be conceived. And once it stops being the football we enjoyed watching, will we still care as much about it and still watch it?
I don’t watch hockey FOR the fighting, but it is far less interesting to me without fighting at least being possible. I’ll never forget 190-lb Matthew Barnaby taking on 240-lb Eric Lindros. That is a level of courage I sure as heck don’t have. Wasn’t much of a fight, but pretty cool nevertheless.
I suspect if NASCAR had padded walls and padded cars, they would lose some of their following too. It’s not THAT there are crashes. Its that there CAN BE crashes. That is a level of courage that is alone worth watching.
At least for the mainstream watcher.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“I don’t watch hockey FOR the fighting, but it is far less interesting to me without fighting at least being possible. I’ll never forget 190-lb Matthew Barnaby taking on 240-lb Eric Lindros. That is a level of courage I sure as heck don’t have. Wasn’t much of a fight, but pretty cool nevertheless.”
Fighting isn’t allowed in college hockey or the Olympics or in youth hockey. It’s only in the pros, and it’s stupid just like allowing bean balls and bench-clearing brawls in baseball. Risking injury to your stars by allowing people to break the rules is bad policy.
“I suspect if NASCAR had padded walls and padded cars,”
They do. The doors of the cars are filled with foam, the drivers use wraparound seats with a neck restraint and the walls have SAFER barriers which are large foam blocks behind a wall that gives a little. Padding doesn’t stop crashes from happening, it just reduces injuries and deaths.
LikeLike
I hate NASCAR, so I do not care. And I have not been able to care about hockey since the first lockout in the 2000s. You are entitled to your opinions on the stupidity of fighting, bean balls, and bench-clearing brawls. I just do not understand how anyone is “allowing people to break the rules,” as there are imposed penalties in hockey and suspensions in baseball.
LikeLike
Refs could stop fighting before it happens by imposing serious punishments for those who do it. Instead, they treat it is a minor offense and people keep fighting. Then a big name player gets hurt (Zach Greinke – broken collar bone) and the sport suffers. The same in hockey – players don’t fight at the lower levels because the punishment is more severe. Bean balls have the potential to kill the batter, but they’re part of the game as a way to resolve any pent of frustration a team might have. Why aren’t the player unions stepping up to protect their members? It’s stupid and reckless and eventually someone will sue when they suffer a serious injury.
Hockey refs literally let a fight happen and then break it up once they’re done rather than try to stop it right away. Then they give a trivial penalty to the fighters to make sure fighting stays a part of the game. Make fighting a mandatory 10 minute game misconduct and 40 game suspension (escalating for each violation by 20 more games) and nobody would fight in the NHL. Instead, the NHL makes sure to keep the punishment light enough to keep some fighting.
LikeLike
Fighting is part of the game. I also agree that it actually prevents injuries because it reduces the amount of stick attacks. No one will spear you if they know they will get their ass beat for it. If you really wanted to reduce hockey violence, you would move to 4 on 4. The NHL size ice is crowded.
LikeLike
One last thing, goes along with crowded ice. You are far more likely to be injured by a legal check you don’t see than a consensual fight.
LikeLike
There are other ways to prevent spearing than to sanction committing a felony during the game. Make the penalties for intentional violent acts (spearing, slashing, boarding, etc) much more severe and people would largely stop committing them. Other levels of hockey do just fine without allowing fighting.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize mutual combat was a felony.
Fighting in hockey is very ritualized. It’s not just someone coming up and going nuts on some random opponent. The first rule of fighting is that the players have to agree to it. You may not believe this, but it’s true.
Refs will usually jump in once someone is down or if they are clearly outmatched. And the third man in rule prevents any real mayhem. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything really crazy.
Players have been sued and prosecuted for actions on the ice. As far as I know, one person has died as a result of being in a fight. I can think of far more instances of people getting seriously hurt and damn near killed by stick attacks.
Fighting is way down anyway. Popularity isn’t improving.
LikeLike
I agree fighting is way down (because they stiffened the penalties) and I never claimed it would make hockey more popular. Stick attacks should get stiffer penalties, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for players that refuse to wear full face masks and then get facial injuries.
LikeLike
PSU, I agree with you the PPV harmed boxing. Promoters did not culture the sport at a time it needed culturing. It benefitted a select few, but ultimately harmed the sport in general. Football seems to have better caregivers, as well as a much larger fanbase. Ultimately, I think its deathknell will come when high schools eliminate it in the name of costs and safety. I hope I’m wrong, but nothing goes on forever.
You say football will be fine for a long time. I’d probably agree, just disagree with you on what constitutes a “long time.”
LikeLike
“I would wager that the majority of NFL players came from small beginnings except maybe the quarterback position.”
I would say you’re wrong about at least some positions. O-Linemen are probably more likely to have been middle-class suburbanites than poor anything.
LikeLike
>to the same conference that has Notre Dame football.
I chuckled.
LikeLike
Let’s plug some positive Rutgers’ news. Sorry if it was already done, the thread is becoming an ACC wish list again.
“The Rutgers football program was the lone state university on the list to be ranked in the top 10 percent nationally in APR for the sixth straight year. The Scarlet Knights continue to be one of the leaders nationally in both production on the field and in the classroom. Last year, Rutgers football was ranked ninth nationally in Academic Progress Rate, after placing number two in 2011 and number one in 2010.”
http://www.scarletknights.com/football/news/release.asp?prID=13307#.Ua9xbpV8zzJ
LikeLike
Why the precipitous slide? 🙂
LikeLike
haha.
LikeLike
I pointed this out earlier in thead, if you are of the belief that football is dying, a reasonable belief but not a certainty, it makes sense (for a conference) to diversify its sport holdings and strenghten existing ones. While also maximizing your football revenue while you can. The B10 has done this with its recent additions. Its why a UNC/UVA/Duke expansion make a lot of sense (from that perspective).
And if superconferences can break the NCAA – there is a lot of money for them in basketball.
LikeLike
The Ole Miss game at Texas this season will be on the LHN.
http://djournal.com/view/full_story/22799189/article-Longhorn-Network-to-show-Texas-vs–Ole-Miss?instance=lead_story_left_column
LikeLike
Yikes. I imagine it will be on regular TV in Mississippi, but if not, good luck getting secondary BCS schools to want to play Texas non conference if its only on the LHN.
LikeLike
Supposedly ESPN is working on a solution for MS. Maybe it’s broadcast, maybe it’s PPV, maybe it’s a reduced price for 1 month of LHN for the local cable distributors.
LikeLike
“Supposedly ESPN is working on a solution for MS. Maybe it’s broadcast, maybe it’s PPV, maybe it’s a reduced price for 1 month of LHN for the local cable distributors.”
Seems like an odd way to drive carriage.
LikeLike
I doubt carriage in MS is a high priority for the LHN.
LikeLike
Cox in Baton Rouge carries LHN.
LikeLike
Are there a lot of UT alums there?
LikeLike
If memory serves me right, when they played Kansas two years ago ESPN work a deal with one of the local broadcast networks to carry the game in Kansas. I expect something similar in this case.
LikeLike
Worth noting that this contract was signed in 2008, way before the LHN. Future opponents might insist on language barring their games from being broadcast on the LHN or at least a guarantee that if the game is on the LHN it will be made available locally.
LikeLike
They probably will, but my guess is that will be ESPN’s approach anyway. This isn’t that much different than non-conference games ending up on the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
No difference…except the exponential difference in viewers.
Shouldn’t an attractive OOC game be selected for broadcast through the primary media agreement? Is the rest of the conference being compensated for loss of a second UT home game? Are they going to eventually allow the LHN to become the B12 network?
LikeLike
ESPN buys the rights to the second game from the conference.
That was part of the compromise the conference reached in exchange for ESPN pledging not to broadcast Texas high school content on the LHN.
LikeLike
HS broadcasts on school dedicated channels were/are recruiting violations. No compromise needed-they were not allowable, with or without conference permission.
I know they are being compensated. Is it equal to what UT is receiving (and I mean for the network, not just the game)? If not they truely are a bunch of lackeys and servants cow towing to their masters wishes.
LikeLike
HS broadcasts on school dedicated channels were/are recruiting violations. No compromise needed-they were not allowable, with or without conference permission
I don’t know about now, but at the time the compromise was reached the NCAA had simply put what amounted to a hold on HS broadcasts pending further study. No one knew what the NCAA’s ultimate ruling would be or when it would come.
As part of the compromise ESPN and Texas agreed to just drop the issue entirely even if the NCAA ultimately gave them the thumbs up.
LikeLike
Schools had been reprimanded for having HS recruits during recruiting trips being being shown briefly on the stadium/coliseum jumbotron. Everyone agreed except ESPN, and UT (to their credit, with far less conviction). It was an outrageous distraction designed to make getting more than one UT game appear to have been a compromise rather than simply UT taking what they want.
LikeLike
You can never predict how the NCAA will rule on anything. There is a fine line between the Sunshine Network showing Gator games and Florida HS football and ESPN’s LHN showing UT games (and UTSA and Texas St.) and showing Texas HS football games.
LikeLike
Like the fine line between steak and a happy meal?
LikeLike
There is the potential for abuse, but no one got concerned until the ESPN guy started talking about how exciting it would be to see Texas recruits like Jonathan Gray.
As a general rule (without the abuse), I don’t see any benefit for the school for simply having HS games on a branded network.
LikeLike
I think ESPN was counting on the HS games to help sell the network broadly in Texas and their own guy screwed that possibility up. The organization that runs HS sports in Texas is actually a component of the University of Texas.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“As a general rule (without the abuse), I don’t see any benefit for the school for simply having HS games on a branded network.”
Every other school sees simply having HS games on a branded network as an intolerable abuse.
Does the B1G really want/want to invite this kind of arrogance? I think the PAC won by losing on the P16 attempt.
LikeLike
Schools had been reprimanded for having HS recruits during recruiting trips being being shown briefly on the stadium/coliseum jumbotron
Except those are team owned and operated jumbotrons. Texas doesn’t own or control the content on the LHN. From structural perspective it would have been no different than a local NBC affiliate show a high school game or Sunshine Sports.
It was an outrageous distraction designed to make getting more than one UT game appear to have been a compromise rather than simply UT taking what they want.
Trust me, ESPN was counting on high school content to help fill the schedule out. They didn’t expect the sort of push back they got.
Does the B1G really want/want to invite this kind of arrogance?
UT is no less arrogant than ND and the Big 10 has been flirting with them for 50 years. For that matter, Penn St. and Nebraska weren’t exactly the best team players on the planet when they joined, and the Big 10 has been fine (JoePa’s Grand Eastern Conference fell apart because Penn St. wouldn’t agree to any revenue sharing at all in FB and Nebraska backed the Big XII’s unequal revenue distribution)
LikeLike
Frug:
“From structural perspective it would have been no different than a local NBC affiliate show a high school game or Sunshine Sports.”
Which is the same as a legal recruiting service creating a branch that specifically works for one school’s benefit. It crossing the line and becomes an agent of that school.
LikeLike
The NCAA is a bureaucracy, and like most others it operates with a rulebook filled with loopholes. It was a loophole that let the Buckeye 5 play in the Sugar Bowl, it was a loophole that let Cam Newton keep his eligibility and it was a loophole that let the SEC set up the first CCG.
Like it or not, ESPN might have found one with regards to HS content. The rest of the Big XII was sufficiently afraid enough that they cut a deal to stop ESPN from pursuing it.
LikeLike
How does showing Midland Lee vs. Odessa Permian when no one on either team is being recruited to Texas make ESPN an agent of Texas?
LikeLike
I agree that is what happened, but don’t think it was necessary to stop HS broadcasts. It did provide cover for them to grant UT some of the other things UT wanted.
To be fair, I think ESPN’s plan may have surprised UT. They have a better focus on NCAA rules than a quarterly profit driven commercial entity. They wound up having to back their partner to an extent, having to play the surprise card that came up. One of the downsides to selling your brand to an external business.
LikeLike
Bullet:
July 30, 2011
“Pearland Dawson officials indicated last week that the LHN has contacted the school inquiring about the possibility of airing one of their games this fall. The school is home to highly-rated offensive lineman Kennedy Estelle who happens to also be a Texas verbal commitment.”
LikeLike
“How does showing Midland Lee vs. Odessa Permian when no one on either team is being recruited to Texas make ESPN an agent of Texas?”
—How would showing cigarette commercials when children are prohibited from buying cigarettes ever be construed as marketing to children?
There’s no need to be overtly obtuse.
LikeLike
…oops somehow I omitted “…on the cartoon network….”.
LikeLike
But despite several ACC officials trumpeting a potential channel shortly after the grant of rights surfaced, there are still serious hurdles to clear for a channel to happen.
Step one: What to do with Raycom.
ESPN must buy back rights that it sold to Raycom Sports, which in turn sublicensed rights to Fox. An ACC channel would need much of that content to pour into the channel.
Consider Raycom’s position. The SEC Network just recouped third-tier content into an ESPN-run SEC Channel, so Raycom’s 31 ACC football games (some of which are sublicensed to Fox) can corner the market on Southeast syndication programming on Saturday afternoons in the fall. Raycom also has 60 live men’s basketball games, according to Sports Business Journal, and Fox also has some of those games, too.
Local stations in the South still need content, and Raycom’s ACC lineup is basically the only game left in that regard.
It seems unlikely Raycom would sell back to ESPN on the cheap, and the ACC knows this. That’s why the ACC plans to make the deal “enticing” for Raycom and will probably have to come out of pocket to secure a successful sell, according to a source with direct knowledge of the ACC’s plan. There’s also a chance Raycom/Fox could keep some of the content. This will be part of the negotiation.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22356703/acc-network-still-in-early-stageswhats-next
Do you think Notre Dame would be asked to dig into its own pockets to help pay for the Raycom buyout?
LikeLike
Why doesn’t Disney just buy Raycom? I’m sure they could spin off the parts they don’t want and keep those they do. Or am I overestimating the mouse’s power?
LikeLike
You’re overestimating the mouse’s interest. The ACC isn’t a major player in college football, and ESPN is only one (albeit the biggest) jewel in their empire.
Besides, with this grant of rights, ESPN got what they wanted all along – conference stability.
LikeLike
But if the ACC network can’t get off the ground because of Raycom conflicts and such, the very concept of the GOR — the ticket to conference stability — is undermined. Eventually, a Clemson or Florida State, seeing their beloved football diminished to an afterthought against its in-state SEC rival, will work to have the contract negated. The N.C. schools can live with diminished football; it’s not in their lifeblood. Their southern ACC brethren don’t see things that way.
LikeLike
Frank,
I see you’re going to do an expansion post for OTE next week. I posted some questions over there since I don’t tweet, but I’ll repost them here for your consideration. Is there a particular area of expansion you plan to focus on, or just go wherever the questions take you?
1. In the next 5 years, will JHU join the B10 fully or will they choose to go back to independence?
2. Will JHU’s women’s team join the B10 in the next 5 years?
3. Should/will the CIC add JHU now or wait to see if JHU joins the B10 fully?
4. Should the CIC consider expansion separate from the B10? If JHU joins, that will make 1 current UAA member (Chicago) and 1 former member (JHU) in the CIC. The rest of the UAA are all AAU schools, mostly in large markets, all doing a lot of research and playing D-III sports so they wouldn’t compete with the B10.
5. Are major schools mostly stuck where they are until the various GORs reach their last couple of years?
6. How much of a money gap is likely needed to drive a school to leave their current conference for the B10 or SEC? Are we likely to see that sort of a gap form in the next 10-15 years?
7. Will the NCAA form a new division, will the power schools break away or will nothing change structurally?
8. If the power schools are in their own group (new division or outside of the NCAA), would the conferences as we know them be maintained or would pure geography be forced on them to maximize the money?
9. If and when a power conference hits 16+ members, will they stick with divisions or use pods?
10. Will the CCG rule get changed to allow the top 2 teams to play regardless of how a league is structured (divisions or no divisions)?
11. Say the B10 looks into expansion again in 10-15 years. Will the top targets be the same or will the B10 have a change of heart about priorities (AAU requirement, contiguous states, etc)?
12. Which I-A schools, if any, will join the AAU in the next 20 years and which will drop out?
LikeLike
Obviously I’m not Frank, but I feel like taking a bite.
1. They’ll stay.
2. Unknown.
3. They’re working over the details as we speak. I imagine they’re going over what exactly that entails as the CIC isn’t one large program, but rather several that include course sharing, faculty exchange, etc.
4. No. The Big Ten and the CIC are one family and seen as such by the administrations.
5. Most likely, barring any unforeseen and unlikely actions.
6. Enough to buy back their rights from their conference. Even then, you’d need to find a school that had that sort of cash upfront and/or worth that sort of payment.
7. New division. The Big 5 and maybe a few of the mid-majors will be promoted. There’s too much at stake for the NCAA to fall apart – you’ll get the government involved and nobody wants that.
8. They’re already grouped by geography. Division-I FBS exists because the major schools enjoy the status quo. You’re not going to start seeing Alabama fly up to Madison for a game in November, or a legitimately sanctioned post-season.
9. Depends on the number of games.
10. Probably not. If you can’t play everyone in a round-robin format, a divisional round-robin is best.
11. They’ll be the same. College football hates the nouveau riche.
12. Probably none/The Midwestern agricultural schools. A school will be very vulnerable if they separate their campuses as well.
LikeLike
metatron,
“1. They’ll stay.”
I hope so, but I’m really not sure. It helps that the B10 will only have 6 teams so JHU can preserve a bunch of old rivalries, though. That means they can focus on the positives of being in a conference (easier scheduling in warm weather, shared focus on academic issues for athletes, the planning resources a major conference can bring to bear, etc). Combine that with the advantages of the CIC and I’m cautiously optimistic.
“2. Unknown.”
I think they will if the men decide to stay.
“3. They’re working over the details as we speak. I imagine they’re going over what exactly that entails as the CIC isn’t one large program, but rather several that include course sharing, faculty exchange, etc.”
I think they go for partial membership (they can do group purchasing, join in some research projects, etc) now but save the full integration (high speed fiber optic network, etc) until and unless JHU fully commits.
“4. No. The Big Ten and the CIC are one family and seen as such by the administrations.”
But they aren’t the same. UC is only in the CIC. JHU is only in the B10 for now. If the CIC wants to corner the market on research funding, there are many schools they could add that would work. The UAA schools are one example because they don’t conflict with the B10. But there are others that aren’t I-A, like the Ivies or the Canadian members of the AAU. There’s no inherent reason why the CIC and B10 should be the same. CIC membership doesn’t improve athletics and playing in the B10 doesn’t drive research.
“6. Enough to buy back their rights from their conference. Even then, you’d need to find a school that had that sort of cash upfront and/or worth that sort of payment.”
I was thinking more about the annual gap that would be sufficient to drive a school to seek to leave. $10M? $15M? $20M? More?
“7. New division. The Big 5 and maybe a few of the mid-majors will be promoted. There’s too much at stake for the NCAA to fall apart – you’ll get the government involved and nobody wants that.”
I agree a new division seems like the most likely solution. I’m curious about it’s size, though.
Currently (full members only):
D-I = 340
I-A = 124
I-AA = 118
ACC = B10 = SEC = 14
P12 = 12
B12 = 10
Indie = 2 that matter (ND, BYU)
That’s 66.
How many others do you let in? Boise. The academies if they want in. The BE remnants? The rest of the MWC?
I think you have to be independent or a member of a conference that is wholly D-I+ to move up. I don’t the AAC or MWC should be up there, but I think they’ll push for rules that let them squeak in.
The Big 5 average over 45k in attendance as conferences and nobody else does (ACC = 49,910 last year vs BE = 39,185 vs MWC = 25,888), so maybe you require 40k average for the conference or the team in the case of an independent. That leaves room for conferences to expand but will keep small schools from jumping up to steal money.
“8. They’re already grouped by geography. Division-I FBS exists because the major schools enjoy the status quo. You’re not going to start seeing Alabama fly up to Madison for a game in November, or a legitimately sanctioned post-season.”
They are? WV is in the middle of the country? UMD and RU are? ISU and NE aren’t swapped? Multiple conferences don’t overlap unnecessarily? If you’re going purely for maximum money, wouldn’t minimizing travel and maximizing regional interest help? You don’t want to kill rivalries, but going geographical would restore some (OU/NE, WV/Pitt, PSU/Pitt, etc). The problem would be getting presidents to release some control over which schools they associate with, so I don’t think it’ll happen. But I have seen plenty of fans talk about doing it.
“9. Depends on the number of games.”
I actually don’t think it does. I think it comes down to how many rivalries a conference wants to keep. The SEC seems fine almost never playing the other division, and apparently so is the ACC. Would adding 2 teams really change that outlook? On the other hand, the B10 seemed more concerned about frequency of play with the talk about once in 4 years being a minimum. I;d guess the B10 is more likely to try pods than the ACC or SEC.
“10. Probably not. If you can’t play everyone in a round-robin format, a divisional round-robin is best.”
To me, this will happen soon after a new division is formed. Only the B12 would possibly benefit from the status quo, and only them because it hurts everyone else.
14 teams:
No divisions
8 games, 0 locked = 0.62 x 13 teams
8 games, 1 locked = 1 x 1 team, 0.58 x 12 teams
8 games, 2 locked = 1 x 2 team, 0.55 x 11 teams
8 games, 3 locked = 1 x 3 team, 0.50 x 10 teams
9 games, 0 locked = 0.69 x 13 teams
9 games, 1 locked = 1 x 1 team, 0.67 x 12 teams
9 games, 2 locked = 1 x 2 team, 0.64 x 11 teams
9 games, 3 locked = 1 x 3 team, 0.60 x 10 teams
Divisions
8 games, 0 locked = 1 x 6 teams, 0.29 x 7 teams
8 games, 1 locked = 1 x 7 teams, 0.17 x 6 teams
9 games, 0 locked = 1 x 6 teams, 0.43 x 7 teams
9 games, 1 locked = 1 x 7 teams, 0.33 x 6 teams
You can play more teams frequently when you drop divisions. It also makes it easier to get the top two teams into the CCG, making for better ratings.
12 teams:
No divisions
8 games, 0 locked = 0.73 x 11 teams
8 games, 1 locked = 1 x 1 team, 0.70 x 10 teams
8 games, 2 locked = 1 x 2 team, 0.67 x 9 teams
8 games, 3 locked = 1 x 3 team, 0.63 x 8 teams
9 games, 0 locked = 0.82 x 11 teams
9 games, 1 locked = 1 x 1 team, 0.80 x 10 teams
9 games, 2 locked = 1 x 2 team, 0.78 x 9 teams
9 games, 3 locked = 1 x 3 team, 0.75 x 8 teams
Divisions
8 games, 0 locked = 1 x 5 teams, 0.50 x 6 teams
8 games, 1 locked = 1 x 6 teams, 0.40 x 5 teams
9 games, 0 locked = 1 x 5 teams, 0.67 x 6 teams
9 games, 1 locked = 1 x 6 teams, 0.60 x 5 teams
No divisions is better for everyone as long as the CCG rule is changed. Maybe the B12 gets offered the chance to play the top independent or B12 #2 in a CCG.
“11. They’ll be the same. College football hates the nouveau riche.”
Really? Would the B10 reject UConn, VT, FSU or Miami if they were AAU members? Could something happen to change the B10’s plan to look east and southeast?
“12. Probably none/The Midwestern agricultural schools. A school will be very vulnerable if they separate their campuses as well.”
Recent I-A AAU members: GT in 2010, TAMU in 2001, RU and Buffalo in 1989
From NE’s PDF file they gave the AAU, Utah looks likely to join fairly soon. They were already top 50 and joining the P12 should only help them. After them come WF at 57 and Miami at 59. They both had some work to do, but 20 years is a long time. They’re already around the 25th percentile of members. The bottom few members were #81, 83, 87, 94, 105 and 109 (NE), but NE and SU (likely 105) are now out. I think at least 1 more school is likely to get the boot (#94) in the next 20 years, but I could see up to 4 going. We don’t know for sure which schools those are at the bottom, but we have some guesses.
LikeLike
My turn:
1. The JHU men’s lacrosse team will join permanently. The structural changes in the sport that led them to join a league, aren’t going to change back again — at least not in 5 years.
2. I think the women’s team will eventually join, as well.
3. I suspect that JHU’s decision to join the CIC will be linked to the decision to join the Big Ten permanently. Joining the CIC is not a small undertaking, and I don’t think they’d do it if they were in doubt about remaining in the league.
4. Perhaps someone can explain the current reasoning of limiting CIC membership to Big Ten (or in Chicago’s case, ex-Big Ten) members. To some extent, it may just be an accident of history. But there’s no particular reason why your research partners need to be the same schools as your sports opponents. From a research viewpoint, Carnegie-Mellon might be a better research partner for the rest of the Big Ten than Nebraska…but Nebraska’s in, and CMU is not.
5. I don’t see how any school could leave a Big Five league before the current GORs are near expiration. I also don’t envision any non-Big Five school being attractive enough to a Big Five league in the near term. Any major realignment, for the time being, is going to be taking place in the lower leagues.
6. I think there’ll be at least a $10 million money gap between B1G/SEC and the ACC, and that gap will be enough to make SOME schools eager to make the jump. Of course, the schools eager to jump need to be the ones the B1G/SEC want. A school like Texas or UNC might tolerate a larger money gap, in exchange for being in a league that they control. A school like Kansas or Florida State would chase the money, and wouldn’t look back.
7. I think the NCAA will form a new division for upper-tier football, sort of a I-A+. Breaking away completely would require a whole new regulatory infrastructure, which I don’t think anyone has the appetite for.
I think you have to be independent or a member of a conference that is wholly D-I+ to move up. I don’t the AAC or MWC should be up there, but I think they’ll push for rules that let them squeak in.
I believe you may be misreading the larger schools’ complaints. Their beef is that they want rule changes like “full cost of attendance scholarships,” and small schools like Indiana State are standing in their way. I think that if the AAC and MWC are willing to play with Big Boy rules, the Big Boys will let them in. I doubt that they care as much about the size of their stadiums.
I certainly believe they’d allow the service academies in, simply because it’s not worth inviting the wrath of Congress over the fate of those three schools. The service academies have their own scholarship rules anyway.
8. If the power schools are in their own group (new division or outside of the NCAA), would the conferences as we know them be maintained or would pure geography be forced on them to maximize the money?
The power schools’ complaint is that the NCAA is too bureaucratic. I can’t imagine them consenting to allow a central bureaucracy to decide which league a school is allowed to play in. Leagues are marriages of convenience, and I think each school wants the freedom to make its own deal.
Anyhow, three of the Big Five leagues are already geographically contiguous. Aside from WV, the Big XII is very nearly contiguous, and no one is going to make a new set of rules just for WV. The Big Ten is certainly not going to allow a system that forces them to take Pitt, even if Pitt is closer to their geography than it is to the rest of the ACC. Syracuse and BC are always going to seem like remote outposts, no matter what league they’re in. It’s just their bad fortune that there are so few major football schools in the Northeast.
9. If and when a power conference hits 16+ members, will they stick with divisions or use pods.
10. Will the CCG rule get changed to allow the top 2 teams to play regardless of how a league is structured (divisions or no divisions)?
Brian’s answer is the one I’ve favored for a long time: eliminate divisions, and just have the best two schools play at the end of the season. As Brian notes, it’s a lot easier to put together a regular-season schedule if you aren’t locked into static divisions or pods. It also reduces the possibility of an anti-climactic championship game, in years where one division is far stronger than the other.
Past FTT threads have debated endlessly the pod structure for a 16, 18, or 20-team Big Ten. I never saw an alignment that was better than just a flat structure with no pods or divisions. It always seemed that, no matter how you did it, either the pods were competitively unbalanced, or you had teams thrown into pods arbitrarily with unrelated teams, just to make the numbers work.
Now, if the current rule remains in place, then I think the Big Ten would be forced to hold its nose and implement pods, because the league values a scheduling format where everyone plays everyone reasonably often (i.e., within four years). Perhaps the SEC would be willing to tolerate two 8-team divisions.
11. I expect the Big Ten to remain fairly conservative about expansion. Leagues tend to relax their standards when they’re feeling weak (e.g., the ACC’s partial membership offer to Notre Dame). Right now, the Big Ten doesn’t feel weak. If that remains true, then geographic contiguity and AAU membership will be fairly firm requirements, with exceptions in truly compelling cases. (Even now, I view Nebraska as a non-AAU add: they were AAU at the time, but the whole league knew that that might not be the case for very much longer.)
12. I have to admit, I don’t fully understand the reasoning for kicking schools out of the AAU. What was the “problem”, for which kicking out Nebraska was the “solution”? Frankly, I thought Nebraska had a pretty compelling case for staying in.
New schools will continue to join the AAU: there are always at least a couple of new AAU schools per decade. Some of the potential additions will be of no interest to the Big Ten, either due to geography (Utah) or athletic competitiveness (Wake Forest). But I think Miami would instantly jump to the top of the Big Ten candidates list, were they to get into the AAU.
LikeLike
#4: The B1G sees itself and acts as a conference of schools, not simply athletic departments. The athletic departments are extensions of the schools as is the CIC. The CIC is a B1G creation, and all members have, or had their athletic teams together. Chicago de-emphasized athletics and dropped down division. They did not leave the conference for another, or independence, at the same level. They simply no longer offered D1 (or the equivalent at the time) opportunities. Would a school get kicked for dropping a academic department and channeling the resources into another or new one?
LikeLike
I would like to see the academies drop to FCS. They would have a better chance for success, lower (even if marginal) chance of injury and less pressure to recruit athletes in specific sports to now co-ed academies whose purpose is to train military officers and protect the country.
LikeLike
I would like to see the academies drop to FCS. They would have a better chance for success, lower (even if marginal) chance of injury and less pressure to recruit athletes in specific sports to now co-ed academies whose purpose is to train military officers and protect the country.
If they weren’t government run, they would unquestionably have done so many years ago. I have no idea if the benefits are what you’re saying they’d be. For the government, the cost of runing those programs is minuscule in the larger scheme of things, so the pride of saying they’re a top-tier, bowl-eligible program is not worth giving up. They probably wouldn’t drop out of FBS unless Congress forces them, and I don’t recall seeing any such proposal.
What I can say, is that if they don’t voluntarily step down to FCS, there’d probably be a lot of complaints about any rule-change forcing them down into a new second tier. If you’re writing the rules, it’s just not worth fighting that fight. Of course, there are a lot of collateral implications, as Big Five schools (plus Notre Dame) like to schedule the service academies and don’t want to give those games up.
LikeLike
Nebraska has separated their medical school from the flagship and the AAU disapproves of agricultural science apparently.
LikeLike
Eating is not important…
LikeLike
The AAU does not consider USDA sponsored research since it is not competitively awarded. All competitively awarded Ag research is considered the same as all other research.
LikeLike
Frank,
Over at OTE, people are posting questions for you in the comments of a post.
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/6/5/4399380/youve-got-b1g-expansion-questions-frank-the-tank-has-answers
LikeLike
It doesn’t look like very many people are joining in. Brian posted the same set of questions he posted here. One other person posted a smaller list of questions that are already covered by Brian’s. Another asked if there was any chance of Oklahoma to the B1G, to which Brian himself gave a pretty good answer.
LikeLike
Well, they asked for them on Twitter but said you could post them in the comments instead. I don’t use Twitter, but other people do.
LikeLike
What’s up in Wichita?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/baseball/2013/06/04/wichita-state-fires-gene-stephenson/2390165/
LikeLike
A victim of his own success, plus the fact that he is sort of a d!ckhead who alienates a lot of other people in college baseball.
Gonna be a tough hire for the school and a tough job for whoever the new coach is. This isn’t like Florida State pushing out Bowden, where they could expect a lot of high-level interest in the job. It’s probably more like if Boise State fired Peterson after about 5 mediocre years.
LikeLike
Wichita St. is historically very good in baseball.
LikeLike
Yes, but that was all under Stephenson. He was hired to actually re-start the program, it had been shut down from 1970 through 1977. Gene took them to the NCAA postseason in 1980, it was the first ever tournament appearance for the school. Plus, I think that a lot of the WSU success came in an era when baseball was more of an afterthought at a lot of the bigger BSC schools.
There is definitely more competition in college baseball now. I’m just not sure that the opening will attract a lot of attention from the big time coaching prospects. Maybe Gene wouldn’t ever get WSU back to the heights he had previously taken them, but I doubt whoever they hire will either.
LikeLike
But only with the fired coach over the last six decades.
LikeLike
Completely off topic, but I remember a couple months ago I posted that based on the most recent MBB attendance numbers the Big 10 would see its attendance streak end in 2014. However, I was cleaning up my computer and glanced at the spreadsheet I made and realized I forgot to factor in Pitt’s move to the ACC.
I added Pitt in and reran the 2012 numbers (the most recent available) and here is what I got
B1G – 12,354
SEC – 11,240
ACC – 11,150
XII – 10,587
I don’t have the numbers entered for any other conference, but I don’t think any other can quite catch the Big 4.
Obviously the attendance numbers will change between now and then, but barring any additional realignment the Big 10 should be able to continue to lead the nation in attendance.
LikeLike
Just checked and the new Big East will be at 10,531 and I don’t think anyone else will be above 8,000.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s attendance will see a sharp spike upwards with their new arena. Crisler Arena is way too small for Michigan, they could see a lot more seats than what they have.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but I don’t see Michigan replacing Crisler anytime soon, especially after they just renovated it.
LikeLike
The BIG has positioned itself to be a the BIGGEST cash Cow heading into the East coast with the addition of the eastern seaboard markets with the N.Y. leading the way.
A couple other notes.
With the launches of Fox Sports 1, then 2, it will work hand in hand with BTN. Already being a partner. It is a reason for the BIGs move east.
Expansion is not over by any means.
Look. I respect those to want to prop up both the ACC and the B12.
But understand, they can’t grow as conferences and will never have the independent financial status as the BIG, SEC, and the PAC12.
Maryland is a great example. They were cutting programs even after the ACC
received a new tv deal. But didn’t come close what the other conferences under their existing contracts. Maryland, A founding member of the ACC, had to make a move.
Now your beginning to see more of a tie between the BIG and the ACC. The new bowl lineups, etc.
Lets put one thing to rest. The GOR means nothing.
If teams want to go for greener pastures it will happen.
B!2 teams have left and they’ve had the GOR. B12 is in the same position as the ACC.
No where to grow. Texas will hitch up it’s wagon to the BIG. They have to position themselves against the momentum of A&M going into its second year of the SEC.
LHN has proved to be unsuccessful.
The BIG, SEC, and P12 have positioned themselves as they’re own entities as well as partners.
They will be magnets to the teams that want bigger pieces of the pie and exposure.
It’s not about bashing the other conferences or wanting to see their demise.
As we all know, It’s money.
It has been sad to have seen the old SWC, Big 8, East, and the rivalries that they gave us,
fade away over the last 20 years.
LikeLike
On a related note
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/5/4396230/ole-miss-texas-longhorn-network-2013
The issues discussed about Texas canceling the discussion with the B1G game a few years ago had overtones of TV conflict more than school conflict and may have been the canary in the coal mine for future inter conference scheduling. Will the BTN give up the away game rights especially if the home game rights become the subject of conflict between competing media coverage?
From the article :
The University of Mississippi will get paid for the game, no doubt, but as a member of the opulent SEC, that’s a footnote. The point of the game was and is national exposure, and the Rebels just got a taste of what sent Texas A&M into the neighborhood.
LikeLike
I believe that the Texas/Minnesota home and home series (which had been planned for 2013/14 if I remember correctly) was canceled due to some rights issues… I think it was little bit of BTN and a little bit of the soon to launch LHN thing going on… Sorry, I do not remember the specifics…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
That sounds similar to what I remember but I can not remember the exact specifics either.
LikeLike
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/big_12/article/Texas-Minnesota-football-series-canceled-782257.php
LikeLike
This is one of the cool things about this blog–someone always seems to be able to dig up information that may be years old… ‘Course, this is not that old… Also, found that I was incorrect on original dates… Has been quite the saga anyway… Texas home and home canceled. In comes North Carolina to replace. Kill and Co. decide to pay NC to cancel the series. B1G says no more FCS teams. Kill and Co. revisit sked—agree to home and home with TCU in 2014/2015 with TCU paying the buyout to remove the FCS game that they are replacing. New Mexico State fills out the slot that the FCS school was in… Ends up being a solid series on the sked, with a positive on the financial end… Now if the Gopher’s can somehow knock off those pesky Horned Frogs…
LikeLike
You’re mistaken about the GORs. Noone has left under a GOR. Texas A&M left the Big 12 before it was proposed and Missouri wouldn’t sign (even though it had been their idea). Everyone has made their commitments and no one in the Big 5 is leaving during this contract cycle. No conference is going to risk trying to pull a school out of a long term GOR. They will just wait.
LHN is as unsuccessful as BTN was (excluding Fox owned DTV) in the first couple of years. It still remains to be seen. They haven’t signed up the top 4 companies (T-W, Comcast, DTV, Dish), but they have signed up the next tier (Cox, Charter, UVerse, Verizon). Even the NFL network had difficulties at the start.
LikeLike
as always you’re full of sh*t. GOR was Missouri’s idea? Yeah right. Other leagues have been using GOR for a long time. Did Missouri agree that it was a potential source of stability? Yes. Did Texas and others block it? Yes. Did Missouri agree to sign it at the last minute when they already had one foot out the door? No.
LikeLike
You president was pushing a GOR and was a leader in trying to keep the league together once Nebraska got the Big 10 slot-at least he was a leader in trying to keep it together-until he wasn’t.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me. So basically you’re saying I’m full of it because I’m right? Pretty bizarre.
LikeLike
” Did Missouri agree that it was a potential source of stability? Yes. Did Texas and others block it? Yes.”
So, IOW, you are saying it was Missouri’s idea, and Texas and others blocked it.
LikeLike
The BIG, SEC, and P12 have positioned themselves as they’re own entities as well as partners. They will be magnets to the teams that want bigger pieces of the pie and exposure.
I am a bit skeptical about the Pac-12 — not its survival, but its ability to lure any more schools. I think schools in the central time zone prefer not to be playing a lot on the west coast, where night games finish past midnight in the Eastern time zone, and don’t get much TV exposure.
And yes, @bullet is correct: no school has left any league while a GOR was in force.
LikeLike
If the PAC 12 grabs 4 Big 12 teams, there actually are not many west coast games for the former Big 12 teams. For instance, Texas would play 6 games in the central time zone, 2 games in the mountain time zone, and only 1 game in the pacific time zone:
Oklahoma[central]
at Oklahoma St.[central]
Texas Tech[central]
at Utah[mountain]
Colorado[central]
at Arizona[mountain]
ASU[central]
at UCLA[Pacific]
Stanford[central]
LikeLike
You can easily schedule the pacific time zone game during the day (3:30pm ET) or at 5pm PT(8ET). Mountain time zone games are obviously even easier to accommodate.
LikeLike
Texas bluntly doesn’t want to play the Arizona schools, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech EVERY year. It’s Texas’ decision whether they stay in the Big XII, where they go (knowing leaving would kill that conference) and who they take with them. They have that type of power.
LikeLike
So now they play Baylor, TT, OkST, TCU, ISU, WVU, KU, KSU EVERY year. That’s better?
LikeLike
But the Pac-10 were on the edge of getting Texas, before the deal fell apart.
The Pac-12’s challenge is simple population geography. Texas is the only direction for their conference to move now and pick up substantial population centers, and in the middle of Texas is one of the perennially wealthiest athletic departments in the country that is not about to go cap in hand to anybody begging for a spot.
The point of scheduling night games IS the TV exposure, and scheduling a Pac-12 game so that its on in prime time in the Eastern is not that difficult.
LikeLike
But the Pac-10 were on the edge of getting Texas, before the deal fell apart.
They talked a lot. How close they came depends on which media account you believe.
The point of scheduling night games IS the TV exposure, and scheduling a Pac-12 game so that its on in prime time in the Eastern is not that difficult.
What’s difficult is not scheduling them, but getting them picked up on the major networks’ national feeds. Texas vs. USC would be a blockbuster, but that’s just one game. There’s also basketball and all of the non-revenue sports, and in some of those sports weeknight games/meets are common. You’d have teams getting home at 4:00am Central Time.
Of course, I realize that if the money differential is great enough, the non-revenues will have to suck it up, as they always do. But it was a factor that many of the UT coaches were concerned about, and as you’ve pointed out, UT is wealthy enough that it doesn’t need to go begging for money.
If both sides were eager enough to make a deal, they could agree to minimize night games in the Pacific time zone, but it’s an extra concern that Central time zone schools have if they want to consider the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Schools often want to move to greener pastures ~ conference realignment happens because the greener pastures are holding the gate open. What the GOR does is remove the incentive for the greener pastures to open the gate.
Its quite plausibly JUST a pause, because nobody signs an open-ended grant of rights, and people will look at their options as a GOR is coming closer to expiration, but it is, in any event, a pause long enough for the underlying incentives to shift one way or the other, as the media market evolves over the coming decade.
LikeLike
I take issue with this statement because it is false.
“Maryland is a great example. They were cutting programs even after the ACC
received a new tv deal. But didn’t come close what the other conferences under their existing contracts. Maryland, A founding member of the ACC, had to make a move.”
According to the Sports Business Journal, while UMD did have a deficit, it was no where near the catastrophic levels that they portrayed to the BOT in order to get the vote to go to the B1G. Here is the link and the quote from the article:
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/03/In-Depth/Maryland.aspx
“When the athletic department cut those seven sports this year, its projections showed total deficits climbing as high as $17 million in 2017 if the department didn’t act. What was missing from those projections, however, was the new revenue that would come from the ACC’s 15-year, $3.6 billion TV deal with ESPN, which was renegotiated after Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added. Nor did the department have the information on new revenue that would come from the college football playoff.”
Now if UMD wants to go to the B1G because they B1G will distribute more money per team per year, that is fine and I have no problems with the move per se. It is how the UMD administration exaggerated a financial situation to make the move. If the benefits of changing from the ACC to the B1G are so advantageous to the school, then why did the administration feel the need to magnify a mole hill financial situation into a mountain? Look, I am not debating that the B1G offers advantages that the ACC cannot replicate. i.e. more revenue and the CIC. Just be honest about the motives of the move and do not resort to these types of tactics.
LikeLike
UMD fans and alumni weren’t too thrilled with the move. Since it was essentially for money, the administration had to exaggerate their deficit to make the move seem necessary.
LikeLike
Add the adjective “initially” before “weren’t too thrilled with the move,” and you’d be on target. There are still a few ACC holdouts — particularly those who only care about men’s basketball — but most of the College Park community has embraced the upcoming shift (especially after some of the ACC’s retaliatory moves regarding scheduling and the lawsuit).
LikeLike
Expansion “may not be over” but the B1G understands that if Grants of Rights are challenged in one conference then all Grants of Rights could be challenged on similar grounds. This is not making a prediction. Just presenting a scenario which could explain why no other major schools may move in the near future. I think we are set for the time being. You say it’s about money. OK, perhaps the money is helping certain schools that would move stay put this time. ND’s move to the ACC is essentially revenue-neutral to ND. They gain nothing but the ability to still get TV contracts as a quasi-independent. Right about 2025 they might get another chance at looking at these things. By then, perhaps, the media model would change sufficiently that it no longer pays to realign.
In the meantime, I would like to see how the B1G stacks up against the ACC competitively for the next 10-15 years. In football, I think the B1G would still be perceived as the better conference, although if FSU starts winning against name opponents again, Miami comes back from the doldrums, VT wins meaningful games on a regular basis and/or other ACC teams like UVa, Pitt, SU or UNC truly step up then the story might be a little different. It’s in basketball that would really be fascinating. Future B1G-ACC challenges promise to be gangbusters. How would you like Michigan and Notre Dame in hoops? Duke and Maryland? Indiana and Louisville? Pitt and Penn State? Ohio State and UNC? MSU and Syracuse? Needless to say, both conferences would have their minnows like VT, RU, NW or BC but Miami is rising as a program. It’ll take time for them to recover from the defections but now the Canes have something to go for while football is still recovering.
From SI.com: http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/06/07/acc-tv-ratings-national-interest/?sct=uk_t11_a0
Which conference is going to be king in basketball with the demise of the old Big East?
LikeLike
In the meantime, I would like to see how the B1G stacks up against the ACC competitively for the next 10-15 years. In football, I think the B1G would still be perceived as the better conference, although if FSU starts winning against name opponents again, Miami comes back from the doldrums, VT wins meaningful games on a regular basis and/or other ACC teams like UVa, Pitt, SU or UNC truly step up then the story might be a little different.
You’re talking about a pretty remote possibility. Dominance in college sports is built up over decades and is only very rarely overturned. The kings tend to remain kings, the princes tend to remain princes, and so forth. The national powers have advantages in facilities, revenue, bowl tie-ins, TV deals, etc., that are very difficult for others to overcome.
LikeLike
Like the former Big East, the ACC may be able to claim superpower basketball status by default, since its football prowess is relatively weak and it has to put virtually all its eggs in the hoop basket. But if you combine football and men’s basketball, the two most high-profile collegiate sports, the Big Ten will have a profile second to none, even if it may not be perceived as #1 in either endeavor. Putting them together (with 50% for each sport — financially, they’re obviously of unequal weight, but I’m looking at what the public sees in terms of competitive quality from August through April), I’d rank the BCS leagues as follows:
1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. SEC
4. ACC
5. Pac-12
LikeLike
With all the realignment and quick changes, I thought it might be good to look at how exactly this is going to effect schedules.
Below you’ll see a percent for teams under football and basketball. For football that’s how often teams play each other. For basketball, it’s how often they play a home and home in a year.
Note: I think my math is right on all of these, but feel free to correct if it looks off.
ACC
Football:
7 teams (6 in division and 1 locked crossover): play 100% of the time
6 teams: play 17% of the time
Basketball: (percent is how often they play teams twice a year)
2 teams: 100%
12 teams: 17%
Big Ten
Football (everyone but Indiana and Purdue):
6 teams: 100%
6 teams: 45%
1 team (Indiana or Purdue): 29%
Football (for Purdue/Indiana):
7 teams (division teams and Indiana/Purdue): 100%
6 teams: 29%
Basketball
13 teams: 39%
Big 12
Football
9 teams: 100%
Basketball
9 teams: 100%
PAC-12
Football (non-California schools)
5 teams: 100%
4 teams: 75%
2 teams (California teams in other division): 50%
Football (California schools)
7 teams (divisions teams and other two California teams): 100%
4 teams: 50%
Basketball
1 team (locked rival): 100%
10 teams: 60%
SEC
Football
7 teams (6 in division and 1 locked crossover): 100%
6 teams: 17%
Basketball
1 team: 100%
12 teams: 33%
LikeLike
Random comment, but seeing the unbalanced 39% for B1G basketball sparks my OCD. Here’s my solution.
Regular Season: Use the football divisions and go to 19 games. 12 home-and-homes against your division, and 7 games against the other division. Eliminate the separate conference champion for the regular season and a tournament and just have two regular season division champions and then an overall conference champion determined by the tournament.
Postseason Tournament: Two divisional (or cross-divisional if you want to get creative and add more interdivisional games) brackets, with the 1 and 2 seeds getting a bye. Start with 3-v-6 and 4-v-5. The winners play the 1 and 2 seeds on day two. The winners of that play in the conference semifinal on day three, and then finally, you have the conference championship game.
This adds one additional regular season game for each team and really crescendo’s the season as a whole. I always thought having a separate regular season champion takes away from the tournament, and winning a regular season championship doesn’t have the same luster as winning a championship game. Best of both worlds.
Regular season still matters, because there is incentive to move from 7th to 6th (make the tournament), to move from 5th to 4th (tournament home game), 3rd to 2nd (tournament bye), and 2nd to 1st (division champion).
If you wanted to benefit the regular season winners even more, you could move to a ladder-style tournament instead, which might be interesting.
LikeLike
It’s a well thought out idea, but I’ve always been the reverse. To me, the regular season champion is the champion and the tournament is a fun little event. Taking away the regular season champion would mean I probably wouldn’t follow basketball at all until March. The only reason I pay attention now is that I can about the Big Ten title. Take that away and replace them with divisional titles and there’s nothing to really play for the entire regular season.
The Tournament will be fun regardless, but it would be really easy to mess up the regular season.
LikeLike
Use the football divisions and go to 19 games.
That would be wildly unpopular. The football divisions solve a football problem. Football needs to identify a team to attend the Rose Bowl, and there aren’t enough weeks on the schedule for a full round-robin or a post-season tournament. The NCAA permits just a single conference championship game (not a tournament), and they allow it only if you are split into two divisions. The division structure is a necessary evil, as every other permitted option (under the current rules) is worse.
In basketball, the western teams would never agree to a scheduling system where all of them see the eastern teams just once a year, every year, given that Michigan, MSU, OSU, and Indiana, are all in the east. They agreed to that for football, which really can’t avoid having divisions. Basketball just doesn’t need them. Why should Rutgers have a permanent home & home vs. Indiana, when Purdue does not? It would make no sense.
I always thought having a separate regular season champion takes away from the tournament, and winning a regular season championship doesn’t have the same luster as winning a championship game.
I am not so sure that the schools that actually won those titles, particularly minded winning them.
LikeLike
In basketball, the only need imo is for each team to have 1-3 dedicated rivals that they play twice every season and play everyone else at least once. I’d love for M to play MSU & Ohio twice every year, even with the tougher schedule. Divisions are certainly not needed in basketball.
LikeLike
In basketball, the only need imo is for each team to have 1-3 dedicated rivals that they play twice every season and play everyone else at least once. I’d love for M to play MSU & Ohio twice every year, even with the tougher schedule.
The coaches and ADs are well aware of the issue, and for whatever reason, consistently decide not to lock any rivalries. I’m pretty sure that just about everyone on the Michigan side would be pleased to see MSU and OSU twice a year, every year, despite the tougher schedule. It must surely be the other schools standing in the way: they want equal access to the opponents that sell out the gym and are more likely to get picked up on ESPN and CBS.
LikeLike
I was surprised the SEC didn’t lock Kentucky/Tennessee. That has been a very bitter rivalry for decades. Tennessee has traditionally given UK fits in Knoxville. They locked Kentucky/Florida which is the one that has more TV appeal.
LikeLike
Sam Brylski,
“Random comment, but seeing the unbalanced 39% for B1G basketball sparks my OCD.”
It is annoying, especially since it also means valuable rivalries aren’t played annually.
“Regular Season: Use the football divisions and go to 19 games. 12 home-and-homes against your division, and 7 games against the other division.”
Problem 1 – The football divisions are terribly unbalanced for hoops. IN, MSU, OSU, MI and UMD versus WI, IL and PU?
Problem 2 – Some good games can never be home and home (PU/IN, WI/MSU, IN/IL, etc).
I’d rather lock 2 or 3 “rivals” per school and let the others rotate through being home and homes. 13 + 2 locked + 5 rotating through the other 10 = 18 games like now and it means a home and home half the time against everyone.
“Eliminate the separate conference champion for the regular season and a tournament and just have two regular season division champions and then an overall conference champion determined by the tournament.”
The B10 only had a regular season champ for a long time. The tournament only started in 1998 and is just a money grab. Many fans view the regular season champ as the real champ.
“Postseason Tournament: Two divisional (or cross-divisional if you want to get creative and add more interdivisional games) brackets, with the 1 and 2 seeds getting a bye. Start with 3-v-6 and 4-v-5. The winners play the 1 and 2 seeds on day two. The winners of that play in the conference semifinal on day three, and then finally, you have the conference championship game.”
Conferences with divisions have been going away from using them in hoops, especially in their tournament. The #2 in a bad division may be worse than #4 in the good division. Why should they get an easier path in the tournament?
LikeLike
“I always thought having a separate regular season champion takes away from the tournament, and winning a regular season championship doesn’t have the same luster as winning a championship game. Best of both worlds.”
Boosting your NCAA tournament seeding is prize enough for the tournament winner, whether or not it happens to be the conference champion. And before looking for solutions, it does make sense to see if there’s a problem: the Big Ten tournament seems just fine as far as “luster” goes.
LikeLike
Winning the regular season is far more difficult than winning the tourney. Usually, sometimes schedules really impacts the season.
LikeLike
Two true statements. No idea what conclusion you are hoping your reader will draw from them.
Strength of schedule impacts the season two ways ~ easier strength of schedule makes it easier to notch up wins, a tougher strength of schedule makes it easier to land an at-large bid for a given win-loss record. The strength of schedule issue argues against divisional play in BBall in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/penn-state-trustees-say-changes-are-well-under-way
In news that surprises no one, Tom Corbett’s lawsuit against the NCAA has been dismissed.
LikeLike
One down, 17 to go. Supposedly the Paterno’s suit has a better chance.
LikeLike
St. Louis Sports Commission is trying to revive the Mizzou/Illinois game.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/talks-begin-to-revive-mizzou-illinois-series/article_aebbed78-507f-504a-9e76-f7f7c11bbfc8.html
LikeLike
With the Big Ten moving to a nine game schedule and Illinois’ stated desire to play a game in Chicago ever year I’m not sure Illinois could agree to this.
Maybe if the game rotated between Soldier Field and St. Louis, but I’m not sure that would even work.
LikeLike
Will the Illini be playing NW in Chicago in their four conference home game year or their five conference home game year?
Since one way to be “in Chicago every year” for the two or four years of a Mizzou contract (if four years, I presume spread over six or eight) would be to relocate an Illini home game against Mizzou to Chicago a year the Illini host NW, while the Mizzou home game is played in St. Louis a year that NW hosts the Illini.
As far as the NW/Mizzou “alternate” suggested above, I’m not clear how that continues the Mizzou / Illini rivalry that the St. Louis Sports Commission president was referring to.
LikeLike
Right, for Illinois, playing @NU counts as a game in Chicagoland. However, with a 9-game conference slate, playing in StL would still be difficult while maintaining 7 games in Chambana & 1 game in Chicagoland.
If the game @NU is with 4 home conference games, the 3 remaining OOC games would have to be In Chambana to reach 7 home games. Then the next year when they have 5 home conference games, 2 of the OOC games would have to be In Chambana to reach 7 home games, but then their other game would have to be in Chicago.
In other words, the Illini can’t maintain 7 home games in Chambana, play in Chicagoland every year, and still play in StL. If they’re OK with only playing 6 home games in Chambana some years (and count games in Chicago and/or StL as home games to say they have 7 home games), then it’s possible.
LikeLike
If the Illini get the ticket revenue for the game in Chicago and the Mizzou the ticket revenue for the game in St. Louis, they’d have some justification calling those Illini and Mizzou home games, respectively ~ though somebody’d be sure to whinge, because of the lost college town economic benefit.
LikeLike
What about MO/NW alternating between STL and Soldier FIeld?
LikeLike
Why would Northwestern do that? I actually live in StL now, but we really don’t get a lot of students or send a lot of students or get many recruits from here.
I’m quite certain that CA, TX, & NY all rank higher than in all those categories. We recruit nationally for both the student body and athletics, so a permanent Midwestern OOC game when we hit all parts of the Midwest during conference play doesn’t make much sense.
A permanent cersies with Stanford or even Rice makes much more sense than one with Mizzou.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Stanford is going to start playing Northwestern soon.
I agree that Northwestern and Mizzou are a bad fit.
Good fits for Mizzou, realignment butthurt aside, would be:
Kansas
Illinois
Nebraska
Iowa
Colorado
Indiana
Oklahoma
Michigan State
Iowa State
Purdue
Those are the schools that are either decent matches with or have well established connections to Mizzou. Northwestern and Missouri don’t have all that much in common, and when they played each other in the Alamo Bowl a few years back the tickets didn’t sell all that well.
LikeLike
I wasn’t suggesting a permanent series, just an occasional series. It’s an easy way to get a Soldier Field game every so often, plus neutral sites tend to draw better TV coverage than the actual game merits. NW/Stanford playing at the 49ers new place and Soldier Field would also work. I’m not sure Rice is a big enough draw to play at Reliant.
LikeLike
Uh, Brian, if Northwestern wanted to play someone at Soldier Field, they could schedule any home game there (even a B10 opponent). In fact, Wrigley will be NU’s home-away-from-home occasionally for the near future. The problem is that NU has very little reason to visit StL (or any other Midwestern city OOC considering our national alumni & recruiting + the B10 footprint). From 2008-2018, NU had/will have 13 OOC away games. Only one of them is in a Midwestern city (when NU will visit ND). That’s on purpose.
BTW, yes, NU will play Stanford 6 of the 8 years 2015-2022.
LikeLike
Well, Soldier Field would have to agree first (not every NW home game would be acceptable to them). Second, I didn’t say MO was necessary for NW to play at Soldier Field, just that it would be easy. Third, NW recruits STL and MO for FB so playing a game there could be useful to Fitz. Fourth, 40% of NW students are from the midwest so occasionally playing an OOC game in a part of the midwest NW doesn’t usually visit may be good for student recruiting and alumni. St. Louis is home to a NAA club, one of the relatively few in the US (less than 50).
LikeLike
Brian, those arguments are weak.
“Well, Soldier Field would have to agree first (not every NW home game would be acceptable to them).”
Indeed, however, quite a few B10 opponents would be deemed more attractive than Mizzou (nothing against Mizzou; Chicago has more grads from a few other B10 schools, however). That’s not a strong argument for a neutral site series with Mizzou.
“Second, I didn’t say MO was necessary for NW to play at Soldier Field, just that it would be easy.”
Huh? What do you mean by “easy”? It wouldn’t be “easy” to move a home game vs. Iowa, Wisconsin, or PU to Soldier Field? Again, a poor argument.
“Third, NW recruits STL and MO for FB so playing a game there could be useful to Fitz.”
NU recruits virtually everywhere there are people in the US, so the argument that it would be “useful for Ftz” could apply to almost every place in the US. In the past 4 years, NU has recruited 7 CA kids, 9 TX kids, and 1 kid from StL. Also 1 kid from Denver. Your argument could be used to justify a series with CU in Denver just as easily as one in StL with Mizzou. In any case, you do not provide a compelling reason for why NU would value playing Mizzou in StL rather than reserving their precious OOC away slots for CA or TX schools. Another weak argument.
“40% of NW students are from the midwest so occasionally playing an OOC game in a part of the midwest NW doesn’t usually visit may be good for student recruiting and alumni.”
40% of the students are from the Midwest. However, roughly 4 of 5 (80%) away games and all home games will be in the Midwest (or Midwest and Northeast). Furthermore, many of the alums in the Midwest are within driving distance of Chicagoland and can go see home games. 25% of NU’s student body come from the South, West, or Southwest. Even if NU plays every OOC away game in those regions, they would be underserved, so why would NU want to play more away games in the Midwest? If anything, this point is an argument against playing an OOC away game in the Midwest. Do you realize that when you make stupid arguments, you sound pigheaded & stupid, Brian?
Look Brian, Andy, a Mizzou alum, and I, an NU alum, both agree that NU and Mizzou playing in StL makes no sense. I can only conclude that you are continuing with this argument instead of backing down solely because you are pigheaded/obdurate/disagreeable.
LikeLike
That game always sold well and was always on ESPN. It was good rivarly. Unfortunately Illinois backed out after Missouri won 7 straight games. Hopefully they’ll reconsider if the money is good, which it should be.
LikeLike
Missouri is currently set to play a home and home with Indiana and then a home and home with Purdue. I wonder if Missouri would schedule two B1G non-conference games in a year?
LikeLike
Believe it was 6 straight games.
LikeLike
My bad, Missouri leads the series 17-7, but you’re right, it’s only been 6 straight.
Also 4 straight in basketball, but Illinios leads that series 20-12. But the series started 9-1 Illinois so Missouri has been gradually catching up.
LikeLike
Actually, technically no, haven’t been catching up, still 8 games back. But the two teams have evenly split over the last 22 years in basketball.
LikeLike
Frank,
Here’s a link from Wikipedia that JHU will apply to CIC.
“Johns Hopkins University will apply for membership in the CIC, as it is joining the Big Ten Conference as a lacrosse-only member.[8]”
LikeLike
That’s merely a citation & linkg to the PSU athletics page, their story. We’ll find out down the road.
LikeLike
Chancellor Thorp leaving UNC.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9348194/holden-thorp-leaving-north-carolina-tar-heels-chancellor
LikeLike
Nice article on what the SEC is doing for Mizzou’s facilities:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/sec-money-brings-upgrades-to-mizzou/article_6371a1f1-a649-54cf-8176-3e51512ff71b.html
LikeLike
Wow! Mizzou’s athletic budget ranks 12th in the SEC. That’s a lot of catching-up to do.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s amazing Missouri has won as much as they have considering the resources they’ve had to work with.
Missouri’s Conference payouts:
2010 – 9 Million
2011 – 11 Million
2012 – Zero (would have been 12.4 million)
2013 – 20.7 Million
2014 – 30-34 Million
Athletic Budgets:
1998 – 13.7 Million
2012 – 67 Million (12th in SEC)
2013-14 – 73 to 75 Million
2014-15 – Presumably somewhere between 83 – 89 Million, just accounting for the increased conference payout.
Also, Missouri is currently in phase 1 of a 3 phase stadium expansion project. In 3 or 4 years Missouri’s stadium capacity will have increased from 71k to 83k, and will have added a bunch of club seating and renovated luxury suites. That should positively impact revenue as well. Donations are climbing as well, and donation requirements for season tickets are being phased up. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect that Missouri’s budget could be somewhere in the $90Ms in 5 years or so, which would definitley put them in the top 20 nationally even accounting for increased payouts around the SEC and B1G. It would also bring Missouri closer to the middle of the pack in the SEC, although still probably in the bottom half.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/06/22656/first-look-artist-rendering-of-the-2522-new-seats-going-into-ohio-stadium-for-2014
Not only is OSU adding 2522 seats for 2014, they’ll also install permanent lights for night games.
LikeLike
I’m reserving judgement until I see a ground level view. I’m cool with it as long as the new ‘wings’ remain clearly separate from main stadium.
LikeLike
For ACC mens lacrosse, the simplest thing to do is bring in Army as an affiliate to bring up the number to 6 mens teams so they could form a conference. It doesn’t have to be a permanent deal. BC, Louisville, Pitt or Virginia Tech could raise their mens team up to a division 1. Also, they do not have a womens program so it wouldn’t add to an already crowded womens ACC lacrosse conference (8 teams).
LikeLike
I think people tend to forget that JHU to the BIG was more practical because they’re D3 in every other sport. Army presents another Notre Dame problem. If I’m not mistaken, they are D1 in all sports. If I was Army, I’d want all in. The ACC may benefit from ND membership in most sports, but I think they’re obviously being used for the recruiting advantages. ND continues to raise my suspicions with this Tx deal, but you can’t fault them for doing what’s best for them.
LikeLike
I believe that Army will wish to stay independent in football after their Conference USA debacle from a few years ago. The only other sport at which they are competitive on a similar level is lax I think that knowing full well that they need the ACC more than the ACC needs them they would join for lax if asked. An opportunity is still an opportunity.
LikeLike
The big hurdle (outside of money) faced by schools like BC, Pitt, VPI etc with adding a men’s team is Title 9 compliance.
LikeLike
So, in other words, the big hurdle outside of money is more money.
LikeLike
For ACC mens lacrosse, the simplest thing to do is bring in Army as an affiliate to bring up the number to 6 mens teams so they could form a conference.
I don’t think NCAA rules alow that. Army’s main conference is the Patriot League. They’re independent in football, and they play some sports elsewhere that the Patriot doesn’t have. But I believe that if your home conference sponsors a sport, you can’t play that sport in another conference.
If I was Army, I’d want all in.
The Patriot League offers much softer competition. In most sports, Army vs. an ACC schedule would be brutal.
LikeLike
Yes, Army could join an FBS conference FB-only, since Patriot League football is FCS. But its a Division 1 conference, and sponsors Lacrosse. Indeed, according to the projection at SB Nation:
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/6/3/4392036/conference-realignment-big-ten-b1g-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-conference-ratings
… Patriot looks pretty good, with ACC far and away the strongest, then the Ivy edging out the Big Ten, then Patriot edging out the Colonial. So top half of the Division 1 Lacrosse conferences, without being as brutal as the ACC would be.
LikeLike
ACC doesn’t need 6 teams to form a conference; they need 6 members to get an auto-bid. But the ACC is so strong they don’t need an auto-bid to guarantee their champ a spot in the tournament.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/may/mississippi+state+provides+improper+recruiting+benefits
2 scholarships struck me as a rather light penalty. It was only 1 recruit, but was repeated payments as well as the car.
LikeLike
Especially since they say the coach knew about it and didn’t report it. The coach did get a 1 year show cause, but the NCAA said he was very helpful or it would have been worse.
LikeLike
so if the LHN is bundled up with the SEC network, I think the only fair thing to do would be to split up the charges and the LHN gets 1/16 equal share of the carriage charge, That would be equal to what they earned and if they get more than that they should refuse and not demand anymore. ESPN of course would still owe them their $10 million a year or whichever is greater. I think only a longhorn would not see the justice in this as reasonable. I’m sure they would never want to take anything that wasn’t earned.
your thoughts please.
LikeLike
Related to the past discussions of culture, dialect, and conference realignment. Totally fascinating.
From Business Insider: 22 Maps That Show How Americans Speak English Totally Differently From Each Other:
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6
LikeLike
Fun list. Mine made sense except that I’m not sure where I got “crown” for “crayon” and I am definitely “Carmle” which I must have picked up in Indiana and Ohio, unlike most of my vocabulary.
LikeLike
Unsurprisingly, I’m a blend of Chicago & StL (but a “soda” person, not “pop”; interestingly, “soda” is very coastal while “pop” dominates the Midwest except for StL and Milwaukee, which are “soda” strongholds), but southern with “lawyer” and KY with “you all”. Might be the southern IL influence there.
LikeLike
Indiana upset FSU in Game 1 of the Super Regional, 10-9. IN will be the home team for Game 2.
The other winner so far is UNC over SC, 6-5.
LikeLike
Don’t jinx it Brian.
LikeLike
I didn’t pick them to win or anything, just reported the facts. They need to stop giving up 9 runs if they want to advance.
LikeLike
Well, yeah I can agree with that.
LikeLike
Apparently I failed to jinx them as IN won comfortably today to advance to the CWS.
LikeLike
Feeling better now. Not sure why I was so nervous. On to CWS!
LikeLike
Must be a typo. We’ve been assured its not possible to play good ball in the B1G. 🙂
Congrats!
LikeLike
ccrider55,
I’m sure IN will demonstrate typical B10 postseason play on the big stage.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Seems like I was discussing the need of the B1G to do better in baseball about this time last year. 😉
LikeLike
My Tigers are the team to punch their ticket to Omaha, by sweeping Oklahoma with their 1st and 2nd round draft pick starting pitchers. Last night our Sophomore ace Aaron Nola out-dualed the the #3 pick in the draft by dialing up a two hit complete game shutout by the score of 2-0. Tonight, our 2nd round pick and bullpen beat Oklahoma’s 2nd round pick and bullpen 11-1.
LikeLike
Congrats for being the first to punch the ticket to the CWS.
LikeLike
So LSU and IN are in. UL and UCLA are, too. Vandy’s great season crashed and burned as UL swept them.
UNC and SC split 1-1 so far
Rice is looking to get a split with NCSU
UVA is looking to get a split with MS St
OrSU is looking to get a split with KSU
LikeLike
Unfortunately for Rice, they dropped game 2 in 17 innings to NCSU.
OrSU is up 9-1 in the 4th.
UVA/MS St was postponed in the 7th due to rain with MS St up 5-3.
LikeLike
On the Huge Show this week (a local radio program), Michigan AD Dave Brandon had this to say about expansion:
LikeLike
….now if you’ll excuse me, I have to run for senate.”
/sarc/
LikeLike
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/2013/06/sports-illustrated-preparing-umncaa-expose-shapiro-makes-another-allegation.html
Shapiro is making more allegations against Miami. The latest is that coaches gave him injury information that he used for gambling purposes.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130607/alamo-bowl-big-12.ap/?sct=uk_t2_a9
This isn’t really news, but it’s official that the Alamo will get B12 #2 and P12 #2.
LikeLike
Question: should non-football playing campuses within a University’s system be counted toward the general alumni power base of a program?
For example, I keep hearing about how the University of Kansas has more alumni in the KC area (although they actually have slightly less alumni on the Missouri side of the border than Mizzou does, but far more overall). But if Missouri were also able to count alums of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, which does not have a football team or any quality sport to speak of, then the alumni totals would combine to:
University of Missouri Columbia/Kansas City: 88,093
University of Kansas: 77,487
I’m undecided on this. Is it a b.s. argument or is it legit? Seems kind of legit to me but I’m not sure.
LikeLike
On the one hand, I can see how it wouldn’t always work because, for example, Cal Berkley certainly can’t claim UCLA fans. But then maybe sometimes it does. Do UC-Irvine students typically root for UCLA?
In the case of UMKC, every UMKC person I ever met tended to root for Mizzou in sports, if they followed sports at all. So it seems like they would be sort of an offshoot of Missouri.
Does it work that way for, say, UT-Dallas? Or Texas A&M-Corpus Christi? Or UMich-Flint? Or U-Maryland-Baltimore? etc.
LikeLike
Sports are generally tied to main campuses, but it’s not uncommon for say, Wolverine fans to go to UofM-Flint (who being students, also get student tickets!).
LikeLike
Do UC-Irvine students typically root for UCLA?
No Way! Screw the Bruins, Anteater pride!
…
Actually, I have no idea, I just like that UC-Irvine’s nickname is the Anteaters.
LikeLike
I doubt they root for UCLA except maybe in FB. They are D-I after all, and compete with UCLA in hoops, baseball, water polo, volleyball, soccer, etc. Most likely their FB rooting interests are spread, but I’d guess many root for USC because they’re better than UCLA.
LikeLike
How bout the UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs? Must be something in the water…
LikeLike
yeah, LSD.
LikeLike
Most University of Wisconsin satellite campus students are Badger fans.
LikeLike
I did an informal survery on another message board, and peope associated with UM-Rolla (now known as the Missouri University of Science and Technology) and the University of Missouri-St. Louis tend to be mostly Mizzou fans. Some UMKC guys said that UMKC students are more split in that there are a fair number of Kansans who come in from out of state and they’re less likely to be Mizzou fans, but the local kids who go there tend to favor Mizzou.
So I guess I’d say that my guess is if a satellite campus lacks a football team, then its students probably root for the nearest state flagship school that has a football team, although their loyalty isn’t as solid as students who actually attend the flagship school.
LikeLike
Polo shirt fans, a step above the t-shirt variety.
LikeLike
There’s also system campus versus branch campus. AFAIR, OSU-Newark were overwhelmingly Buckeyes fans, but then Newark is in Central Ohio, so that just says that most students of a local commuter branch campus are actually local commuters.
LikeLike
Why not just count everyone in the KC area as University of Missouri alumni?
Wouldn’t that help you pad your numbers even more? I mean, you are involved in very important internet debates about MIzzou’s attractiveness as a conference expansion target in a number of hypothetical scenarios and you needn’t tie yourself down to actual definitions of words.
LikeLike
I was asking a sensible and honest question. You decided to spazz out about it like you do to pretty much everything I say. And yet I’m supposedly the unreasonable one.
LikeLike
Implicit in what I was saying was that other schools could maybe do the same thing. It would boost the numbers of Michigan, Penn State, Texas A&M, etc. Schools with largish satellite campuses that lack sports programs.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between true satellite campuses like Ohio St. has in Lima and other places or a Miami University-Middleton and “system” schools like Angelo St. who has been in the Texas Tech system for 2 or 3 years and Texas A&M Corpus Christi who has been in the A&M system for about 20 years, but has no other real ties. The Corpus Christi students are probably more likely to be Longhorn fans. UT-Dallas students are more likely to simply be Dallas Cowboy fans. Yet Louisiana Tech isn’t in the LSU system, but I remember a friend telling me how disgusted she was when most of the students left the LT homecoming game at halftime to go watch LSU on TV. There’s no hard and fast rule. Every school is different.
LikeLike
UT -Tyler definitely has more A&M fans, but A&M Texarkansas is split.
LikeLike
Question: should non-football playing campuses within a University’s system be counted toward the general alumni power base of a program?
Counted by whom, and for what purpose? Hard numbers like stadium attendance and TV ratings are well known, and in a sense it doesn’t really matter where the viewers came from. If you’re counting some other way, it would depend on what you’re trying to prove.
The specifics will vary by state, and the way their university systems are set up. UM–Flint doesn’t play intercollegiate athletics, so you’d probably suspect that if students there root for anybody, they root for UM. UM–Dearborn is in the NAIA; their sports teams are called Wolverines, and they wear maize & blue. In Division I sports, I would say they root for UM.
LikeLike
@Andy – As others have said, there’s no real hard and fast rule. Students at the University of Illinois at Chicago, for instance, really don’t care whatsoever for Illini sports. I wouldn’t ever count those 18,000-plus students toward the Illini fan base. The University of Michigan system schools might be a bit different. Generally speaking, “system” school students probably track closely with casual fans, where schools that have large non-alumni/bandwagon fan bases are going to do a better job of capturing the interest of their system schools than those that don’t.
LikeLike
Yeah, it seems like it. For Missouri at least, I’ve been asking around more, and the UMSL students/grads seem to be all about Mizzou. UMKC people are more lukewarm.
LikeLike
It looks like IU, aTm, and Florida will be going down to the wire for the Capital One Cup, men’s side. If I’m interpreting the scoring system properly: Fl & aTm’s T&F split NC put them both above Duke, IU’s CWS appearance as well (guaranteed 8th place finish).
IU is in the driver’s seat – if they can get to the final 6 of the CWS, or higher, they should win it.
On the other hand, still feel Michigan is getting shafted for their Men’s Swimming title. Far more d1 participation in this sport than regionalized lacrosse. Duke got a huge break with Capital’s system.
Feel free to correct any mistaken information.
LikeLike
Cap1 Cup is BS being pushed by ESPN.
LikeLike
Ditto on that… The Director’s Cup (while not perfect) reflects a far more balanced look at a school’s overall athletic prowess…
LikeLike
People would care about it more if schools other than Stanford won it every now and then.
LikeLike
Honestly, the Captial One Cup is going in the right direction with their weighted system, which does do damage to Stanford’s monopoly. But clearly the fact, which I’ve consistently repeated, that lacrosse outweighs swimming equals misguided & reeks of ESPN’s bias towards the ACC. At this point, most of us know why.
LikeLike
@gfunk – I don’t mind the lacrosse weighting (and if anything, the inclusion of women’s lacrosse helps the Big Ten more than anyone, especially with Maryland coming on board). It looks like that I might be the minority here, but the sports that get weighted more look generally fair to me. The only other sport that I’d include is hockey (both men and women), which I think has the same amount of regionalism as lacrosse and is considered to be a legitimately popular sport at many schools. If I were running things, I might change the amount of weighting a bit, where only football and men’s basketball would get the 3 times multiplier and then the other “important” sports have a 2 times multiplier (although I fully acknowledge that there is a political correctness component in not weighing football and men’s basketball on a separate tier despite those being the two sports that most athletic directors are ultimately judged by).
LikeLike
Florida came pretty close to breaking Stanford’s monopoly this year. And it would have been broken had it not been for an improbable tennis championship by a 12th-seeded Cardinal squad.
LikeLike
vp19,
Actually, I doubt it. Most people don’t care about the overall athletic department.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Honestly, the Captial One Cup is going in the right direction with their weighted system,”
It is going in the right direction? Based on what? What formula are they using to determine what weight each sport gets? What’s the basis for that weighting being “correct”? Making it up as you go to get the desired result is not moving in the right direction to me.
The whole point of the Director’s Cup is to weight all sports equally in an attempt to measure how well the entire athletic department performs.
LikeLike
How is it weighted? Ideally, it should be based upon the number of colleges that field a team in that sport, so that baseball and soccer should have more “weight” than largely regional sports such as lacrosse and water polo.
LikeLike
Brian, read my posts more carefully & do some research between the Director’s & Capital Cups.
To all, the fact that these sports should be weighted, imo, by the number of D1 programs is a good start. Capital One, again, is half assing it with their formula, but at least the weighing factor is there. I can’t be any more clear in my M&W Swimming vs Lacrosse comparison – Capital One blows it here. Michigan got screwed under the Capital One system. They got 20 points for their Swimming NC. Duke got 60 points for winning the Lacrosse NC. Yet there are far more D1 programs in M. Swimming than M. Lacrosse, less regionalization as well.
On the other hand, Director’s Cup gives USC 100 points for a Water Polo NC, Princeton 100 points for a Fencing NC. There are 22 f’ing D1 Men’s Water Polo programs, roughly the same in Fencing. That’s less teams than the membership of the SEC & Big12 combined.
A compromise is in order. And yes, I’m capitalizing sports titles.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Brian, read my posts more carefully & do some research between the Director’s & Capital Cups.”
I read it and I know how both work, actually.
“To all, the fact that these sports should be weighted, imo, by the number of D1 programs is a good start.”
But the Cap1 doesn’t do that, as you know. It fairly randomly favors some sports over others. That’s not progress to me. That’s regression back to the reason the DC was started in the first place.
“Capital One, again, is half assing it with their formula, but at least the weighing factor is there.”
Bad weighting is worse than equal weighting to me.
“On the other hand, Director’s Cup gives USC 100 points for a Water Polo NC, Princeton 100 points for a Fencing NC. There are 22 f’ing D1 Men’s Water Polo programs, roughly the same in Fencing. That’s less teams than the membership of the SEC & Big12 combined.”
Yes, they always give 100 points to #1. But they do scale the points below that based on the size of the field. You can get the same points for finishing 12th, 16th, 32nd, 48th or 64th depending on the number of teams. They also count the top 10 sports for each gender at each school, emphasizing breadth of the department and gender balance. In addition, they rely on NCAA championship results whenever possible, not polls.
The Cap 1 arbitrarily splits sports into 2 groups and weights one group 3 times as much as the other. The top 10 (and only the top 10) in all sports get points, and they often use polls to determine the placings. Even worse, their point scale is designed to emphasize being #1 way too much (20, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1).
“Valuable” sports:
Football / Women’s VB
Baseball / Softball
M&W Hoops
M&W Lacrosse
M&W Soccer
M&W Outdoor T&F – only one for which they actually use the NCAA Championship results
I have a problem with every part of what they do. Winning a NC in lacrosse is worth 6 3rd places in “minor” sports like tennis, golf, swimming, cross-country, etc? The whole thing is designed to reward small athletic departments that focus just on these 12 sports and have elite teams in them. Being good isn’t valued at all. Neither is breadth.
“A compromise is in order.”
That’s a different discussion than saying the Cap1 is making progress. The DC and C1C measure two completely different things, and the C1C completely undermines the whole point of the DC. The whole point was “a program that honors institutions maintaining a broad-based program, achieving success in many sports, both men’s and women’s.” The C1C basically goes back to just saying who has the best major teams with a tiny amount of credit for other sports.
By saying the C1C is going in the right direction, you’re really saying you don’t want to measure what the DC was designed to measure. That’s fine, but it’s not a flaw with the DC. There are ways the DC could be improved, but the C1C isn’t headed in that direction at all. It’s simply trying to change the metric.
LikeLike
I’m with Brian. Bad weighting is worse than no weighting. Lacrosse is the worst and strangest example. Lacrosse and outdoor track & field get included in the heaviest weighting, but golf, tennis, swimming, indoor track & field and cross-country, all of which has vastly larger participation than lacrosse, don’t.
ESPN is obviously trying to promote lacrosse with this measure.
LikeLike
Weighting, by definition is designed to create a hierarchy among the sports. It creates a club within the broader (NCAA D1) group. If we are honoring athletic department it should be as inclusive of offerings as possible. We already have people advocating dropping sports for popularity or financial reasons. Do we really want to wind up with only FB, BB, and a couple popular, max money making reality TV shows between seasons?
LikeLike
Brian,
You’re stretching my statements here & forgetting that we actually agree more than disagree. Yes, we agree more than disagree : ).
As you know, the Director’s Cup also weighs by where a team places in a national championship format, in fact they go much further, which I like, by awarding points to schools that place lower than 10th due to the standard 100 point scale (which I also like). ND M. Basketball got 25 points for placing-tying for 33rd in the recent NCAA tournament. That’s more points than Michigan got for winning the M. Swimming NC, Capital One.
At this point, I’m merely giving Capital One credit for weighing some sports heavier than others, instead of being “politically correct” like the Director’s Cup. But as I have repeatedly stated, they’re going about it in a “half ass” process, or in some cases a truly unfair process (Lacrosse vs Swimming). So I’ll be as fair as possible here & argue that Capital One’s process is about 33% in the right direction (pseudo science).
As someone else stated on here, and I wholeheartedly agree, across the board D1 participation should be a huge factor in the points system – a more logical starting point. Thus, Capital has a lot of explaining to do.
Again, compromise should be the mission of Capital and Directors.
Frank,
I won’t agree that Lacrosse should have more weight than Swimming – not until there are at least 100 D1 teams – right now it looks like 60 + for men, & 90 + for women (Wiki, thus take with 2 grains of salt). And even at that point, they should merely be equivalents, Directors Cup or Capital One. And yes, BIG Lacrosse is exciting and they will have programs capable of benefitting from the ever skewed Capital format.
I also agree, Hockey deserves a little more weight in the Capital format. I may be wrong here, but my guess is that D1 Hockey brings in more profit per school than Lacrosse. But I’m not going out on a limb here when I say that Lacrosse will likely never equal Hockey in states such as Mass, Mn and likely Mi. These are states where hockey players definitely play Lacrosse as a second sport. Mn now has over 60 high schools playing Lacrosse, but the vast majority of kids playing Hockey-Lacrosse, will choose Puck at the next level, if given the choice.
LikeLike
I know you guys make fun of lacrosse, but they have posted some pretty impressive attendance figures: http://www.laxpower.com/common/NCAA-Attendance.php
LikeLike
gfunk,
“You’re stretching my statements here”
I’m quoting you. How is that stretching? You said the C1C was going in the right direction versus the DC.
“forgetting that we actually agree more than disagree.”
Which is nice, but doesn’t change how much we disagree on the points where we do disagree. And those points are the ones we’re discussing (a discussion on where we agree would be pretty boring).
“As you know, the Director’s Cup also weighs by where a team places in a national championship format, in fact they go much further, which I like, by awarding points to schools that place lower than 10th due to the standard 100 point scale (which I also like). ND M. Basketball got 25 points for placing-tying for 33rd in the recent NCAA tournament. That’s more points than Michigan got for winning the M. Swimming NC, Capital One.”
Yes, I pointed that out. It’s a big advantage of the DC to me.
“At this point, I’m merely giving Capital One credit for weighing some sports heavier than others, instead of being “politically correct” like the Director’s Cup.”
This is one fundamental disagreement between us. I don’t see that as progress. The whole point of the DC is to measure the whole AD and treat each sport as equal. All you’re saying is that you don’t like the DC, which is fine. But you’re wrong to portray the C1C as an improvement on the DC. Instead, it is something completely different from the DC. The underlying principles are completely different.
“As someone else stated on here, and I wholeheartedly agree, across the board D1 participation should be a huge factor in the points system – a more logical starting point.”
It depends on what you’re trying to measure. There are about 340 MBB teams in D-I. So should MBB be three times as valuable FB? We all know most of the teams in both sports have no shot at a title. Should we count the number of “major” teams in each sport instead? Do you factor in the team size? It’s easier to find 1 or 2 star hoops players than it is to field an elite FB team. What about factoring in the number of scholarships?
All of those are plausible issues, but they just muddy up the concept. The DC was designed on the principle of treating all sports equally. As soon as you start making adjustments, you are measuring something different. Every school has the choice to play the sports with fewer teams or regional interest. Why should it be held against those who do play? Every region has some regional sports they do well in.
“Again, compromise should be the mission of Capital and Directors. ”
Why? What is the advantage to either in compromise? They measure two different things.
LikeLike
Brian,
Wow! I know I didn’t say some of these things you’re implying & extracting from my quotes, you’re not reifying, but distorting along personal interpretation. Moreover, I’m not even remotely interested in getting into a debate that deconstructs via misinterpretation. This is hardly the right space.
I’ll give you some peace at this point, and please live with my stubborn ass opinion: sports like bowling, fencing and water polo don’t deserve the same weight as baseball, basketball or w. volleyball ( I wish I could use bold 50 pt here). Certain sports just don’t have enough representation, therefore not enough competition – simple statistics – award the sports with greater participation. Director’s Cup blows in this sense & enough disagreement with this system drove the creation of the imperfect Capital One system. I prefer to take the positives from each system & many of Capital One’s flaws, which you noted, I accept and agree with. I’m pretty sure I noted my concerns with Capital One. Ouch, I’ve plugged Capital One enough here.
LikeLike
I’d go the other way on the weightings, taking the 10 point sports and splitting them on total scholarship support with the most broadly contested “non-freestanding TV contract” sports raised from 10 to 20. But if Lacrosse’s ESPNU contracts makes it a 30 sport, then NCHC’s CBS Sports Network contract and having the whole conference alignment thrown into turmoil in pursuit of BTN exposure must surely make ice hockey a 30 sport too.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Wow! I know I didn’t say some of these things you’re implying & extracting from my quotes,”
I think you really did. You said this:
“Honestly, the Captial One Cup is going in the right direction with their weighted system.”
All I’ve done recently is point out that the C1C is not an improvement on the DC but rather something completely different. I don’t care which one you perfer, but you are wrong to conflate the two. They measure very different things. That’s why there’s no compromise between them to be had. One of the fundamental principles of the DC is to value all sports equally. That can’t be mixed with the C1C’s desire to weight sports differently.
“sports like bowling, fencing and water polo don’t deserve the same weight as baseball, basketball or w. volleyball ( I wish I could use bold 50 pt here). Certain sports just don’t have enough representation, therefore not enough competition”
Nobody is arguing that some sports have a lot more teams.
Click to access PR2013.pdf
M BB – 340
W BB – 338
W XC – 336
W VB – 323
W Soccer – 317
W Tennis – 317
W OT&F – 317
M XC – 310
W IT&F – 308
M Golf – 292
Softball – 285
Baseball – 293
M OT&F – 277
M Tennis – 259
M IT&F – 255
W Golf – 253
M Soccer – 202
W S&D – 193
M S&D – 134
Football – 121
W Lax – 91
Rowing – 87
Field Hockey – 79
M Lax – 61
W Gym – 62
Hockey – 58
M Water Polo – 42
W Bowling – 36
W Hockey – 34
W Water Polo – 34
Fencing – 24
M VB – 23
M Gym – 16
Is women’s cross-country 3 times as important as FB? I didn’t list all the sports, but FB is only #20 on that list. Is it really harder to win in WBB than FB? UConn has dominated lately and TN before that. There is more depth in FB despite having many fewer teams. How are you accounting for that?
How many teams have any realistic chance at a NC in FB in the next 20 years? 20? 30? Is that a more fair way to judge than the total number of teams?
How do you compare sports that play championships to FB which really doesn’t? Isn’t it harder to advance through a 16 team bracket than play a bowl game?
“award the sports with greater participation.”
By virtue of Title IX, that means women’s sports will vastly outweigh men’s sports due to all the FB scholarships.
“Director’s Cup blows in this sense & enough disagreement with this system drove the creation of the imperfect Capital One system.”
No, ESPN’s desire to promote certain schools drove the creation. There was no mass uprising of fans behind this.
LikeLike
Brian, looking at that list of sports with number of participants, I think what I’d like to see is a director’s cup style ranking, but with a cutoff on which schools count. Maybe the threshold should be 100 participating schools. Or if that’s too harsh, then maybe just 50. I’m just not too fond of schools racking up points for water polo, bowling, and fencing when hardly any schools play those sports.
LikeLike
The schools ESPN wants to promote aren’t winning the Directors cup? No prob. Create one that fits their strengths.
LikeLike
I agree, Director’s Cup should be official and of course used by ESECACCPN. But, this year’s Capital One Cup is a tight race, good drama & BIG teams are well represented, both sexes.
I forgot that if either UCLA or UNC win the baseball NC, they have a good shot of winning the Cup. But, if either face say Lville or IU in the finals, they can’t overtake either. IU clinches the Cup with a second place finish against UNC or UCLA. A UNC-Lville baseball finals would result in a Cup tie if UNC wins. Lville takes the Cup if they make it to the finals against UCLA.
LikeLike
Jesus, I am inadvertently dismissing the possibility of Lville or IU winning the baseball NC. Either is capable of winning it at this point. If either wins, they get the Cup as well.
LikeLike
Paging Gene Hackman. I think it’s time for Hoosiers 2.0
LikeLike
duff – it looks like you have a dilemma on your hands. Indiana v. Louisville. Who are you for?
IU v. UL sounds like a Final Four matchup, rather than a game at the CWS. Maybe Bobby Knight and Denny Crum will throw out the first pitches.
Louisville has had a season for the ages. BCS, MBB NC, WBB finalist, CWS, and a deal to join the ACC. Not a bad year for Jurich and company.
Congrat top the IU fans and team. I think the Hoosiers are the first B1G team to make the CWS since the 84 Michigan team
LikeLike
#4 LSU the only favorite to advance so far. #2 Vandy, #5 CS-Fullerton, #7 FSU all lost #6 UVA and #3 Oregon St. lost the first game. #1 UNC split the first two.
LikeLike
The first 4 to qualify include Indiana, Louisville and UCLA. What sport is this again?
LikeLike
BB?
LikeLike
All of this is pointing to a possibility for lacrosse at the university to become an official sport. The timetable for this to happen is probably about five years away, but with possibility of new donors coming forward to support the addition of the sport, the university may just pull the trigger sooner.
It would be rather fitting that TCF Bank Stadium would be the new home for men’s and women’s lacrosse in the Big Ten and the NCAA for the Gophers. There is already the beautiful tribal plaza just outside the open-end of the stadium and to welcome the Native American sport to campus officially would have a perfect home.
Pretty soon we could be seeing just as many short-poles and long-poles hanging out of sports bags on campus as the hockey sticks that call home just across the street. Let’s make it happen. Not next week or next year, but by the time that basketball practice facility final opens.
You have to assume that the Big Ten Network will capitalize on the sport when it is launched. The Gophers should get in early on that gold mine.
http://goldandgopher.com/2013/06/09/gopher-lacrosse-could-soon-be-a-d-i-sport/?utm_source=FanSided&utm_medium=Network&utm_campaign=Hot%2BTopics
Speculation already starting on additions to B1G lacrosse.
LikeLike
Actually, rumors of MN adding a team have been around for a little while. They predate adding UMD and RU. Here’s one from October.
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2012/10/12/mcla-notebook-minnesota-texas-state-msu-coaching-changes-and-offseason-news
LikeLike
@Transic
“It would be rather fitting that TCF Bank Stadium would be the new home for men’s and women’s lacrosse in the Big Ten and the NCAA for the Gophers. There is already the beautiful tribal plaza just outside the open-end of the stadium and to welcome the Native American sport to campus officially would have a perfect home.”
If this implies that the NCAA LAX championship would leave the East Coast, I can say it ain’t gonna happen. Too many premier teams on the Coast.
LikeLike
The Frozen Four has been held in Washington, Pittsburgh and, IIRC, even Los Angeles. So why not have a lacrosse final four in the Twin Cities?
LikeLike
The Frozen Four has had some poor ticket sales because they’ve over-reached in selecting sites, and setting ticket prices. There’s no reason whatsoever to have the NCAA Frozen Four in Anaheim or Tampa when there are zero schools within driving distance of the Tournament. There’s no momentum or appetite for college hockey in LA or Florida. They should keep it simple with the schedule. Boston and Minneapolis should each get it once every 3 years. Throw the third year up to a select few cities like Denver, Detroit, maybe Albany and Providence.
Lacrosse has their own problems. Amongst other issues, they’ve been jacking up the price. I’ve heard $50 parking and $100 tickets, but there’s other problems, too, as listede here:
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/28/14-factors-lagging-final-four-attendance
As much fun as it would be in the midwest, we are years away from that. The bottom line is that they need to keep the lacrosse finals in the East – Baltimore, Philly, Jersey. In fact, the Big Ten Finals should stay East, too. Plant a flag in Baltimore and have it there for the first 5 years like they are doing with the football and basketball championship games. After that, they can do a year at Rutgers or in DC or NYC or even Penn State.
LikeLike
Nemo,
“If this implies that the NCAA LAX championship would leave the East Coast, I can say it ain’t gonna happen. Too many premier teams on the Coast.”
This year Indy became the first non-eastern site to host a lax regional. It went really well and there’s talk of eventually moving the finals around. It’s the price you pay for growing the sport. You can’t keep all the finals in the east if other areas are starting to be competitive. There’s too much home field advantage that way.
LikeLike
The Confidential getting a little “edgy”
LikeLike
http://mrsec.com/2013/06/sec-schedule-czar-templeton-reveals-domino-effect-that-has-impacted-sec-slates/
The move toward spreading conference games throughout the season to provide better matchups for TV instead of loading ooc up at the beginning as the Pac 12, Big 10 and Big 12 have traditionally done will create some scheduling complications. Schools do ooc independently, but now that’s dependent on the conference schedules. That will make good ooc matchups more difficult. As Mr. SEC mentions in his article, UGA and Missouri have 7 weeks where they can’t meet because of ooc scheduling before even considering any other factors.
LikeLike
Gee, you’d think someone would have noted that issue before. Oh wait, I have. It’s one of the reasons I don’t favor early conference games.
LikeLike
Another national seed goes down. Miss State defeats #6 Virginia to advance to the CWS. #4 LSU is the only national seed to advance so far. Two spots have yet to be filled: #3 Oregon State v. K-State tonight, and #1 UNC v. South Carolina tomorrow afternoon.
LikeLike
While it looks like a seeding disaster at least 14 of the 16 teams were regional top seeds, and the other 2 were seconds.
On the other hand, it does raise the concern about selecting a FB final four. As of now a selection to the CWS would have missed on at least 5 of 8.
LikeLike
On the third hand, with OrSU getting in we are only UNC winning from calling three of the top four. No pressure on you, UNC…
LikeLike
Well, OrSU came back to advance. UNC/SC is scheduled for tomorrow to decide the last spot.
Match-ups:
NCSU vs UNC/SC
#4 LSU vs UCLA
#3 OrSU vs MS St
IN vs UL
LikeLike
I would like to raise a philosophical question, if I may. Recently, there has been some sort of “crowd wisdom” in CFB fan circles that 14 is a number that is too awkward to schedule. The question I have is, barring any other factors, what about 14 that is so awkward to schedule? If 14 is such a bad number, why have three major conferences already have or will have reached that number a year from now? One could argue that 14 is a transitional number to an even number greater than that, but as we’ve seen with the recent news with realignment, the risk was always there that the adding conference could go no further than that at a certain point.
To me, people who are positing this simply is trying to send another message but are being a bit politically correct about it. What they’re trying to say, IMO, is that some teams matter more than others, the latter of which are essentially “junior partners” to them. There is another factor that people overlook when arguing this position, and that is the practice of many states of interfering with the scheduling of some teams to ensure that intrastate rivalries aren’t interrupted. Classic case is South Carolina with Clemson/USCe. While people love seeing major intrastate rivalries, the problem with state legislatures interfering is that they tie the hands of the programs and reduce the flexibility to schedule games that might benefit the program in the long run. Finally, if a conference is willing to go above 12, they must take into consideration that adding two more means a commitment to have those two new members play the rest of the conference within a reasonably short time period. The SEC, apparently, thinks differently or they would not kept that short-sighted practice of having protected crossovers, essentially inadvertently (or intentionally, depending on your POV) creating “conferences within conferences”.
The B1G, love it or hate it, is intending to have all teams play each other at least once within a short time period, starting in 2016. Already, though, there is complaining about some teams not playing certain teams sooner or not seeing certain opponents after a while.
I think the upcoming CFP is going to create more of these tensions within the major conferences because of these same internal issues. Programs who depend greatly on football revenues are much more sensitive about these questions than before. Perhaps with 3 conferences getting to 14, there could well be opportunities for some interesting OOC games that may not have been possible before, if not for the lack of flexibility some programs have due to scheduling practices and political interference in some states.
LikeLike
I would like to raise a philosophical question, if I may. Recently, there has been some sort of “crowd wisdom” in CFB fan circles that 14 is a number that is too awkward to schedule. The question I have is, barring any other factors, what about 14 that is so awkward to schedule?
I don’t understand it either. As a conference grows, it gets harder to ensure that all the members play each other with reasonable frequency. Teams that historically played each other annually may go many years without meeting.
But I don’t understand what’ clumsy about 14 in particular, that would be solved by expanding to an even larger number. If the real complaint is that one would prefer to have stayed at 12 or 10, that ship has sailed.
Anyhow, I like the Big Ten’s 14-team scheduling format better than I liked the 12-team scheduling format. The SEC has elected to allow teams in opposite divisions to go many years without playing one another, but it’s just that: elective. They didn’t have to do that.
To me, people who are positing this simply is trying to send another message but are being a bit politically correct about it. What they’re trying to say, IMO, is that some teams matter more than others, the latter of which are essentially “junior partners” to them.
It may be impolitic to say so, but isn’t it true? No one’s going to kick Minnesota out of the Big Ten, but is there any real doubt that Minnesota is less important to the league’s health and success than Ohio State? Or that Mississippi State is less important to the SEC than Alabama?
There is another factor that people overlook when arguing this position, and that is the practice of many states of interfering with the scheduling of some teams to ensure that intrastate rivalries aren’t interrupted. Classic case is South Carolina with Clemson/USCe.
Clemson and South Carolina have met 105 times since 1902. I’m guessing that neither team feels like they are “forced” by the legislature to play that game. I think the only rivalry like that is Iowa/Iowa State.
Perhaps with 3 conferences getting to 14, there could well be opportunities for some interesting OOC games that may not have been possible before, if not for the lack of flexibility some programs have due to scheduling practices and political interference in some states.
I think it’s the opposite. With conferences going to 9 conference games, there less ability to schedule OOC games and still maintain the 7 home games that most schools want.
LikeLike
There’s no good scheduling solution at 14 only less bad ones. It was a reason to avoid 14 to begin with. That said, 16 (or more) isn’t going to improve things. At least the Big Ten was able to get a set-up where they play most the other division 45% of the time for most teams (outside of Indiana/Purdue).
LikeLike
Transic,
“I would like to raise a philosophical question, if I may.”
How dare you bring up something that might require thought and reflection?
“Recently, there has been some sort of “crowd wisdom” in CFB fan circles that 14 is a number that is too awkward to schedule. The question I have is, barring any other factors, what about 14 that is so awkward to schedule?”
Short answer:
Nothing.
Long answer:
Nothing about 14 is hard to schedule. It’s better than 12 in one way since everyone gets 3 home and 3 road division games. It’s worse than 12 because crossover rivalries get lost. I think the biggest issue with 14 is that the division splits often leave you needing locked crossover games to maintain important rivalries. This means very infrequent games against many conference mates.
Some people think that 16 will allow for rotating pods which will be a panacea for all that is wrong with 14. Unfortunately, they’re wrong. First, pods work with 14 (2 pods of 3, 2 pods of 4). Second, it’s hard to keep all the important rivalries in pods so you have to lock some games. Third, more teams still means you spread the games out pretty thin. It’s just that by having fewer locked games on the schedule you can play the rest a little more frequently.
Math:
Divisions:
12 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 5 x 100%, 6 x 50%
12 teams, 8 games, 1 locked – 6 x 100%, 5 x 40%
14 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 6 x 100%, 7 x 29%
14 teams, 8 games, 1 locked – 7 x 100%, 6 x 14%
16 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 7 x 100%, 8 x 13%
16 teams, 8 games, 1 locked – 8 x 100%, 7 x 0%
—
12 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 5 x 100%, 6 x 67%
12 teams, 9 games, 1 locked – 6 x 100%, 5 x 50%
14 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 6 x 100%, 7 x 43%
14 teams, 9 games, 1 locked – 7 x 100%, 6 x 33%
16 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 7 x 100%, 8 x 25%
16 teams, 9 games, 1 locked – 8 x 100%, 7 x 14%
You can see the big drop in game frequency that adding teams causes. This is especially problematic because many leagues want to stick with 8 games. Eight games makes for an equal home/road split in conference and allows more freedom in the OOC schedule, especially for teams with locked OOC rivalries. 12 teams playing 8 games play their opponents more often than 14 teams playing 9 games do, so there is still a loss of frequency even with the extra game.
Pods:
12 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 2 x 100%, 9 x 67%
12 teams, 8 games, 3 locked (1 in each pod) – 5 x 100%, 6 x 50%
14 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 2 x 100%, 8 x 50%, 3 x 67% or
14 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 3 x 100%, 6 x 50%, 4 x 50%
14 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 2 x 100%, 8 x 50%, 3 x 100% or
14 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 3 x 100%, 6 x 50%, 4 x 75%
14 teams, 9 games, 3 locked – 5 x 100%, 6 x 50%, 2 x 50% or
14 teams, 9 games, 3 locked – 6 x 100%, 4 x 50%, 3 x 33%
16 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 3 x 100%, 8 x 50%, 4 x 25% (anchor pods) or
16 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 3 x 100%, 12 x 42% (equal rotation)
16 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 3 x 100%, 12 x 50% (either way)
16 teams, 9 games, 3 locked – 6 x 100%, 9 x 33% (equal rotation)
Pods increase the minimum frequency with which you play teams by reducing the number of locked games. 16 teams allows for 4 pods of 4 which under equal rotation means you can stay at 8 games and be no worse off than you were at 12 teams in divisions if you can get the pods to keep the rivalries. Many can’t conceive of using pods in any way other than equal size groups rotating equally, but there are multiple variations on that theme. Thus, they don’t understand they could get the same benefit at 14 teams.
LikeLike
As a brief follow-up, there is some awkwardness in many set ups. But 14 can exacerbate it because each division has 7 teams. When you get into scheduling teams 3 out of 7 years, it’s always a little clunky in the minds of fans.
Sample:
Look at OSU’s potential crossover schedule ignoring parity-based scheduling.
PU – 33% = 1 out of 3 years
Others – 44% = 4 out of 9 years
1. PU, NE, WI
2. IA, MN, NW
3. IL, NE, WI
4. PU, IA, MN
5. NW, IL, NE
6. WI, IA, MN
7. PU, NW, IL
8. NE, WI, IA
9. MN, NW, IL
It works just fine, clearly, but it sounds awkward and is a little awkward in terms of game spacing. People prefer nice even numbers, not rotations that take 18 years to balance out.
12 teams makes for an easier rotation and so do 4 team pods.
LikeLike
Some people think that 16 will allow for rotating pods which will be a panacea for all that is wrong with 14. Unfortunately, they’re wrong. First, pods work with 14 (2 pods of 3, 2 pods of 4). Second, it’s hard to keep all the important rivalries in pods so you have to lock some games.
Pods can fail by locking too little; they can also fail by locking too much.
Consider the case where Florida State joins the Big Ten. (I am not suggesting this is likely in the near term, only giving an illustration.) The Seminoles have very little history with any current Big Ten member. Aside from future member Maryland (23 meetings), their next most frequent opponent in the league is Nebraska (8 meetings, but none since 1993).
Most of the league would probably want equal access to Florida for recruiting. But in a pod scenario, three or four teams get disproportionate access, while everyone else sees them only 1/3rd or 1/2 the time.
In a flat structure without divisions or pods, assuming rule changes to permit this and still play a championship game, everyone else in the league could see FSU equally often, or according to whatever frequency was desired, without the need to lock a fixed number of opponents.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
Pods can fail by locking too little;
Agreed, obviously.
they can also fail by locking too much.
I don’t really agree with this because pods lock fewer games than any other system that fits the current CCG rules. I do agree you could make bad pods and lock the wrong games, though.
Consider the case where Florida State joins the Big Ten. (I am not suggesting this is likely in the near term, only giving an illustration.) The Seminoles have very little history with any current Big Ten member. Aside from future member Maryland (23 meetings), their next most frequent opponent in the league is Nebraska (8 meetings, but none since 1993).
Most of the league would probably want equal access to Florida for recruiting. But in a pod scenario, three or four teams get disproportionate access, while everyone else sees them only 1/3rd or 1/2 the time.
In a flat structure without divisions or pods, assuming rule changes to permit this and still play a championship game, everyone else in the league could see FSU equally often, or according to whatever frequency was desired, without the need to lock a fixed number of opponents.
Emphasis mine.
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? That’s a huge assumption to make since the rule hasn’t changed. If the rules changed, this whole discussion would be meaningless. Nobody would have divisions and there would be no talk about 14 being awkward. 14 is only a potential issue if divisions are required, and divisions would only be required if that rule doesn’t change.
LikeLike
@Brian
This site presents an interesting scheduling scheme for: Divisions: 14 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 6 x 100%, 4 x 50%, 3 x 33% (excluding Indiana / Purdue):
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/5/8/4304780/big-ten-parity-scheduling-predictions-2016
LikeLike
I saw it the last time you linked it. It’s one of several options.
But parity-based scheduling in the B10 is a needless complication in the discussion at hand which is looking at 14 teams in general.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, if there is only one locked cross-over (Indiana and Purdue) then it does become complicated.
LikeLike
That’s also an unnecessary complication for the general discussion. No other conference has discussed locking just 1 game or trying parity-based scheduling. That’s all B10 specific.
Locking 1 specific game also doesn’t really have to change anything.
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 56%, 4 x 33% for all but IN and PU
9 games = 7 x 100%, 6 x 33% for IN and PU
Without locked game:
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 67%, 4 x 25%
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 60%, 4 x 30%
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 56%, 4 x 33%
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 50%, 4 x 38%
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 47%, 4 x 40%
9 games = 6 x 100%, 7 x 43%
LikeLike
Yes, I concur with both of your main points that: (1) the issue of having only one locked cross-over was not part of the original (general) discussion of this thread, and (2) this issue is also not awkward because simple solutions are available.
But I again refer to the other Internet site to supplement your most recent reply as follows:
9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 56%, 4 x 33% for all but IN and PU, or
9 games = 6 x 100%, 4 x 50%, 3 x 33% for all but IN and PU; and
9 games = 7 x 100%, 6 x 33% for IN and PU
And these are all mathematically viable options.
Also, it now seems that “parity scheduling” is a dirty word among the Big Ten faithful. Maybe it is simply another way of saying “if we have only one locked cross-over to preserve the Indiana and Purdue rivalry, then unbalanced scheduling becomes necessary to keep the scheduling simple (to minimize quibbling, haggling and rejiggering), and if we need to have unbalanced scheduling, then it is better to have historically strong teams play other historically strong teams with greater frequency, rather than vice versa”.
LikeLike
Big Ten Fan,
“But I again refer to the other Internet site to supplement your most recent reply as follows:”
How many times do I have to say I’ve read it?
“9 games = 6 x 100%, 3 x 56%, 4 x 33% for all but IN and PU, or
9 games = 6 x 100%, 4 x 50%, 3 x 33% for all but IN and PU; and
9 games = 7 x 100%, 6 x 33% for IN and PU
And these are all mathematically viable options.”
Yes, but irrelevant. My examples showed some of the options that would fit the parity-based model Delany mentioned (playing 3 teams more often but once every 4 years at a minimum). The point was to show that the case with IN/PU locked actually fit in with one of the easy models anyway. The last one was the option without parity-based scheduling purely for reference purposes.
“Also, it now seems that “parity scheduling” is a dirty word among the Big Ten faithful.”
It always was among some of us. It still isn’t among others.
“Maybe it is simply another way of saying “if we have only one locked cross-over to preserve the Indiana and Purdue rivalry, then unbalanced scheduling becomes necessary to keep the scheduling simple”
But it isn’t necessary.
“and if we need to have unbalanced scheduling, then it is better to have historically strong teams play other historically strong teams with greater frequency, rather than vice versa”.
But it isn’t better.
LikeLike
The assumption here is that the Big Ten will not double-down on Indiana and Purdue and that these schools would have a cross-over schedule that fits this pattern (using Purdue as example):
@Indiana, Michigan, @Rutgers
Indiana, @Ohio State, Maryland
@Indiana, Penn State, @Michigan State
Indiana, @Michigan, Rutgers
@Indiana, Ohio State, @Maryland
Indiana, @Penn State, Michigan State
If this assumption is correct, then all other schools need to have their cross-over games mapped into this calendar space. This limits the number of options that satisfy this criteria without being awkward.
LikeLike
In the spirit of Abraham Lincoln (“with malice toward none”):
Examples were provided above for cross-over schedules of Ohio State and Purdue. I now provide a third example for a cross-over schedule of Nebraska.
1. MI, OSU, IN
2. PSU, RU, MD
3. MSU, MI, OSU
4. PSU, RU, IN
5. MD, MSU, MI
6. OSU, PSU, RU
7. MD, MSU, IN
8. MI, OSU, PSU
9. RU, MD, MSU
Some of these games occupy the same calendar space (row & column) as the previous examples.
However, the previous example has Ohio State scheduled to play Nebraska in the calendar space as represented by Row 5 and Column 3. However, this does not map into the calendar space above which has Ohio State scheduled in the calendar space as represented by Row 6 and Column 1.
Of course, these three random examples could be rejiggered to avoid such scheduling conflicts. But does this rejiggering then map into the calendar spaces of the other 11 schools?
With reference to the beginning of this thread:
“The question I have is, barring any other factors, what about 14 that is so awkward to schedule?”
The conclusion here is that if only one cross-over game is locked (in this case, Indiana and Purdue), and if the scheduling scheme for these 2 schools follows the pattern of my previous post (to ensure that all student athletes play all other schools at least once in four years) then the calendar space for cross-over games (as above) for the other schools should have at least one column (as above) that has the same pattern to allow mapping into all other calendars.
(In my beginning is my end.)
LikeLike
My mistake: Purdue is already scheduled to play OSU in Row 1 and Column 1.
When this mistake is corrected, the result is:
Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana
Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Maryland, Michigan State, Indiana
Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana
Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Maryland, Michigan State, Indiana
1. IN, OSU, MI
2. PSU, RU, MD
3. MSU, OSU, MI
4. IN, PSU, RU
5. MD, MSU, OSU
6. MI, PSU, RU
7. IN, MD, MSU
8. OSU, MI, MSU
9. RU, MD, MSU
Brian, You win this one.
Touche!
LikeLike
But, Big Ten Fan: “Maybe it is simply another way of saying “if we have only one locked cross-over to preserve the Indiana and Purdue rivalry, then unbalanced scheduling becomes necessary to keep the scheduling simple (to minimize quibbling, haggling and rejiggering)”
… haggling and rejiggering could well be a lot of what the real scheduling *consists of*. I assume you could make football “simpler” by changing the rules to minimize blocking (and it kind of does in the sport of rugby league, where its “shepherding” and is a penalty), but for most football fans, those complexities are part of the point.
This gets back to the bias of online commentators toward systems being 50% simpler to describe actually being 50% simpler to implement, when in reality, whether its a lockstep mechanical process or an ad hoc approach, no matter how you work out which schools play cross division each year, working out the weekly calendar is going to take a majority of the time.
LikeLike
BruceMcF: I cannot speak on behalf of Brian, but my comments refer to his earlier post: “It works just fine, clearly, but it sounds awkward and is a little awkward in terms of game spacing”. I was sceptical of the clarity of this claim as it relates to other schools, so I tested it and it now appears clear to me. The principle here seems to be if each division school plays the same sequence of cross-division schools, with the locked schools also placed in their proper sequences, then all games successfully map into all other school calendars. (This may be a case that something is so obvious that it is not obvious.) Actually I am now enjoying the humor of this discussion: My mistake originated because I began the sequence with “MI, OSU …” whereas he began with the sequence “OSU, MI …”. I guess this shows our respective loyalties.
LikeLike
Finally, if a conference is willing to go above 12, they must take into consideration that adding two more means a commitment to have those two new members play the rest of the conference within a reasonably short time period. The SEC, apparently, thinks differently or they would not kept that short-sighted practice of having protected crossovers, essentially inadvertently (or intentionally, depending on your POV) creating “conferences within conferences.”
Much of this can be attributed to the SEC staying at 8 conference games, although it may have to expand to 9 to satisfy viewership for its new network. (Were it not for the five games each year with Notre Dame, that might also be true for the ACC.) Keep in mind, however, that for many years, the 10-team SEC played only 6 conference games a year with several protected rivalries, leading some conference members to rarely, if ever, meet.
LikeLike
There was a time when the # of conference games was very elective. LSU on occasion only played 5 conference games back when they were still playing Tulane every year. And some were playing 7 when others were playing 6.
LikeLike
I tried to add this supporting example for you last night:
LSU and UGA didn’t play at all from 1954-1977. They only played twice in the ’70s and twice in the 80’s. After 81 years in the SEC, they’ve only played 28 times.
9 of those have been in the 15 year BCS era.
13 came before 1954.
Only 6 game happened from 1954-1997 (44 years)
LikeLike
And UGA and Tennessee hardly played prior to divisions. If you have ever driven to Knoxville from Georgia other than via I-75, you would understand. They have only played 42 times, 23 of those since 1988. They didn’t play at all from 1938-1967 and only 8 times from 1926-1987.
UGA played Ole Miss every year from 1966-2002, but only 4 times since then when the SEC went from 2 locked cross-division games to 1.
LikeLike
In line with that, 3 of UGA’s top 8 most played opponents either aren’t in the SEC or had most of those games played when they weren’t. Clemson was #4 on the list back when the SEC expanded to 12. UGA hasn’t had room on the schedule for them much since then.
1. Auburn 116
2. Georgia Tech 107
3. Florida 90
4. Vanderbilt 74
5. Kentucky 66
6. Alabama 66
7. South Carolina 65
8. Clemson 62
9. Ole Miss 45
10. Tennessee 42
This makes scheduling and divisions difficult in a conference like the SEC.
LikeLike
Keep in mind, however, that for many years, the 10-team SEC played only 6 conference games a year with several protected rivalries, leading some conference members to rarely, if ever, meet.
Well, considering that kind of history, it was never truly a “real” conference to begin with. Perhaps the schools that comprise the SEC, B12 and maybe the ACC should think about forming a loose confederation amongst each other. Then schools can have more freedom to pick and choose who they’d like to play, since some them think that playing certain conference foes is beneath their dignity.
LikeLike
Well, considering that kind of history, it was never truly a “real” conference to begin with.
That would probably come as a huge surprise to them. Is there someplace where these rules are written down?
LikeLike
My point is what the SEC is may depend on the situation. The fans may like to scream “SEC!” but that’s more of a defensive mechanism. When it comes to actually playing the teams within the conference, it seems parochial interests get a much higher priority. UGA-Auburn and Ala-Tenn may have history but does that history trump conference cohesion? Otherwise, why wouldn’t Aub-Ala switch to the East division and avoid having to protect those games in the first place? I don’t live there so I don’t know. What I do know is that the B1G is making a best effort to have all of the football teams play each other within a reasonable time period. Some would prefer “like for like” match-ups for scheduling purposes, otherwise called parity scheduling. I think if done right the B1G can have conference cohesion with 14 members. It’s politics that’s the real issue.
LikeLike
The thing is, though, when you look at how the parochial interests connect together, its a tangled mess, with lots of schools who are not connected with strong ties to each other connected to schools with strong ties to each other. From my seven years in Knoxville, Vols-Vandy is an in-state thing. Vols-Kentucky is a basketball thing. Vols-Bama is a “That Third Saturday in September”. Vols-Gators is a big game.
I don’t recall Vols-Auburn as a thing, but then Auburn-Bama is very strong rivalry, so UTK can’t walk away from Auburn because they can’t walk away from Bama and Bama can’t walk away from Auburn. And of course LSU-Bama is a thing, and and LSU – Ole Miss is a historic rivalry, and of course Ole Miss – Miss State is an in-state rivalry. And of course when you have Bama and therefore Auburn, then you have the Auburn – Georgia rivalry, which is a real old historic rivalry ~ “the oldest in the deep south”.
And of course Vols-Gators leads even more directly to Georgia, since Gators-Bulldogs is a rivalry.
Seems like most of the SEC schools would be within two degrees of separation to half or more of the SEC schools.
LikeLike
So you’re saying that what stops Aub-Bama from going East is Vols-Vandy or LSU-Bama?
E: Aub/Bama/Vols/Dawgs/Gators/Wildcats/Roosters
W: Vandy/Midwest Tigers/Aggie/Bayou Bengals/Rebs/Hawgs/Dawgs
Protected games would be LSU/Bama and Vols/Vandy. I would propose Mizzou/Florida (recruiting benefit for UM), A&M/UK (recruiting benefit for UK), Ole Miss/S. Carolina (Civil War legacy), MSU/Georgia (Battle of Bulldogs) and Arky/Auburn as the other crossovers. The new East would be Murderer’s Row (but folks there don’t mind that, right?), however, the new West wouldn’t be a slouch, either. Mizzou and Arky could become better over time with greater access to Texas and Florida. Vanderbilt would be better off beating the Mississippi schools. LSU-A&M would more likely be the game that would decide the division title. Mizzou-Arky would be a heated rivalry game over time.
LikeLike
“E: Aub/Bama/Vols/Dawgs/Gators/Wildcats/Roosters
W: Vandy/Midwest Tigers/Aggie/Bayou Bengals/Rebs/Hawgs/Dawgs”
Which Dawgs are in the East and which Dawgs are in the West?
Anyway, now you’ve gone and split LSU/Auburn, LSU/Bama AND LSU/Florida. Having LSU/Auburn and LSU/Bama in division is what has allowed locking LSU/Florida.
Of course, just like the Big Ten, different generations will have different feelings about different rivalries, and traditionalists will “want ’em all”.
LikeLike
“Which Dawgs are in the East and which Dawgs are in the West?”
I didn’t realize Mississippi State had a different nickname. 😉
Anyway, it is interesting to watch how the SEC deals with 14. I’m somewhat skeptical that they have the right idea about it.
LikeLike
As an LSU fan, I’d be fine with swapping Auburn and Alabama to the east and moving Vandy and Mizzou to the west, and eliminating OOD rivalries. Auburn/UGA and Bama/Tenn are big games, but they aren’t bigger than the league, unlike the B12 with Neb/Okla. Having permanent crossovers just don’t work for 14 team leagues. I fully expect the SEC to go to a nine game schedule in 2016, but even then I’d still be opposed to permanent crossovers. While LSU doesn’t have a lot of history with UGA, Tennessee, and South Carolina, when those teams are good its a BIG game. Without any permanent crossovers, a team gets 4 home and homes (8 games) every 14 years with teams from the other division. I could live with that. All that said, if Bama and Auburn moved east, there would be no need for permanent crossovers, but the East would be tougher than the West.
LikeLike
The east would be a killer. It would be a disaster for almost all of them.
I’d say those rivalry games are what make the SEC, not the league that makes the rivalry. Its the fierceness of those ties that creates fan interest and intensity and generates national interest. If you kill those, you kill part of what makes the league great. LSU had Florida and originally Kentucky also. Those weren’t as big to LSU.
Georgia had Auburn and Ole Miss. The Georgia fans I know really liked the Ole Miss game. Younger ones have probably forgotten. That’s a loss.
LikeLike
As a Bama fan I don’t see any of the east teams going for moving Bama and Auburn to the East. That division would absolutely brutal. As a fan I kind of would like it though. But the SEC would probably need assurances that the SEC champ would almost be guaranteed a spot in the playoff, even if an East team won it with 2 losses. It would definitely create some major matchups during the season.
But as far as permanent cross over games, as long as the divisions stay the way they are, we will continue to have them. Bama, UT, UGA, and AU are not the only teams that want to keep them. All but LSU, aTm, & USCe voted to keep them (for various reasons). But now that Arky & Mizzou will switch to each other’s cross-divisional games, there is too big of a voting block for it go away (not to mention that Ole Miss/Vandy & UK/Miss St want to keep tham as well, along with UF). Alan may not think that the Bama/UT and UGA/AU games are big enough to keep them, but the fans of the schools would be outraged if they were to lose them. There has been far too many rivalries that have been sacrificed for the sake of expansion. There is no need to continue that trend in the SEC. Rivalries is one of the parts of the college game that set it apart from the NFL. There is no need to kill rivalries when it isn’t needed IMHO.
LikeLike
bamatab – how about Spurrier’s suggestion that Bama/Tenn and Auburn/UGA schedule each other as an OOC game in the years when they wouldn’t be in the OOD rotation?
LikeLike
Alan – I guess theoretically we could play them OOC. SEC teams used to play other SEC teams OOC all of the time. But that practice has been dead for a long time also. I don’t know if fans and administrators can wrap their heads around that concept these days. Plus I just don’t see there being enough votes to force it. The last vote of 11 to 3, and I don’t see that changing.
LikeLike
1. I think a lot of people are of the mistaken belief that you can’t do pods with 14. I also think they are mistaken in believing pods are a good thing.
2. Not all games are equal. Auburn and Georgia have played more times than Alabama and Auburn or Georgia and Georgia Tech. Preserving these games is a good thing. The reality is that almost none of the fans of SEC schools care about Arkansas and they’ve been there over 20 years. Maybe LSU. New member A&M might. That’s about it. What that says is a negative comment on these expansions. A lot of teams cared about Arkansas in the SWC.
3. Some of the scheduling complaints have to do with the larger numbers, which gets exacerbated by expanding further. For the SEC, most of the school’s swimming facilities are not large enough to handle the extra teams for the conference meet. Schools are concerned about giving the 2 or 3 schools who can handle it an advantage. Same for other meets such as tennis.
4. One legitimate concern about 14 for football is that you have uneven numbers in the divisions. That means it is a little more difficult to schedule. You have to have the east school and west school who are scheduled to play that year off from division play the same week. That is a little easier if you can schedule 2, 4, 6 or 8 in cross-division play the same week.
LikeLike
1. I think a lot of people are of the mistaken belief that you can’t do pods with 14.
I’m not sure who’s mistaken about that. The fact that you can do them is fairly obvious. It just hasn’t come up very much, because pods are a more complicated solution that you don’t need with 14 teams.
I also think they are mistaken in believing pods are a good thing.
I, for one, have never been a fan of the idea, though they may be a necessary evil if the rule requiring divisions for a championship game is not repealed.
The reality is that almost none of the fans of SEC schools care about Arkansas and they’ve been there over 20 years. Maybe LSU. New member A&M might. That’s about it. What that says is a negative comment on these expansions. A lot of teams cared about Arkansas in the SWC.
I doubt that Arkansas is sad about having left the SWC. And although parts of the SEC may not care about Arkansas, I don’t think they mind the championship game that Arkansas’s arrival allowed them to play.
3. Some of the scheduling complaints have to do with the larger numbers, which gets exacerbated by expanding further. For the SEC, most of the school’s swimming facilities are not large enough to handle the extra teams for the conference meet. Schools are concerned about giving the 2 or 3 schools who can handle it an advantage. Same for other meets such as tennis.
If the SEC believes expansion would be good for football, the fact that it’s suboptimal for swimming and tennis won’t get in their way.
4. One legitimate concern about 14 for football is that you have uneven numbers in the divisions. That means it is a little more difficult to schedule. You have to have the east school and west school who are scheduled to play that year off from division play the same week. That is a little easier if you can schedule 2, 4, 6 or 8 in cross-division play the same week.
Is it really that hard? It may seem complicated to us, for whom this isn’t a full-time job. For the employees of the conference who do this, I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s a burden. It’s certainly not enough that it would have any effect on the decision whether to go to 14 teams, or to remain there.
LikeLike
On the subject of 14, MHver3 (you know the guy that made The Dude seem reasonable) is saying on Twitter that 2 schools from either the PAC, SEC or B1G are so unhappy about being in a 14 team conference they are reaching out to the Big XII about membership.
Check it out if you want a laugh (or don’t since I pretty much summed up everything)
LikeLike
Did the PAC add a couple schools last night? Who?
LikeLike
Whoops. My bad. He said there were two disgruntled schools from a “real conference” (which he clarified did not include the ACC) that had reached out to the Big XII and someone else. He then said that “no one” likes 14.
His writing is really scatter shot (shocking I know) so it is hard to paraphrase.
LikeLike
Check their if you want to try and decipher what he is writing.
LikeLike
there
LikeLike
MSU and ?
LikeLike
Illinois. They don’t like being stuck in the Western division without annual games against Indiana and infrequent visits from Ohio St. and Michigan.
LikeLike
Perhaps a couple from the powerhouse MWC? Or the Aack?
LikeLike
(They don’t have to be in a fourteen member conference to not like fourteen 🙂 )
LikeLike
Sure ~ you could easily imagine the Acck or the MWC moving to 14 in order to justify a theory that two of their schools bolt to escape the horrors of playing in a 14 school conference. At least, could easily imagine that if you were MHver3, who seems to have the internal brain signal/noise setting on on pattern detection set down in the “hear voices in rainstorms” level.
LikeLike
Academic Advisers for Athletics Grapple With UNC Controversy
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/academic-advisers-for-athletics-grapple-with-effects-of-unc-controversy/33189
LikeLike
I think the guy in the article is right, Emmert wants the UNC issue to go away. He doesn’t want to deal with it. Academic fraud with “student”-athletes is not something he is interested in. Seniors getting shirts from agents and administrators who fail to report pedophiles who used to work at the school are what he thinks the NCAA should be focusing on.
LikeLike
There was an article last week that UNC had paid public relations consultants half a million on how to deal with the academic scandal.
I’d give them some free advice. Fire a bunch of people and take the problem seriously. Consider shutting down the department. That would serve them a lot better than their current approach which makes it look like the only important thing to them is keeping the basketball team out of trouble.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22385155/unc-emails-indicate-academically-corrupt-environment
CBS has more about the issue since the local paper finally got some emails released (took a year) that make things look even worse.
LikeLike
Frank’s Q&A has been posted at Off Tackle Empire:
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/6/11/4416274/b1g-2013-expansion-b1g-style-frank-the-tank-takes-your-questions
LikeLike
“Paging Andy. Andy, please pick up the Mizzou-branded courtesy phone.”
LikeLike
Now you’ve done it!
LikeLike
Waiting for Andy’s mental breakdown over Frank’s responses in today’s q&a. Frank basically told it like it is, KU appears to be next for B1G expansion. The real question is who is the partner?
LikeLike
If it is Oklahoma, then the arc formed from Urbana-Champaign to Iowa City to Lincoln to Lawrence to Norman shall henceforth be known as the Andy Crescent.
(Same applies if its Kansas and UVA/UNC/Duke/GT/FSU/Iowa State/ND/Other)
LikeLike
That’s funny.
LikeLike
Hope all of you enjoy that. Thanks to Brian in particular for providing a lot of different questions (which I know he has posted in the comments here, too).
LikeLike
Bravo, Frank the Tank!
LikeLike
@Frank- Serious Q: Can you clarify whether the information in your answers is from your learned review, study, and coverage of realignment over the past few years (that might be classified as opinion/analysis) vs the information you acquired via contacts/conversations (which would be more reportage)?
For example, when you stated that Kansas was the most likely of the schools listed by the questioner to join the B1G, was that your analysis/opinion of the situation, or is that the product of gumshoe reporting/contacts within the B1G?
Your opinions and analysis are top notch, which is why many of us have read since 2010, so don’t take this question as a slight toward your body of work.
LikeLike
Not a problem. I didn’t know if twitter was lighting up with questions, so I tried to hit a variety of relevant questions to make sure there’d be something to talk about. Besides, we rarely get to hear answers from you on many of these smaller points.
LikeLike
Looks like Frank is trolling me. Yes, the B1G passed over Mizzou on multiple occasions. Once in 1991 or whatever when they opted to stay at 11, and then again in 2010 when they went with Nebraska. Also, I suppose you could count every day between those day as an additional rejection, so in that sense there have been lots of rejections.
But as the B1G sat at 12 while waiting on Notre Dame, Mizzou left for the SEC. From that point on Mizzou was no longer an option for the B1G. All talk to the contrary is pointless trolling and lies. When the B1G expanded most recently, they didn’t reject Mizzou because Mizzou was not available. Might they have reject Mizzou had Mizzou been available? Maybe, maybe not. We’ll never know.
What I just said above is common sense. It’s so obvious that it’s almost ridiculous that I even have to say it. It’s kind of sad that Frank is so desperate for clicks that he has to make inflamatory misleading trolling statements like that. I’m sure it’ll get him a little extra attention though. But then he is an Illini fan and I’m sure he’s a little butthurt right now considering Mizzou has kicked his team’s ass 10 straight times combined in football and basketball. Oh well.
As for Kansas joining the B1G, I’d put the chances of that at less than 1%. If that ever happens I swear I’ll never post on here again. But don’t worry, it won’t.
LikeLike
@Andy: Frank wrote the following:
What about that is incorrect? You agree that the Big Ten passed on Missouri on multiple occasions, and you agree that no SEC school has any incentive to leave. It sounds like we all agree he nailed it.
LikeLike
What is incorrect? He said “the Big Ten has continuously shown that it doesn’t want Mizzou” That is incorrect, or at leas tmisleading. An accurate and clear way to state that would be “The Big Ten repeatedly showed tha they did not want Missouri as school #12. They repeatedly rejected Missouri for this spot. We will never know if the Big Ten would have taken Missouri for spot #13, 14, 15, or 16 because Missouri was already in the SEC by the time the Big Ten got to that point”. His way of saying it is at best misleading and basically inaccurate.
LikeLike
What you always seem to conveniently forget, B10 knew of Missouri’s interest and yet they let them join the SEC.
LikeLike
I didn’t forget about that at all. At the time Missouri joined the SEC, the B1G was waiting on Notre Dame. They were still thinking big. They weren’t going to expand until they knew what Notre Dame was going to do. They weren’t going to rush things and so they couldn’t take Missouri at that time. Later on, after Missouri was off the market, Notre Dame joined the ACC. At that point they decided to go ahead and expand with plan “B”. Missouri was no longer available so they couldn’t be a part of any 2 or 4 team expansion by the B1G at that time. So they just went with Maryland and Rutgers. We’ll never know if the B1G post-Notre Dame would have added Missouri as #13, 14, 15, or 16.
LikeLike
Frank worries about driving clicks? Does he own offtackleempire.com now (where the “offending” statement appears)?
LikeLike
Yeah, look at all the ad space he sells on this blog. It’s a cash cow. He can pretty much quit lawyering and just live off of this.
LikeLike
It is obvious to you that Frank is “trolling you” in repeating a view that he has stated previously, and regarding which he did not accept your impassioned and long winded disagreement …
… uhm, no, he disagrees with you.
Rehashing your arguments that he’s already responded to is not really “proof” of anything, since not accepting all of your arguments when you made them previously is part and parcel of his holding to his original view.
LikeLike
Besides that, readers of OTE have probably never heard of Andy. Frank is just stating his oft-repeated view of the situation. It’s informed speculation, but so is the whole post.
LikeLike
Actuallly, when I said we’ll never know if the B1G would have taken Missouri had they been available during the latest example and it was unfair to suggest otherwise, Frank quickly chimed in and said I was right. He seems to have changed his mind later on for reasons unknown.
Of course I was joking about the trolling me and driving clicks thing. I was teasing him. I often tease people. I’ve done it on this forum dozens of times.
LikeLike
*bah, latest expansion, not latest example. I hate that this forum doesn’t have an edit feature. I make way many typos.
LikeLike
Having Tecumseh Sherman as your logo is sure to play well with SEC fans.
I think FTT was spot on with his answers. Again, I believe the CBS article was accurate when it named the potential targets as being Kansas, Oklahoma, UVA/UNC/GT/FSU/Vandy. The first three being the most likely. (Supposedly) the B1G feels betrayed by GT, so that ship may have sailed. Then again, off to Bilderberg!
LikeLike
I’ve never taken any talk of GT to the B1G seriously, but what did GT do to betray B1G’s trust?
LikeLike
My Bilderberg reference was in regard to the (unsubstantiated) rumor that GT backed out at the last minute, causing Virginia to do the same, thereby thwarting Delany’s domino strategy. His last desperate appeal being along the lines of …’now or never’.
Probably should be given the same credence as ‘the Dude’s’ revelations.
LikeLike
GT is the one initiating interest in the B10, not the other way around. B10 initially wasn’t interested but Delaney led a campaign to drum up interest as he sees Atlanta as a pretty critical market to break into. GT is the top team in that market, yes above UG…
B10 though probably only ever saw them as a #16 to a team like Virginia or NC.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“GT is the top team in that market, yes above UG…”
That would be news to the local media and residents of Atlanta. UGA has better coverage on TV, radio and in the newspaper. UGA claims 80,000 alumni in Atlanta, and they have a lot more fans that never attended. GT claims 30,000 alumni in Atlanta and only 55,000 in all of GA.
LikeLike
I’ve been to a couple of UGA/GT games in Atlanta and the Bulldog fans were 40-50% in GT’s own stadium. Georgia Tech is definitely #1 between North Avenue and 10th St. west of I-75 and east of Northside Drive. But all of Atlanta, no.
LikeLike
They probably get most of Tech Square now, too.
LikeLike
Common Census Sports is the one who dished out this info, not a great source but GT does do pretty well in its home market.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
LikeLike
Bullet and I both live in Atlanta. CCS and Silver are wrong. UGA wins the Atlanta market easily. I’d suggest that selection bias (who chooses to go to their site to take the survey) is at work here. It probably also factors into SIlver’s numbers based on web searches. There’s no way GT has more fans than UGA overall or in Atlanta specifically.
LikeLike
GLS – In 1859, the Col. Wm. T. Sherman was appointed the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy, which was later re-named LSU. Col. Sherman resigned his commission from LSU in April of 1861.
LikeLike
While in Savannah, I had heard that Sherman had gifted the cannons that fired the first shots at
Sumter to LSU, but didn’t know the connection. Very interesting. I’m a big civil war buff and facts like that make my day.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9364432/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-deal-2018
We’re stuck with Delany until 2018 at least.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9364692/smaller-conferences-look-add-bowl-games-sources
The Group of 5 conferences are looking at starting a bunch of bowls to play against each other. Nine locations are under consideration so far, and that’s not counting the Pizza Bowl moving outdoors.
LikeLike
The multipurpose National Stadium in the Bahamas has a capacity of 15,000. So while a multipurpose stadium with the track between the field and the crowd is a less than ideal environment, with the limited capacity it would be a lot easier to make it look full on TV for a Go5 bowl game. Plus an, eg, MAC recruiter would be in a lot better shape spinning a tale of bowl trips to Florida and the Bahamas versus bowl trips to Detroit and Boise.
LikeLike
It’d be a real pain in the butt to get passports for everyone, though. All players in the conferences affiliated would have to get them in advance because you wouldn’t have time to get them after the season and before the bowl. It’s also pretty expensive, although I think you could use NCAA or school money to pay for it.
LikeLike
IIRC, wasn’t there a bowl game for a few years in Bautista-era Cuba?
LikeLike
The Bacardi Bowl was played 7 times from 1907-1946. There were also bowls in Japan.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130611/conference-realignment-report-card/?sct=uk_t11_a0
Andy Staples grades realignment for each school 3 years after Delany kicked the bee hive.
A – TAMU
B+ – TCU, NE, ND
B – UL, Pitt, Syracuse
B- – UMD, Utah
C – CO, MO, WV
D – RU
Emphasis mine below.
NE:
Just as TCU fits comfortably into the Big 12, Nebraska feels as if it has always been part of the Big Ten. (Except when people make TV segments about Big Ten legend Tommie Frazier; that just feels weird.) Culturally, the Cornhuskers always looked and acted like a Big Ten program. Still, it took until 2010 for the school and league to finally make it official.
Nebraska’s football program has won one division title (2012) and competed for another (2011), and the Cornhuskers look poised to compete for the Legends Division title again in 2013. When the league goes to an East-West divisional alignment in football, Nebraska should always be competitive in a division that includes Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin.
If Nebraska and Oklahoma could somehow find a way to play an annual out-of-conference game, I’d bump this move to an A-plus. That was the best game in the Big 8 and pretty much the only thing anyone misses about Nebraska being in the Big 12. With the playoff coming, it might be worth it to both schools. Oklahoma has never been scared to play anyone. Neither has Nebraska. So let’s make it happen every year.
UMD:
Maryland needed to switch leagues because it needed money. The athletic department in College Park does not receive a subsidy from its cash-strapped university, so Maryland accepted an invitation to the league that, within five years, should be generating more money than any other.
What did the Big Ten get? It hopes it gains a foothold in the District of Columbia and Baltimore television markets, making the Big Ten Network even more valuable. That is going to depend on how cable companies view subscribers’ attachment to Maryland. If the Big Ten Network starts pulling in more than a dollar for every subscriber in those two hefty markets, then this was a great move. If it doesn’t, then the Big Ten added another mediocre football program to a league suddenly full of them and another good men’s basketball program to a league suddenly loaded with excellent ones.
RU:
This is a great move for Rutgers, which would have languished in the Big East. But given just how horribly Rutgers has handled just about everything since the move was announced, it certainly doesn’t seem as if the Scarlet Knights were worth the trouble.
Delany and company had better hope Rutgers delivers the television households in the New York market that the Big Ten covets. Otherwise, the league has taken on a batch of public relations nightmares for nothing. The good news is that even if Rutgers doesn’t command those households, the fact that Rutgers’ membership in the Big Ten brings Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State into the New York metro area on a regular basis could convince cable companies that alums of those schools also need servicing in spite of the per-subscriber price the Big Ten is asking.
I think it’s a little early to grade moves that haven’t happened yet, personally.
LikeLike
I really think you need separate grades for the school and the league. They have different objectives. A great move for the school might be a mediocre one for the acquiring conference.
Rutgers is the perfect example. The Big Ten was their Kate Upton: a more attractive outcome is unimaginable. For the conference…not so much.
I agree with Brian that it may be unfair to rate moves that haven’t happened yet, but it’ll be many years before we know whether the Big Ten got what it hoped for out of the Rutgers deal.
LikeLike
From the article:
‘For each move, I’ve assigned a letter grade that balances the benefit to the school with the benefit the addition of the school provides to the league. If it seems I’m basing most of my opinion on how each move affects football, it’s because I am. Football brings in most of the money, and football drove most of these moves.’
These grades only make sense when you know he is balancing the benefit to the school with the benefit to the conference.
LikeLike
Then Rutgers should be a provisional A. The conference obviously was looking for non athletic benefit (that will be years to evaluate) so is incomplete, and the school would rate it higher than an A if possible.
LikeLike
I read the article, so I saw that he was attempting to balance the benefit to the school with the benefit to the conference. I just think it’s better to think of the benefits separately, because they ARE separate.
Rutgers should be a provisional A. The conference obviously was looking for non athletic benefit (that will be years to evaluate) so is incomplete, and the school would rate it higher than an A if possible.
Another way of thinking abTen have taken Rutgers? I think the answer’s no. Rutgers was an acceptable 14th school, not a terrific one. Sure, the project could pan out, but an even better move (had it been possible) would be one that isn’t a speculation that takes years to prove itself.
Obviously, if the standard is whether the conference ultimately gets what it wanted out of the deal, then all of these moves are incompletes. Even Texas A&M has just a year in its new league, and although it looks like a home run right now, it could look a lot different in 20 years.out it, is this: if Virginia had been ready to move at the same time Maryland was, would the Big
LikeLike
Sorry, that got garbled. What I was trying to say was:
Another way of thinking about it is, if Virginia had been available the same time as Maryland, would the Big Ten have taken Rutgers? I think the answer’s no. Rutgers was an acceptable 14th school, not a terrific one. Sure, the project could pan out, but an even better move (had it been possible) would be one that isn’t a speculation that takes years to prove itself.
LikeLike
I was actually responding to Brian. You are I posted our comments (concerning Staples ‘balanced benefits’ approach) simultaneously. If I had read your comment first, I wouldn’t have pointed it out.
LikeLike
You can’t say you are basing most of your opinion on football then grade Syracuse a B. The ACC added another northern school whose area produces little to no recruits. Syracuse lost their ability to recruit NJ and eastern PA when they stupidly fired Pasqualoni and now the growth of RU has shut them out.
At least BC attracts the catholic school kids not good enough to be considered by Notre Dame. Syracuse has nothing to attract kids to the aging dome.
LikeLike
My own grading would be that both A & M and Nebraska were A (if not A+) grades. I guess maybe you reserve A+ for getting ND or Texas. But they were both equal to me. Each benefitted a conference in a way that needed benefitting. SEC expanded its borders into Texas. B10 got a football powerhouse. Johnny Football is the likely reason why A&m was graded higher.
All the other moves are just average too me. As Frank says think like a president. Well I’m grading partially as a president and partially as a fan. As a president the MD move may be a solid B and Rutgers a B-. But as a fan, they just don’t get me too excited.
Anyway, the real grades will be in a few years when we see who the 15/16 team is to the B10.
LikeLike
All the other moves are just average too me.
Well, I think Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville improved their lots considerably, and there’s a pretty good argument that the ACC is a better league than when this merry-go-round started.
In contrast, the Big XII’s moves look like desperation. They didn’t really need another Texas school (especially a tiny one like TCU), and WV is now stuck on an island, a long way from the rest of their conference mates. I’d say the Big XII made the best of a bad situation, and didn’t really improve themselves very much.
LikeLike
My grade for Staples’ article would be a C-, for his boring writing, simplistic analysis, and overall mailing in an editor’s bland assignment.
LikeLike
You grade on an easier scale than Staples did. How could a move that is a clear A for the University (Rutgers) “average out” to a D? Was it “balanced” the two as in “90% conference, 10% school”?
LikeLike
Not worth reading, but here’s the link to the re-alignment chart. That is worth looking at until your head spins.
http://collegeathleticsclips.com/index.php/archive/nicknamesmascots/7792-drum-roll-please-heres-clips-conference-realignment-graphic-22
Rutgers is a D? That’s hard to do when they scored a 1600 on the B1G SAT.
LikeLike
way too early for these grades. check back in 5 years. pretty dumb grading too.
You think Rutgers isn’t better off? Colorado? Utah? Come on now. Very bad list.
LikeLike
Interesting press release from the Big XII
The Big 12 sponsors 181 sports among its membership, which means that 1-in-every-30.1 teams won a national title last season. That team championship ratio in the Big 12 is best in the nation (with just the baseball championship still up for grabs).
…
Big 12: 30.17 (six championships for 181 teams)
Pac-12: 33.875 (eight championships)
Big Ten: 42.26 (seven championships)
SEC: 45.67 (six championships)
ACC: 65.75 (four championships)
Ivy: 71.25 (four championships)
Big East: 86.0 (two championships)
Big West: 193.0 (one championship)
LikeLike
I’ll add that it is notable that the Big XII snicked this release out before the baseball championship was awarded since if a PAC team wins the CWS (and for the record there are 2 PAC teams still alive and no Big XII teams) the advantage would shift to the PAC.
LikeLike
The CWS field is set. UNC defeats USCe 5-4.
LikeLike
Had a nice kickball game going in middle innings.
LikeLike
A few notes:
ACC, P12 and SEC – 2 teams each
BE and B10 – 1 team each
I don’t like the bracket at all. #1 UNC plays NCSU in the opening round while #3 OrSU and #4 LSU have their conference foe on the other side of the bracket. Either separate all of them like hoops does or have all of them play in the first round. Personally, I’d have all of them play early:
LSU/MS St
UNC/NCSU
OrSU/UCLA
IN/UL
If you want to split them, then do it for everyone:
LSU/UCLA
UNC/UL
OrSU/IN (the Rose Bowl of baseball)
MS St/NCSU
LikeLike
Brain – that’s just the way it worked out. A few years ago I recall that 3 SEC teams were in the same bracket. Like the Final Four, the teams aren’t re-seeded for the CWS.
While only 3 of the 8 national seeds made it to the CWS, every team in the CWS was a #1 seed and host for their opening regional. There are no Cinderellas in Omaha this year.
GEAUX TIGERS!
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m just saying that’s bad planning on their part. The unseeded teams should be moved around as needed to improve the bracket. UNC got screwed by the process.
LikeLike
FWIW, Missouri releases their non-conference basketball schedule for next year. Should be decent for their RPI:
UCLA, Illinois (in St. Louis), @NC State, West Virginia, Northwestern (in Las Vegas), Nevada (in Las Vegas), Hawaii (in KC), Long Beach State, Southern Illinois, Western Michigan, SE Louisiana
LikeLike
Does anyone think that Denver might not be a bad fit for the new Big East? Right now, they’re only joining for lacrosse. However, just from perusing their profile, they could fit the profile of the type of schools the BE right now is looking for. Since Creighton is already joining that conference, Denver wouldn’t be such an outlier than if they never went west of the Mississippi River. If St. Louis is added then you could have a decent collection of schools that is within flying distance of DePaul and Marquette:
Creighton, St. Louis, Marquette, DePaul, Denver, Butler, Xavier
Since they won’t sponsor football no divisions are necessary. However, there is still some potential for some adds in the East. Siena and Fairfield are two examples that could make up for the losses of UConn and Syracuse. Richmond, Dayton, Davidson, Detroit and Duquesne are other possibilities. VCU and Wichita State would be but both are public schools and may not fit the new conference today.
LikeLike
Not sure if this post is a joke, but if it is sincere then no. Denver isn’t good at basketball, has no fan base, is extemely far away from the rest of schools, has no shared history with any of the current schools and they are cheap and don’t sponsor many sports. Denver has no chance of competing in the league in the next 10 years at least and won’t help the TV deal. Siena, Fairfield, Detroit and Duquense also have no chance, and Dayton has a very small chance. If they expand it will be St. Louis and Richmond IMO.
LikeLike
Adding Denver for Lacrosse makes a lot of sense for *both* Denver and the Big East *because* Lacrosse is the only thing Denver does well that the Big East needs. Lacrosse is a fine second team sport for a hockey-first school like Denver, but the Big East does not need hockey-first schools as full members, they need BBall-first schools as full members.
LikeLike
Not sure I completely agree.
The Big East’s original mission was to build around “cities.” Georgetown (DC), Villanova (Philly), Pitt (Pitt), SH, StJ and Syracuse (NYC), Providence (Providence), UConn (Hartford), and BC (Boston).
Later additions… Rutgers, Miami, Va Tech… only Va Tech does not fit that particular bill–although they help with DC obviously. Notre Dame (national/Chicagp).
Later additions—USF (Tampa), Cincy (Cincy), Louisville (Louisville), Temple (Philly), DePaul (Chicago), and Marquette (Milwaukee).
Then with more expansion… UCF (Orlando), Houston (Houston), SMU (Dallas), ECU (does not fit the profile), Memphis (Memphis), Tulane (New Orleans). Tulsa. Only Navy and ECU really do not fit the metro concept.
With the splintering of the American and Big East, even the Big East private schools still have a lot of metropolitan focus. Xavier (Cincy), Butler (Indy), Creighton (Omaha). Denver fits in pretty good with that overall mission to try to stay, for the most part, in decent sized cities.
Plus, why do they care if basketball is good? Someone has to finish in last place. These schools have been playing Rutgers all these years (ha ha ha). Denver would just need to get up to respectability.
LikeLike
Rutgers, at least, was a regional fit in the old Big East. If Denver’s going to get slaughtered, they might as well get slaughtered locally, rather than fly across the country to do it.
LikeLike
Never underestimate the ability of a program to make a leap. Nobody thought anything of UMass until they hired Calipari. Boise State in football? Denver is a great city. I would not rule out trying to make a move up and the Big East being receptive.
LikeLike
Denver is an intriguing long-term option for the new Big East, but they’re going to need to show a lot more in basketball. If the Big East solely cared about markets, then Duquesne would have been an option, but they haven’t come up at all. There are still desirable schools with basketball credibility (SLU is a lock in my mind, Dayton being the next most likely, and Richmond and VCU being possibilities), so there isn’t a need to stretch out to Denver right now. If Denver ends up having a Butler-type run, then sure, they’re going to attract a lot of interest (but the Big East can effectively take any non-FBS Division I school that they want, so they’re the one league that can wait to see who rises up).
LikeLike
What about as a bridge to Gonzaga?
LikeLike
A student from there told me they were the original Fighting Irish, but had to give it up to that other catholic school in the Midwest.
LikeLike
The Dude is hanging up the keyboard, but not before letting us know Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas are headed for the B1G (and WVU is SEC bound). All within the next decade.
ALSO, Missouri and WVU were on the verge of playing musical chairs with the SEC and Big Ten, only a month ago. It’s an expansion era epic. A fan-fiction classic. It’s the Dude final post!
(except on twitter of course. -Whew!)
…Rock on DUDE
http://www.sportsmancave.com/expansion-update-just-when-you-thought-it-was-over/
LikeLike
The Dude is and always has been a complete clown.
LikeLike
Here is a question for Andy (and other Missouri fans): Are you happy being in the SEC East or would you prefer that SEC divisions are restructured so that Missouri would be in a new SEC West Division?
LikeLike
Depends on which schools you want to see Missouri play ever year. Personally I’m happy with the current setup. There are 4 SEC schools located in states that border Missouri: Arkansas, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky. As it is right now, Missouri plays all 4 every year. I think that’s for the best. Also, the East is the stronger league academically so I’d rather be associated with those schools more. Vandy and Florida are good schools, and Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Carolina aren’t that bad.
LikeLike
I’d prefer not to be in the $EC at all…. Terrible fit in my opinion…..
LikeLike
B1G is a better fit geographically and academically. The SEC is a stronger athletic conference, so at least there’s that.
LikeLike
As always, Andy, you paint with too broad a brush. A lot of what the Dude reports is consistent with other sources have reported, e.g., that the Big Ten has looked at Kansas and Oklahoma. We already knew they’d been in touch with Texas at various times.
About the only thing in the latest post that seems totally unbelievable is the idea of WV in the SEC.
LikeLike
Sounds like you are trolling the WVU people. There’s a lot that’s not believable in that post. Okie St. and Kansas St. on their own to the SEC to start. There’s a lot to support the idea that Missouri beat out WVU for the #14 spot (at a time when no ACC schools were poachable). So in the event the SEC had an opening, WVU wouldn’t be first on the list, but they might be the first obtainable on the list.
LikeLike
There’s some fun stuff in there.
“Right now its Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri that top the Big Ten’s wish list. They could take any two of those schools or even all four.”
“WVU understands that ESPN has been told by Disney to play hardball with rights fees and keep spending down and that means the Longhorn’s beloved network will most likely not be an ESPN product when its time to renew.
And that means Texas will most likely make more money in the Big Ten.”
“WVU has been promised a spot in the SEC if the Big 12 folds somewhere down the line and the Mountaineers deserve it.”
“The ACC you ask? What about FSU and Clemson or the valued North Carolina and Virginia markets? The thought is the next round of expansion will use a different valuation model based on national appeal and pay-per-view access to conference games.
Of course the one wildcard in all this is ESPN’s desire to launch an ACC network. According to my sources at ESPN the ACC’s grant of rights was a proactive move on the part of Swofford to assuage ESPN’s fears and make a conference network more likely. The problem is that ESPN’s parent company, Disney, sent word that loses incurred by the LHN and the huge invest in the SEC network and NFL broadcast rights means that ESPN can’t afford to invest in an ACC network.
ESPN and the ACC are studying the possibility of a network and ESPN and the ACC are both slow-playing the decision until after the grant of rights takes effect.
My source at ESPN tells me an investment in the ACC is unlikely …”
“A few months ago I learned that the Big Ten was in heated talks with Missouri and the SEC had contacted WVU about replacing the Tigers in the SEC. I sat on that information partly because I was asked to wait and partly because I’ve learned my lesson.
WVU and the Big 12 have a travel problem. It seems that Texas and a few other schools way out west didn’t like traveling to Morgantown as much as WVU hated those long trips to Texas. An informal deal was worked out between the SEC and Big 12 where WVU would have been allowed to leave if Missouri left the SEC for the Big Ten and BYU agreed to replace WVU and play some games on Sundays (mostly basketball and non-revenue sports). BYU will never agree to play on Sundays and the deal feel through – actually it was never close. Missouri isn’t the Big Ten’s only option and they want the best bang for their network and in that regard Texas trumps Missouri every time.
What I’m certain is that the Big Ten is talking to Missouri and a few Big 12 schools and the SEC and WVU are talking again…”
LikeLike
That’s hilarious.
LikeLike
The Longhorn Network hasn’t been a loss. The original point was to keep The Big XII together and specifically keep Texas from bolting to the Pac-12 or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The Longhorn Network hasn’t been a loss. The original point was to keep The Big XII together and specifically keep Texas from bolting to the Pac-12 or the Big Ten.
Obviously, he means a monetary loss, and that is probably true. At some point, if it doesn’t start paying its way, market forces will take over. That almost always happens.
LikeLike
Let’s play with this.
UT, OU, KU and MO:
Divisions
W – UT, OU, NE, WI, IA, MO, NW, MN, KU
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IL, UMD, RU, IN
9 games = 8 x 100% in division, 9 x 11% crossover
Decent balance, but WI, IA, MN and NW would presumably complain about essentially being kicked out of the B10.
Pods
Option 1 – 6/3
W – UT, OU, NE, MO, KU, IL
C1 – WI, IA, MN
C2 – NW, PU, IN
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, UMD, RU
E/W – 5 x 100% in pod, 6 x 50% in rotating pods, 6 x 17% in opposite pod
C1/C2 – 2 x 100% in pod, 12 x 50% in rotating pods, 3 x 33% in opposite pod
No locked games (sorry LoL trophy).
This time IL gets screwed, but their rivalry with MO makes them the obvious choice to send west. The balance is pretty good except in the central.
Option 2 – Geographic 5/4
W – UT, OU, NE, MO, KU
C1 – WI, IA, MN, NW
C2 – IL, PU, IN, UMD
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU
E/W – 4 x 100% in pod, 8 x 50% in rotating pods, 5 x 20% in opposite pod
C1/C2 – 3 x 100% in pod, 10 x 50% in rotating pods, 4 x 25% in opposite pod
No locked games.
The hardest part is picking a team from the East to move to C2. OSU is the natural choice except for The Game and the balance issue. RU needs PSU, MI and OSU playing in NYC every other year. MI and MSU can’t move because of rivalries. PSU is needed in the East. That leaves UMD, so they get royally screwed. That’s why the 6/3 plan is better.
No Divisions
10 of 18 teams need 2 locked rivals.
WI – IA, MN
IA – WI, MN
MN – WI, IA
PSU – RU, UMD
RU – UMD, PSU
UMD – RU, PSU
MI – OSU, MSU
OU – UT, NE
MO – KU, IL
IL – NW, MO
OSU – MI
NE – OU
UT – OU
MSU – MI
NW – IL
PU – IN
IN – PU
KU – MO
9 games – 2 x 100%, 15 x 47%
Overall, I think the 6/3 pod plan is the best of a bad set of choices.
LikeLike
For this scenario: How about also assuming that there would be 10 conference games? How does this affect the final assessment?
LikeLike
Divisions play goes from 11% to 22%.
6/3 pods go from 17% to 33% and 33% to 67%.
5/4 pods go from 20% to 40% and 25% to 50%.
No divisions goes from 47% to 53%.
I still prefer the 6/3 pods.
LikeLike
Why not six pods of three and scramble them up for ad hoc divisions every year?
Just go the NFL route and call them “Big Ten North”, etc.
LikeLike
Balance, rivalries and travel. Feel free to draw up a sample plan. Maybe I’ll agree with you after seeing it in writing.
LikeLike
Overall, I think the 6/3 pod plan is the best of a bad set of choices.
Assuming divisions are no longer required to stage a championship game [and you appear to be assuming this], I think No Divisions is the best method. You’ve put out a scenario with minimal locking, and I would do that as well.
But once you eliminate divisions, there are a lot of other things you can do. For instance, you could have “half-locked” or “semi-locked” pairs, e.g., OSU and IL play two years out of every four; or four out of every six.
The same could be useful for other pairs like MI/MN, NE/MO, OU/MO, MD/RU, PU/IL, MSU/IN, that have named rivalries or long histories of being played annually before realignment. Without divisions, every permutation you can imagine is allowed.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Assuming divisions are no longer required to stage a championship game [and you appear to be assuming this],”
No, I only assumed that for the No Divisions case. I don’t think it’s likely, at least short term, but I was trying to head off your usual objection by including it. Apparently I failed. Oh well.
“I think No Divisions is the best method. You’ve put out a scenario with minimal locking, and I would do that as well.”
I wanted to lock more for the clean math but I knew the automatic response you’d give and I tried to avoid it. I certainly would’ve locked two each for ease of scheduling.
“But once you eliminate divisions, there are a lot of other things you can do. For instance, you could have “half-locked” or “semi-locked” pairs, e.g., OSU and IL play two years out of every four; or four out of every six.”
Feel free to write out all the possible versions yourself. I thought including No Divisions was sufficient since it’s a pipe dream at this point and we’ve discussed it ad nauseum here.
LikeLike
Possible pairs:
1. UT and OU
W – UT, OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
2. UT and MO
W – UT, NE, WI, IA, MO, MN, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
3. UT and KU
W – UT, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, KU
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
There really aren’t any great pod options, but these divisions are pretty good. The balance is OK and the old B10 is split evenly.
4. MO and KU
W – NE, WI, IA, MO, NW, MN, IL, KU
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
The balance is weak here.
W – NE, MO, KU
C1 – WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C2 – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, UMD
Those pods are a little better. The balance still isn’t great, though.
I don’t believe OU/MO or OU/KU are acceptable to the presidents, but the divisions would be the same as 2 and 3 but with OU replacing UT obviously.
LikeLike
If Texas wants to follow the money and join the Big Ten, then why bother with Kansas and Missouri: Bring along Oklahoma: End of expansion.
LikeLike
Of course, the chances of this actually happening is small. But difficult to imagine that these two schools would ever be in two different conferences.
LikeLike
I don’t believe OU/MO or OU/KU are acceptable to the presidents. . . .
I don’t either. I think OU would be acceptable only if UT were coming along.
It would clearly be a real test of the politics in those two states, because without OU and UT, the Big XII becomes a minor league.
LikeLike
As it should. 🙂
What’s left? Kansas, KSU, OkSU, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, WVU & ISU. Texas & Oklahoma provide 60% of the leagues value.
LikeLike
Of course the one wildcard in all this is ESPN’s desire to launch an ACC network. According to my sources at ESPN the ACC’s grant of rights was a proactive move on the part of Swofford to assuage ESPN’s fears and make a conference network more likely. The problem is that ESPN’s parent company, Disney, sent word that loses incurred by the LHN and the huge invest in the SEC network and NFL broadcast rights means that ESPN can’t afford to invest in an ACC network.
ESPN and the ACC are studying the possibility of a network and ESPN and the ACC are both slow-playing the decision until after the grant of rights takes effect.
My source at ESPN tells me an investment in the ACC is unlikely …”
The only part of that silly ramble that contains even a scintilla of sense, although I would change “unlikely” to “on the back burner until the SEC network is established.” I still maintain that given the haste and surprise over the announcement, Swofford and his Research Triangle mafia buddies sold the rest of the conference a bill of goods.
LikeLike
I think he’s also right, that both sides are unhappy with the travel situation to/from Morgantown. Oliver Luck, the Mountaineers’ AD, has said publicly that the Big XII needs to add schools in the Eastern time zone. With the ACC now off limits, there probably aren’t any available schools that make sense, so they’re going to be stuck with it for a long, long time.
LikeLike
Not that Texas cares; it got its vassal(s) in West Virginia and Texas Christian to fill out the league.
LikeLike
Not that Texas cares; it got its vassal(s) in West Virginia and Texas Christian to fill out the league.
Oh, I think they care. They know that TCU and WV weren’t blockbuster additions, but merely the best they could get in a desperate situation. In the latest round of realignment, the Big XII is the only Big Five league that came out a net loser. They survived but can’t be happy about that, whatever they may say in public.
LikeLike
If you look at average football attendance, all 5 conferences came out net losers. Every conference added, on average, below average teams in fan support. A lot of schools came out winners, but no conference was an unquestioned winner. Each conference that expanded had to give something up.
LikeLike
I would say the Big 10 was definitely a winner with the Nebraska addition. The last set, however, involved trade-offs. They lost rivalries and average competitiveness. They gained markets and potential improved alumni connections.
LikeLike
Saying they all lost is too pessimistic, but even on that reckoning, the Big XII was the Biggest Loser.
If we look at it league by league:
Pac-12: Colorado and Utah were speculative adds, but the league must have believed they’d ultimately be accretive, as they faced no imminent threat that forced them to expand. Whether they gained anything remains to be seen, but you can’t yet say they lost.
Big Ten: As you admit, Nebraska was a clear win. Rutgers and Maryland are speculative adds, but as noted above for the Pac-12, this wasn’t something they had to do. It’ll be a long time before we’ll know whether the strategy worked, but it certainly hasn’t failed yet.
SEC: I don’t think there’s much doubt, at this point, that A&M plus Missouri was a win (although Missouri alone wouldn’t have been). We don’t know the long-term effects, but after one season A&M is a home run, and Missouri certainly hasn’t done any harm.
ACC: Like the Big XII, some of their moves were forced. Nevertheless, I think that when you subtract Maryland, but add Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and Notre Dame part time, the result is stronger than what they had.
LikeLike
I would say the Big 10 was definitely a winner with the Nebraska addition. The last set, however, involved trade-offs. They lost rivalries and average competitiveness. They gained markets and potential improved alumni connections.
Nebraska made an ideal #12, as the prime reason for reaching that number was to create a football CCG, and Nebraska easily was candidate with the best football. #13-14 used different criteria in opening new markets for the BTN and complementing Penn State along the Northeast Corridor. The same can explain the ACC adding Syracuse and Pittsburgh, and the SEC Missouri and Texas A&M, although the parallels aren’t exact.
LikeLike
MrSec has some interesting takes on the Staples article
http://mrsec.com/2013/06/sis-staples-weighs-in-on-am-mizzou-moves/
LikeLike
Another source saying what has been rumored:
“Only this offseason have we learned that FSU officials approached SEC officials — in 2013, according to reports — to see if the league Florida State once spurned might still have an interest in the school. That answer was no.”
LikeLike
Yep, Staples talk about the SEC wanting VT or NCSU over Mizzou doesn’t at all jibe with the story as it’s been told by most everyone. VT maybe, but NCSU definitely not. And I’ve heard plenty about how VT was a 2nd or 3rd choice because 1) they’re not AAU, and 2) they’re not a flagship school.
LikeLike
I buy North Carolina State, especailly given the time frame we are talking. Texas A&M was already going to be #1 and most the early talk for #2 was in taking an ACC school from a new market. That talk probably doesn’t mean much, but the SEC was considering divisions and you already had schools nervous about the change (Tennessee/Alabama in particular) and I think if a clear school was possible in the east, they’d have been grabbed up. As things stood, it seemed to come down to West Virginia and Missouri The ACC seemed off limits after it took Pitt/Syracuse and went up to $20 million exit fee (which everyone except Florida State and Maryland went for). West Virginia just didn’t have any market to speak of so they went with a 2nd school in the west and then later altered the divisions to more northeast/southwest.
That said, I could buy they still wanted Missouri more than North Carolina State. The reason the focus could have seemed elsewhere for awhile could have been that Missouri only really approached the SEC after Oklahoma threatened to leave for the PAC-10.
LikeLike
If NCSU’s administration had taken a serious look at the SEC, Debbie Yow probably would have resigned. She’s ACC through and through.
LikeLike
From what SEC officials have said and from what I’ve heard about behind the scenes, the SEC approached Missouri as soon as Nebraska got that spot in the B1G. They were interested in taking Missouri once it seemed like the B1G might not be an option for them. This is from, among other things, interviews with the Missouri Chancellor and the Florida Chancellor, who had talked about the possibility long before it actually happened.
LikeLike
Do you ever talk (or listen) to anyone who’s not a Missouri fan? EVERYONE was talking about Virginia Tech and FSU. Those schools publically said they weren’t interested in 2011. Noone but Missouri and WVU fans were talking about those 2 schools until after OU started flirting with the Pac. Now I didn’t hear any NCSU talk. People generally thought they would stay with UNC at the time.
LikeLike
bullet, that’s just not true. Missouri was mentioned very early on. As far back as 2010. Not just by Missouri people either. Basically nobody talked about NCSU. I did hear about VT and FSU a lot. I also heard that the SEC decided against both, but I’ll admit that I have no idea if it’s true.
LikeLike
And if you think things started only after OU flirted with the Pac 12 then you’re clueless. By then the SEC was already a long established hot topic among Missouir fans, and the general rumor was that it was already a done deal at that point and had been negotiated bheind the scenes months before. What the OU flirting thing did was bring it to the forefront.
LikeLike
WV fans were saying it was a done deal they were going to the SEC as well. You’re clueless if you think message board talk means its real.
May well have been real, but given that it took a while after A&M announced and that the Missouri President was leading the way to hold the Big 12 together your belief that it was all decided long before seems illogical. There is ALWAYS talk. Doesn’t mean any of it is serious.
LikeLike
Well, for Missouri it turned out to be true, and for West Virginia it turned out to be false. Pretty simple.
LikeLike
And besides, like I said above, it wasn’t just message board talk. There was talk on the level of governors and chancellors and the like. Not at the time, but later on they admitted as much that there was talk about Missouri joining the SEC as far back as 2010, but it didn’t get serious until A&M made their decision. At that point Missouri was the partner.
LikeLike
Given the time difference between the big rumors of Texas A&M (when it essentially became a done deal and everyone knew it, but as they worked out the details and were careful politically because of potential Big 12/Baylor lawsuits) and the time of credible Missouri rumors (when there was the same level of certainty with them as A&M) I think it’s definitely a case of the SEC not knowing #14 at first. Remember Texas A&M approached the SEC first not the other way around. After that process started, we had Pitt/Syracuse get into the ACC and rumors of a lot of schools for the SEC.
Beyond that, wasn’t there Missouri AD/President talk about how the Oklahoma decision was what prompted them to look at the SEC. If so that seems to support that the SEC decision was later.
LikeLike
There were plenty of rumors about Missouri and the SEC before the A&M thing was a done deal. Plenty. High level Missouri boosters claim that the deal was in the works since late 2010. But whatever the case, it was definitely in progress at the same time as A&M. But as far as the absolute final decision, that didn’t happen until after OU started looking at the Pac 12 again. That’s when they pulled the trigger and went for it the rest of they way. Before that it had been worked out but wasn’t finalized.
LikeLike
Missouri and the SEC had to be careful about what they said publically to avoid lawsuits. OU looking around was a convenient way to lay blame at the feet of the Sooners.
LikeLike
CWS experience of the participating schools.
LSU – 16th CWS appearance (all since 1986); 6 NCs (most recent in ’09); last appearance in ’09
UNC – 10th CWS appearance; Zero NCs (Runner-up in ’06 & ’07); last appearance in ’11
Miss State – 9th CWS appearance; Zero NCs; last appearance in ’07
Oregon St – 5th CWS appearance; 2 NCs (back to back in ’06 & ’07); last appearance in ’07
UCLA – 5th CWS appearance (3 of the last 4 years); Zero NCs (Runner-up in ’10); last appearance in ’12
Louisville – 2nd CWS appearance; Zero NCs; last appearance in ’07
NC State – 2nd CWS appearance; Zero NCs; last appearance in ’68
Indiana – 1st CWS appearance; 1st B1G team to appear in CWS since the Barry Larkin-led Michigan team from ’84.
Other fun facts.
LSU is currently tied for 2nd in all-time CWS titles with Texas at six. USC has 12, but only one in the last 35 years.
The ACC hasn’t won a CWS title since Wake Forest victory in 1955. Miami’s four titles all occurred prior to joining the ACC.
LikeLike
Alan:
What’s your opinion of the reversing the start days for the two half brackets? Has it ever happened before? Seems to me like an obvious move to bolster UNC’s chances at the expense of the other half, and those in their half that took care of business.
LikeLike
cc – They did do UNC a favor by switching days. The Heels have been living in the edge for the last month. They also have to face NC State’s strikeout machine in the opener. Carlos Rodan has 170 Ks in 118 innings pitched. In the 16.2 innings Rodan has faced the Heels this season, he’s given up 2 earned runs.
Regarding LSU, I like my Tigers’ chances on a Saturday or Sunday with undefeated Sophomore sensation SEC Pitcher of the Year Aaron Nola. Last time on the mound, Nola outdueled #3 pick Jonathan Gray of Oklahoma 2-0, by pitching a complete game 2 hit shutout.
LikeLike
http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=7325
Straight up got 5 of 8, and 2 of the last 3 (missed Indiana) in his “others to watch.” He did miss on predicting 3 teams to return this year. Not bad for a post 2012 CWS piece.
LikeLike
A suggestion from the Roanoke Times Virginia Tech beat writer on how to provide more interesting and varied ACC football matchups (though it would run afoul of NCAA guidelines):
http://blogs.roanoke.com/andybittervirginiatechfootball/2013/06/10/an-admittedly-impractical-suggestion-for-solving-the-accs-football-scheduling-problem/
LikeLike
Basically, he’s making the point that a few of us have made repeatedly on this site: eliminating divisions makes the scheduling easier. It also reduces the likelihood that a 6-6 team in a weak division will get to play for the championship.
In the current environment, I don’t really see the point of the current NCAA rule, which permits a CCG only for leagues divided into two divisions of six or more schools, each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division.
As I understand it, the rule originally was not expected to be frequently used, but today, most FBS leagues have a championship game, including four of the five Bigs. Once you reach the point where the game is commonplace, the rules for deciding who plays in it are just a detail — one that each league ought to be permitted to choose for itself.
I mean, if the game is going to be played regardless, why should anyone besides the league’s members feel compelled to legislate what system is used to qualify its participants? To me, it feels like the now-repealed “bagels and cream cheese” rule, a relic of an era when the NCAA felt it needed to legislate every little detail, as relevant today as clamshell phones and dial-up Internet.
On his Q&A, Frank pointed out that the existing rule has proved exceedingly durable, though I’ve never seen a full-throated defense of it.
LikeLike
Memory issues? We had several multiple day discussions that clearly stated the origin, intent, logic, and application of the rule. To summaries: you can hold a CCG any way you want as long as it is included in the allowed number of games. Restrictions apply in order to hold a CCG in a 13th game. The justification: because there aren’t enough games to clearly decide the champ in a 12 or larger conf and allow for some OOC games. Solution: play an extra game between top of full RR halves. We aren’t trying to decide tha best two in the conference. We are deciding the champ, and if #1, #2, #3, etc are all in the same half we have still achieved the intended goal of the rule allowing the extra game.
LikeLike
No, I’m not having memory issues. You have accurately explained on many occasions the thought behind the rule when it was enacted. I’m asking the reason for it now. You seemed then (and still seem now) to be stuck in explaining what the past thinking was.
If the game’s gonna be played anyway, then why do you care what championship game qualification rules are used by a league you’re not in? [If you’re in the league, then of course, you’d have a vote, and your view would either prevail or not.]
The downsides of the current rule are obvious: less frequent meetings between conference members, and the occasional bad team from a weak division reaching the championship game. So, what upsides does it have?
Assuming, for argument’s sake, that members of a particular league would like to choose their own qualification rules for a game they’re going to play in any event, what argument do you have for saying, “No, sorry: I’m smarter than you. I know what you need, better than you do”?
LikeLike
“If the game’s gonna be played anyway, then…”
No, the 13th game won’t be played anyway, unless it conforms to the rule allowing for that extra game. Without the logic requiring RR halves there is no need to allow the extra game. Pick whoever you think are the two best and match everyone else up in the 12th game.
“I’m asking the reason for it now.”
Same as before, want/need extra game to decide a champ on the field.
“Assuming, for argument’s sake, that members of a particular league would like to choose their own qualification rules for a game they’re going to play in any event,…”
It isn’t happening as in any event, unless as part of the allowed number of games. And if it does that way, good for them. They can always decide to conform to the rules the others play under at a later time, if they choose to gain the extra game.
LikeLike
Imagine this dialogue at an NCAA convention:
No matter what, we’re going to play that game, which the rules clearly permit us to do.
We just think we have a better method than the current rule, of qualifying the two teams who will appear in that game. You might not think that our method is better. But you’re not in our league, so our decision doesn’t affect you.
Regardless of your response, the same number of games is going to be played. Why should you care how we qualify our champion, as long as we do so within the same number of games as we do now?
LikeLike
“Regardless of your response, the same number of games is going to be played. ”
No. Within current rules two teams play an extra game if they RR in halves of a 12+ member conference.
LikeLike
@Crider/@Marc – Maybe I’m not understanding, but I have to decide with Marc. I’m not sure I even understand the past reason for the rule. I certainly don’t understand the current reason. To the best of my knowledge it is simply because we are the NCAA and we dictate the rules.
LikeLike
The rule is a fluke. It was designed for a division II conference that wanted a conference champion and wasn’t getting teams in the playoffs.
The intent is to limit the regular season to 12 games. The 13th is solely when a conference is so big it can’t play a round robin. If you want a 13th, you must play a round robin in your divisions. If you want to just match the top two, you clearly don’t NEED a championship game. You are just trying to generate money. So you don’t get the 13th game.
LikeLike
@Bullet – thanks. I think I understand it better now. Still don’t agree with the rule. Of course having a few extra games just to make money even if those games would potentially cause a student athlete to miss a whole week of classes is beyond the pale and something the NCAA would never stand for.
LikeLike
The rule is a fluke. It was designed for a division II conference that wanted a conference champion and wasn’t getting teams in the playoffs. The intent is to limit the regular season to 12 games.
If that was the intent, then surely we can all agree it failed. Most FBS leagues now have 12 or more teams, and every such league plays a CCG. No league with 12 teams has chosen not to play it.
That’s what I mean by: the game is going to happen anyway, no matter how you choose the two teams playing in it.
So, if the game’s going to happen no matter what, then how is it “in the interest of the student-athlete” if the participants are chosen one way, versus another? Under the circumstances as they have evolved no one could say with a straight face that they believed that.
If you want to just match the top two, you clearly don’t NEED a championship game. You are just trying to generate money.
I can’t imagine that there are many school presidents left who don’t think that football is about generating money. Why do you think the length of the regular season grew from 9 to 10 to 11 to 12? And since when is identifying the best two teams to play in a championship game a “bug”? Most people would consider it a “feature”.
LikeLike
Reportedly there was an exchange between the SEC commissioner (Kramer I believe) and the NCAA president where the NCAA president told him he couldn’t use that rule. The SEC commissioner said he would do it anyway. It was on the books.
The presidents make their decisions based on money, but begrudgingly.
LikeLike
bullet – its was Kramer’s predecessor Harvey Schiller.
LikeLike
Bullet is correct in that it was designed for divisions that had playoffs. However it was not designed to give a game to those not involved. It was to create a way for those conferences that were 12+ and unable to equitably decide, on the field, who would get the auto qualifier. It is a playoff to achieve a goal. Same goal as today. To decide a conference champ, not the runner up. It is a truer playoff format than the BCS 2.0 invitational.
What’s next. You want to rebracket March Madness at final four, sweet sixteen, after each round? Why not just make it an invitational like FB? Should the NFC, or the AFC be eliminated from the Super Bowl because of a perceived more desirable inter conference matchup?
LikeLike
Bullet is correct in that it was designed for divisions that had playoffs.
You keep adverting to what it was. That is clearly not the case any more.
It is a playoff to achieve a goal. Same goal as today. To decide a conference champ, not the runner up.
That would still be true in a non-divisional structure pairing the two best teams from the regular season. No change there.
What’s next? You want to rebracket March Madness at final four, sweet sixteen, after each round?
The tourney format certainly has changed many times, always in the direction of adding more games. Yet, you oppose a change for football that would leave the number of games the same, and would affect no one outside the league making the decision.
Should the NFC, or the AFC be eliminated from the Super Bowl because of a perceived more desirable inter conference matchup?
If the NFL thought that was a better way of deciding a champion, then they would. The NFL has changed its playoff format many times, so they certainly don’t consider it sacred.
Here, you’re saying that if a league thinks of a better way, then they can’t, even though the number of games played wouldn’t change. So I ask why, and you can’t think of a single reason. The best you can do, is to remind us what the original idea was, ~20 or more years ago.
LikeLike
Bullet/Crider – thanks for sharing the information about the purpose of the rule at the beginning and the history behind the SEC “exploiting” the rule for its benefit. I do think it is important to understand why a rule was in place before simply just abandoning it. But I am with Marc on this. There may have been a “good” original purpose to the rule. But it has clearly outlived its usefulness. If all that is important is the number of games, that is easily addressed. For now, it simply appears that the NCAA is unwilling to bend a rule because it has the power to not bend it. Start bending this rule and that rule for the power conferences, next thing you know you have lost some power. Of course, don’t bend rules that should be bent and next thing you know the conferences and schools are rebelling over something the NCAA could have easily given up.
LikeLike
Marc:
Get back to me when the NCAA or NFL abandon the straight bracket system, and the NFL is no longer divided into two divisions (AFC, NFC).
“You keep adverting to what it was. That is clearly not the case any more.”
No matter how many times you say it’s not the case, it is until the rules allow otherwise. The NCAA mandated divisions is the only way to assure everyone starts at the same time/place. Your suggestion that selection of the best team can be done better with random schedules and no divisions is simply an argument against anyone needing a 13th game to decide that. I think it’s necessary for fairness in large conferences, to avoid the influence of polls, committees, beauty contests, king like influences, etc. Best of one half plays best of the other. If you can’t win your half you shouldn’t be in the conversation for conference champion.
LikeLike
Marc,
Why do you waste your time and everyone else’s having this same argument every few months? You ask the same questions, get the same answers, ignore or belittle those answers, reply with a rehash of what you said the first time, etc. Nobody is changing their mind on the subject. That’s why I won’t waste my time pointing out multiple reasons why you’re wrong.
LikeLike
SH,
“For now, it simply appears that the NCAA is unwilling to bend a rule because it has the power to not bend it. Start bending this rule and that rule for the power conferences, next thing you know you have lost some power. Of course, don’t bend rules that should be bent and next thing you know the conferences and schools are rebelling over something the NCAA could have easily given up.”
The NCAA is the schools, not some separate entity. The schools are the ones that decided the rule should exist and they’re also the ones that have stopped all attempts to change it. If changing the rule was such a panacea for the schools, they would change the rule. Instead, they seem to prefer it how it is. It doesn’t have to make sense to you or Marc.
Since you seem to be new to this discussion, I’ll point out some things that ccrider55 skipped as well as repeat some of the things he said.
1. The point is to determine a conference champion
In an ideal world, every conference would play a round robin schedule. But with a limit of 12 games, there is a size limit to a RR especially since OOC games are important for the sport, too. The solution most conferences of 10 adopted was to play 8 games instead of 9 and consider that close enough to a RR to determine a champion. They came up with tiebreakers to determine the actual champion for bowl purposes in case their was a tie.
2. Divisions bring back the RR
The SEC was the first major to go to 12 and the first to play a CCG. They started the common 5-1-2 schedule. The beauty of divisions is that you get back to playing a full RR in your division. The crossover games maintain rivalries and conference unity while providing context about relative strength.
Without divisions, you start missing a significant portion of the teams you are competing with. With 10 teams, you played 8 of 9. Sure, that 1 team you missed could be important but nobody missed all the good teams. The B10 suffered from this more with 11 teams (played 8 of 10). At 12, you’d miss 3 of 11 teams. That leads to huge disparities in SOS, and nobody really wants that to be what determines the champion.
3. Large conferences are a different animal
Now imagine the no division system for 14 or 16. Playing 8 of 13 or 8 of 15? It’s great for playing all your conference mates frequently, but it’s a terrible way to determine a champion. That’s why the rule exists. It ensures that a large conference has a good way for teams to earn their way to the CCG.
4. If you can’t win your division, why should you get a shot at the conference title?
Remember point 1. The point is to determine the champion. Not the top 2, just the champion. It’s the conferences’ problem to provide 2 good teams. If they don’t, they only have themselves to blame.
5. Remember, this is only for an exempt 13th game
Any conference can stage a CCG as the 12th game and invite whichever teams they want. This rule only applies to getting to play an extra game for 2 teams.
—
Now let me make a couple of personal notes.
1. I think conferences make a mistake by counting crossover games in the division race.
If you only considered the division games, then the disparity in locked rivals and all crossover games wouldn’t matter. Those games would still be vital for bowl eligibility, bowl selection and playoff access, so nobody would blow them off. I just don’t think they should determine the division champion since everyone plays a different crossover schedule.
2. I think this rule works well for conferences of 14+, especially if they have minimal crossover games.
I think it is iffy for 12 teams in practice, though, because of point 1. The three crossover games are a major factor in the division race since everyone uses the overall conference record to determine division champions. 3 of 8 is 38%, so the crossovers are almost as important as the divisions games. At 14, they’re only 25% of the total.
With a head to head win in division, a team can lose 1 more crossover game and still win the division by tiebreaker. With only 2 crossovers, the schedule will rarely favor a team so much that this is the determining factor. With 3 crossovers, it becomes more likely. The ACC and SEC will benefit from the schedule being less of a factor in determining their champions since they’ll play a 6-1-1 schedule..
With 14 teams and 9 games, you still have 3 crossovers but it’s weighed against 6 division games. It’s not ideal, but it’s still better than 3 vs 5. The B10 is choosing to play each other more, but it will be at the cost of the schedule having more of a say in who wins each division. Theoretically, the parity-based scheduling should reduce that, though. The exception will be a team the B10 puts in the lower group that has a strong year (MSU, NW, etc) because they should have easier crossovers than a top group team.
LikeLike
@Brian
I will differ with you on counting cross-over games. While it may lead to schedule disparity, having only 5 conference games is simply too small a sample. Who is home and who is away among top teams has a bigger impact. If you get up to 8 teams in your division, I could see counting only division games. Fixed rivals can make the problem you are concerned about worse. That’s one of the reasons the SEC switched from 5-1-2 to 5-2-1. Auburn had Georgia and Florida every year. Florida had LSU and Auburn. That made it very difficult for them. Florida managed to succeed anyway, but Auburn struggled.
LikeLike
Brian, early on on this board, when NE joined, I advocated for the B10 adopting a top two team solution for the CCG. That was because I didn’t think there was a clean two division solution that could be implemented, which clearly played out. We saw this problem before with the ACC. The SEC was able to do it quite succesfully – or maybe it became successful once done. Regardless, it just felt like the best way to determine who plays, and I found divisions unnecessary. I don’t think it matters much how the professional leagues do things other than that it is easy to understand. In any event it was then that I was told the NCAA required divisions. I thought it sounded dumb at the time – still do. But didn’t really know the history and purpose of the rule. So I appreciate the education on it.
But I’m still not persuaded. Just because the NFL does it that way, I see no reason why college athletics should do it that way. But that is not really the point. The point is who is in the best position to determine the proper way to determine who can play in a CCG or who should be conference champion. And I think it is the individual conference not the NCAA.
You are correct that the NCAA is a collection of schools, but I think that understates the power the NCAA has. No school could succesfully leave and operate on its own. Its somewhat akin to the states v. the federal government. If a school has a beef with its conference it could potentially leave and try to join a new one. But if a school has a beef wiht the NCAA, what practical rights does it have? Sure the schools are partly to blame for ceding this authority to the NCAA in the first place, but regardless here we are. A rogue beuracracy who holds power that it discriminately uses over all colleges. A non-state group holding power over public institutions.
But as is clear from my posts, I disdain the NCAA and wish the conferences would take away some, if not all of their power.
If I may, I wish to respond to a few of your specific points:
“1. The point is to determine a conference champion … It’s great for playing all your conference mates frequently, but it’s a terrible way to determine a champion. That’s why the rule exists. It ensures that a large conference has a good way for teams to earn their way to the CCG.
4. If you can’t win your division, why should you get a shot at the conference title?”
Fine points, but the point is to determine a conference champion, which should be the best two teams. We can debate the merits of what is the best way to determine that. That is not the issue. The issue is why should the NCAA make that determination on its own. You may disagree with the how the B10 chooses their teams, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to determine how they do it. I could easily respond by asking if you win your division but can’t have two more losses than the 2nd place team in the other division including a head to head loss at home against said 2nd place team, why should you get a shot at the conference title. No matter what solution you choose inequities will arise. Shouldn’t matter.
“5. Remember, this is only for an exempt 13th game
Any conference can stage a CCG as the 12th game and invite whichever teams they want. This rule only applies to getting to play an extra game for 2 teams.”
Easily solved problem. Though I would argue that the NCAA should have no authority over determining how many games can be played.
LikeLike
Picking the “best two” teams means you are simply having a playoff, not determining a conference champion. To me, that means there is no point in a conference championship game. I would rather see a champ determined in a season, not a single game. What if you have a 14 team conference with no divisions and one team goes 9-0, the 2nd goes 7-2 and lost to the other team. What’s the point? There isn’t one. The 2nd team won nothing. Its unfair to the team that won the regular season (see LSU-Alabama season before last).
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Get back to me when the NCAA or NFL abandon the straight bracket system, and the NFL is no longer divided into two divisions (AFC, NFC).
The whole point is: they can if they want to. If they don’t, it would be because they think the idea is bad, not because some other organization decrees, “We think you don’t need that.”
LikeLike
@Brian: Why do you waste your time and everyone else’s having this same argument every few months?
Well, the participants to the discussion are not the same every time [though some are]. Besides, the fact that we’ve already discussed something has never stopped us before, has it?
You ask the same questions, get the same answers, ignore or belittle those answers, reply with a rehash of what you said the first time, etc. Nobody is changing their mind on the subject. That’s why I won’t waste my time pointing out multiple reasons why you’re wrong.
Actually, I’d like to hear even one reason. Many of those given are patently false (player safety, academic/athletic balance) or no longer relevant (rule was written for Division II).
Others seem to me quite reasonable, but beyond the legitimate purview of legislation. Conferences come up with controversial scheduling ideas all the time (e.g., Leaders/Legends). Normally, we let them make their decision, and the market will decide if it was the right one. The question is not so much whether the idea is good or bad, but why any university president outside of the league making the decision ought to even care.
I do understand that the ORIGINAL idea was to discourage the 13th game. But that ship has sailed. It’s happening anyway.
LikeLike
” If they don’t, it would be because they think the idea is bad, not because some other organization decrees, “
No, again. It’s not some other organization. It is the same as the AFC west, or the whole AFC not being allowed to change the rules for their division or conference. They need the whole organization on board.
Even if there is reason to believe a threat of a break from the NCAA by the FBS schools it will be over other matters, not a rule that all conferences have adhered to (even while several have explored the possibility of alternatives, to no avail) and even prospered as a result of.
No one outside OU and UT have more than some curiosity or mild interest in the result of such a change at this time. Any likely future change would be driven by a desire/need to better manage the system if/when 16+ school conferences come, not by any desire to help a couple schools in a conference that doesn’t even number the required 12, and wants rules that they have played by for decades changed.
LikeLike
“I do understand that the ORIGINAL idea was to discourage the 13th game.”
No. It was to allow an extra post season game (the 11th or 12th at the time) so oversized conferences could use a playoff like format to decide a champion.
“or no longer relevant (rule was written for Division II).”
It was written with FCS divisions in mind as they were the only conferences that had reached unwieldy numbers and had sought relief (which was granted through the division/RR rule). SEC reached the number and chose to avail themselves of the same rule, for the same purpose. It would be labeled a D2 or D3 rule, or changed it to such if the NCAA membership felt it wasn’t appropriate for D1 conferences too.
LikeLike
It is the same as the AFC west, or the whole AFC not being allowed to change the rules for their division or conference. They need the whole organization on board.
The AFC West is four teams, whose scheduling is intricately linked with the other 28 NFL teams. Clearly, the AFC west can’t just pick its own scheduling format: it would affect too many other people.
But a new format for choosing participants in the ACC championship game would affect no one outside of the ACC. So that’s why I am asking, and it seems you cannot answer, the following:
If you’re a university president NOT part of the ACC, and the ACC wants to do this, how are you affected or harmed? Why would you care?
LikeLike
Marc – I think we are just so accustomed to having divisions and conferences that nothing else makes sense. I don’t care how the ACC or B10 or SEC determine their championships.
LikeLike
“If you’re a university president NOT part of the ACC, and the ACC wants to do this, how are you affected or harmed? Why would you care?”
Did the ACC schools leave the NCAA? Does the NCAA govern NCAA sanctioned sports for all the member schools? Am I obliged, as a member, to follow the rules that I and all the members of the NCAA have set before me? Can I pick and choose which rules I decide do or don’t, in my opinion, affect or harm others? Anarchists! 😉
They can follow the rules, work to change them (been looked into for some time. Perhaps something is stirring, but the only talk has been fron the longhorn conference of late), or they can resign from the NCAA and find/found another governing body to create their own personal set of rules.
LikeLike
Or just ignore the rule and commit and act of “civil disobediance” (for lack of a better phrase). Make the NCAA sue you to enforce it (I doubt they would). I don’t think the B10 wants to do that because if they did they would have already done so. They would have to worry about the precedence it would set. But it is an option between compitulation and the rather extreme option of leaving the NCAA (though I would personally be in favor of).
LikeLike
You’d be mighty lonely. Unless you join the NAIA and abiding by their rules.
LikeLike
Willful disregard of rules? You don’t think the entire NCAA membership wouldn’t find that far beyond loss of institutional control? Multiple major rule violations that are purportedly occurring in spite of the schools weak attempts to follow? Automatic expulsion.
LikeLike
Crider – you just said it. The idea that you can simply just leave the NCAA is somewhat impractical as there is no other option. I meant that I would be in favor of the B10 dumping the NCAA as a whole. But you make the point that the NCAA is not quite “voluntary.”
LikeLike
Crider – things aren’t so black and white. Is the NCAA going to kick out the entire B10? Does the NCAA really want to start taking on the power conferences. Let’s be real here, the NCAA exists in large part because of the college basketball tournament in which it gets about all of its money. The power conferences would have a lot more to gain from being kicked out of the NCAA than the NCAA would. There is also public sentiment you have to contend with. The reaction to the disregarding of a rule is somewhat dependent on what the rule is that is being disregarded. Would the public side with the NCAA or the B10 (if we assume it came to this)? I suspect the B10. Now if the B10 decided to ignore the number of scholarships, the public may side with the NCAA. So the outcome of ignoring a rule could be different though in both cases it is the ignoring of a rule. The NCAA could raise a stink that the B10 was ignoring a rule, but do you think they would kick the B10 out? I don’t. So what would they do? I say call the NCAA’s bluff.
This is all easy for me to say. I realize there is some potential downside to the B10 in doing this. And they know that too. The better course of action is to work within the system to get it changed. But a bargaining chip could be, we are doing this anyway so why don’t you just approve the change.
I think the last thing the NCAA would want is to squander some of its goodwill over a silly rule than set off a chain reaction of pissing off the power conferences that may lead to the power conferences to decide to take that huge college basketball payoff for itself.
LikeLike
SH:
You seem a bit confused. The B1G has few issues with NCAA rules and wields enough clout to influence enough co-members that it works through the system to achieve the ends it desires. It is NOT the B12 (or those within it that feel entitled to their way always).
If changing the CCG rules would benefit the B1G enough, it would also for the SEC, PAC, ACC, MWC, etc. and finding enough votes wouldn’t be much of a problem. That is why I said earlier if change comes it will be because of an inability to equitably decide 16+ school conference races. It won’t happen to help those who already qualify for the current rule, and certainly not for those not even at 12.
LikeLike
SH,
“But I’m still not persuaded.”
Nobody ever is. That’s why this discussion is always a waste of time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone change their mind on this issue.
“But if a school has a beef wiht the NCAA, what practical rights does it have?”
It can join the NAIA. It can drop varsity sports. It can lobby within the NCAA for change.
“Fine points, but the point is to determine a conference champion, which should be the best two teams.”
We already know that the division winner is better than the runner up. That was the whole point of the regular season. Therefore, the only legitimate challenger is the other division champion.
“Easily solved problem. Though I would argue that the NCAA should have no authority over determining how many games can be played.”
Except that was one of the whole reasons the NCAA was formed. You need 1 body to determine the rules that apply to everyone. The NCAA sets the cap for the number of games you can play just like they set all the other rules of the game. You don’t have to play that many games, though. The B10 is welcome to restrict the season to 10 games for their schools if they want.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I will differ with you on counting cross-over games.”
And that’s fine by me. There’s a reason I separated that out from the main points. It’s purely my personal opinion. I’d much rather have home field advantage be the determining factor than the crossover schedule. The better team can still win the game. There’s nothing a team can do about drawing OSU, MI and PSU while another gets IN, RU and UMD though. Even a great team is more likely to lose a game when the SOS is that different.
LikeLike
Crider – I’m not confused at all. The SEC may have reasons to oppose such a rule (such as they think it will give the B10 an advantage in rankings/bowl games/etc.). Sometimes you simply oppose a rule because your competitor wants it. If it became a public fight would the SEC publicly oppose it? I don’t know. When asked how it affects the SEC, would they have a good reason or simply give the reasons that have been given on this board? I have yet to hear one good reason why the rule should continue to exist. Imagine the rule does not exist and we are in a world where there are 12 games and no CCGs. Now the conferences have decided that they want to allow a 13th game but only for a CCG purpose and the NCAA agrees to relax the 12 game rule to allow for a CCG. Do you think it likely that the rule is teams may play a 13th game but only if one of them is a conference championship game, or do we think it is that teams may play a 13th game but only if one of them is a conference championship game provided that the conference has divisions? I suspect the former.
My understanding (from you and others on this board) is that the SEC took advantage of a “loophole” or a rule already in existence that was crafted for other purposes. I do not think that is how they would have designed the rule.
I think the B10 should work to get it changed formally. I’m simply saying that one bargaining position they could take in such discussions is: we are going to do it anyway and we will take our case to the public, so why not change the rule to avoid any bad publicity for all involved. Obviously the problem with that approach is someone’s bluff could be called. If (and a big if) the B10 really wanted to just use the top two teams, I might consider this strategy.
LikeLike
Brian – I agree we are not persuading each other but why should that stop us. Part of the fun is simply the back and forth. I enjoy the discussion.
Joining the NAIA and dropping varsity sports isn’t really an option. I suspect you know this.
When the governing body starts imposing rules that no longer make sense, it makes it easier for the individual members of the organization to rebel. There should be some logic to the rules.
“We already know that the division winner is better than the runner up. That was the whole point of the regular season. Therefore, the only legitimate challenger is the other division champion.”
That implies there are divisions. If there are no divisions, then the only legitimate challenger to the first place team is the 2nd place team.
LikeLike
I’m simply saying that one bargaining position they could take in such discussions is: we are going to do it anyway and we will take our case to the public, so why not change the rule to avoid any bad publicity for all involved.
Actually, that is exactly the wrong way to do it. No one in the public cares enough about the issue to pressure the NCAA. If the Big Ten did attempt to unilaterally hold a CCG without divisional round robins the majority of public would just view the Big Ten as a bunch of whiners who think they are so important that the rules don’t apply to them. The NCAA would win the PR battle and would sanction the hell out of the Big Ten (even if they didn’t toss them out they could ban them taking part in bowls and institute TV bans).
The correct way to do it would be to approach the others conferences and explain why they believe the divisional round robin requirement should be abolished and once they have a super majority of FBS schools simply vote to change the rule. The fact that hasn’t happened tells me that there is not a consensus for changing the rules.
LikeLike
I wish the big leagues would push back on the NCAA a little more. The NCAA just needs to be broken in general, but at a minimum its power needs to be reeled in. Who is the NCAA to tell a conference they must have divisions to hold a CCG? How is that a protection of the student athlete? Wasn’t the NCAA set up to protect the integrity of college athletics and the student athlete? Do divisions do anything of the sort? As you say, the conferences should determine the details themselves.
My desire would be for the NCAA to be eliminated. I think the conferences and the schools can manage themselves. That is probably unrealistic for the near future, but there are areas to push back against them. It would have been PR foolishness for the B10 to have pushed back against the NCAA in the PSU case, even though I believe the NCAA overreached. But on something like this, I think the individual conferences would have the public support.
FWIW – my biggest issue with the NCAA on the PSU case was the creation of a non-profit to be funded by PSU. Yes, I know PSU agreed, but if I were a taxpayer in PA, I would be furious that the NCAA basically came in and dictated how a public institution was to use its resources. Small stuff to most, but infuriating to me.
LikeLike
Read my post above yours. Limiting it to special situations IS in the interest of the student-athlete. The NCAA really doesn’t want the games.
LikeLike
I have my doubts that the NCAA has any interest in protecting the student-athlete, but regardless its a stupid rule that is preventing some experimentation that could benefit college football as a whole. Maybe each conference would use divisions anyway because it is the American way. But maybe a conference would experiment a little. The divisions seem to work very well for the SEC. They should use them. For the B10/ACC, they may work less well. I would like to see a little creativity.
LikeLike
I have my doubts that the NCAA has any interest in protecting the student-athlete…
I do think that protecting the athlete is the idea behind many rules, and it might even have been the original idea behind this one. I haven’t seen the argument that that’s the case now. That’s what @ccrider55 and bullet don’t have an answer for.
LikeLike
I understand that, but the conferences of 12 or more will only be choosing a format that allows for a CCG. They won’t choose an option without a CCG. With that in mind, the question is, do we have a better set-up where confernces must have divisions or where they don’t. I think we are better without them, but honestly, even if the rule is changed, I think conferences will keep them for simplicity.
LikeLike
SH,
“Who is the NCAA to tell a conference they must have divisions to hold a CCG?”
The governing body for college athletics for all the schools that voluntarily joined the NCAA, that’s who.
“How is that a protection of the student athlete?”
There rules limit how many athletes are forced to play an extra game each season. That reduces the injury risk and their time away from school.
“I think the conferences and the schools can manage themselves.”
They do. They got together and formed a governing body to make sure they all were playing by the same set of rules and called that body the NCAA. They are the NCAA. It’s their presidents that vote on things in the NCAA. The NCAA isn’t a separate entity.
“It would have been PR foolishness for the B10 to have pushed back against the NCAA in the PSU case, even though I believe the NCAA overreached.”
Especially if some or most of the B10 agreed with the NCAA.
“Yes, I know PSU agreed, but if I were a taxpayer in PA, I would be furious that the NCAA basically came in and dictated how a public institution was to use its resources.”
No, they dictated what an NCAA member needed to do in order to stay an NCAA member. PSU could have left the NCAA and not paid a penalty at all, but they felt staying in the NCAA was more important. Besides, PSU has been adamant about not being a state school so they can hide from sunshine laws. They can’t have it both ways.
LikeLike
“Who is the NCAA to tell a conference they must have divisions to hold a CCG?”
The governing body for college athletics for all the schools that voluntarily joined the NCAA, that’s who.
It’s a bit of sophistry to describe the NCAA as voluntary, as it is a de facto monopoly in the field it regulates. If there is only one usable bridge off of an island, one can’t say with a straight face that use of the bridge is voluntary.
There rules limit how many athletes are forced to play an extra game each season. That reduces the injury risk and their time away from school.
The rule doesn’t have that practical effect, even if that was the intended effect, because every FBS league with 12+ teams — which is most of them — plays a CCG.
If the rule were changed to say that leagues with 12+ teams can stage a CCG, and can select the participating teams any way they want, injury risk and time away from school would be the same.
(My own view is that the Big XII should be able to stage a CCG with 10 teams, but that proposal would authorize one additional game that otherwise wouldn’t be played. No one can seriously make that claim against the leagues already at 12 or more, since all of them clearly are going to play that game, one way or another.)
LikeLike
Brian, I think you understate the NCAA’s power. You are right PSU could have left technically left the NCAA, but that would mean it basically would have given up athletics. If it were the B10 who were imposing these sanctions, PSU could have arguably said well we are leaving the B10 and found a somewhat equivalment home elsewhere. That is not true with the NCAA.
LikeLike
“There rules limit how many athletes are forced to play an extra game each season. That reduces the injury risk and their time away from school.”
I would find this more persuasive if it came from an organization that did not adopt play-in games which require student athletes to miss an entire week of school just to maximize their revenue in college basketball.
LikeLike
“The governing body for college athletics for all the schools that voluntarily joined the NCAA, that’s who.”
If we ever reach the day where there are 4 power conferences and those 4 decide to leave the NCAA to stage their own basketball tournament, we’ll see whether the the NCAA and the politicians agree with you that it was purely “voluntary.” I would suspect the NCAA would be the lead plaintiff in an antitrust case.
LikeLike
The play-in game isn’t to maximize revenue. Its because some conferences with no business in Division I are squeezing out more deserving teams (although I don’t think any 8th place team has any business in the tourney-but that’s a separate issue). Its to give everyone a chance.
LikeLike
Bullet – I just look at the NCAA with more cynical glasses than you. I have no problem with the play-in game per se. I think it would have been better to just eliminate the 61-64 teams as they are the last teams in anyway and stick with 64. But I think they didn’t want to do that because those teams typically are power-conference teams and I have no doubt that the NCAA wants to make the power conferences happy. The fact that they get a few more games and lessen the chance of watered down first round games just happens to be a happy coincidence I guess.
LikeLike
The play-in game isn’t to maximize revenue. Its because some conferences with no business in Division I are squeezing out more deserving teams (although I don’t think any 8th place team has any business in the tourney-but that’s a separate issue). Its to give everyone a chance.
Whatever the purpose for play-in games may be, for the teams involved they increase the number of games played and the amount of time away from class. I therefore have trouble believing the claimed justifications for leaving the CCG qualification rule the way it is, given that a revision would have no effect whatsoever on the number of games played, player safety, athletic/academic balance, or any of the other cited reasons.
LikeLike
Like all organizations, mission creep has crept in at the NCAA. And I think silly rules like the rules pertaining to the CCG highlight this mission creep. Obviously, the conferences do not think it is worth the potential blow-up to directly confront the NCAA on this. I do think though that if the B10 were to tell the NCAA that it was going to simply take the top 2 teams and have them play, that the NCAA would really be in no position to stop them, and I doubt the NCAA would risk some of its goodwill to defend such a rule. And without the rule, the the B10 may have freely choose to take the top two teams (at least when it was at 12 teams). But it probably isn’t a big enough issue to go to battle over. Both sides probably would have more to risk than gain. That shouldn’t stop us from debating it though.
Good discussion. I think Marc and on are on one side and Bullet and Brian on the other. We just disagree that is all.
LikeLike
Football isn’t basketball. The serious injury risk is nowhere near the same from 1 extra game in hoops. Between online work and tutors, a play-in game costs players very little academically. Half of the teams are done after 1 game. The rest lose the following weekend. With online access to class material and tutors, players don’t miss much during that time span.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s a bit of sophistry to describe the NCAA as voluntary,”
No, it isn’t. It is purely voluntary. The role of a university is to educate students, and hundreds of schools in the US do that successfully without joining the NCAA. They still play sports, too.
“as it is a de facto monopoly in the field it regulates.”
But that field is not integral to the job of the university. No university is hindered from educating students by not joining the NCAA.
“If there is only one usable bridge off of an island, one can’t say with a straight face that use of the bridge is voluntary.”
There are several bridges, and staying on the island is also a choice.
LikeLike
“You can split 12 into two divisions and still have teams face each other quit a bit. You can divvy up 16 into four groups and work a scheduling rotation easily from that. But there’s no good way to divide 14.”
As I said above, some people just can’t wrap their heads around the concept of pods for 14 teams (or 18, for that matter).
Also, I think it’s unfair to say there’s no good way to deal with 14. He later states two of the reasons the ACC’s schedule is so screwed up – they refuse to play 9 games (schools with locked SEC rivals plus ND games) or to not lock so many games.
12 teams, 8 games, 1 locked – 6 x 100%, 5 x 40%
14 teams, 8 games, 1 locked – 7 x 100%, 6 x 17% – ACC’s choice
14 teams, 8 games, 0 locked – 6 x 100%, 7 x 29%
14 teams, 9 games, 1 locked – 7 x 100%, 6 x 33%
14 teams, 9 games, 0 locked – 6 x 100%, 7 x 43%
The ACC needs to face the fact that eventually they have to go to 9 games. They’d need it for their network but more importantly they need it to keep the league unified. They could offer the teams with locked rivals the chance to opt out of ND games (fat chance). For a more practical reason, it would mean more major conference games since the FB powers are split (Clemson, FSU, UL vs. Miami, GT, VT) and only Miami/FSU and GT/Clemson are locked. That would make their TV package more appealing
Maybe some of these in-state rivalries should go to partial status with a break for 2 years to play ND home and home. ND could rotate through them (FSU, UL, Clemson, GT) so the rivalries would be 6 out of 8 years. Of course, the SEC teams would also have to agree.
Also, could people please learn to spell Delany? It’s not that tough. He’s been running the B10 for over 20 years. How long does it take to figure out there’s only 1 “e”?
LikeLike
Many of you may not think much of the Washington Times, but one of its columnists had some interesting things to say the other day about the NCAA and the differing ways it has handled the scandals at Penn State and North Carolina: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/ncaa-silence-north-carolina-academic-scandal-speak/?page=all#pagebreak
LikeLike
Well, I never understood the reason why the Penn State scandal called for NCAA sanctions, and I don’t understand how Emmert could believe UNC’s academic scandal is out of his purview.
If there’s a “logic” there, I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
I guess I should be happy that the NCAA has stayed out, as I don’t think they are necessary at all. But the article does raise an interesting point. I have long thought that the NCAA’s handling of the PSU case would eventually harm the NCAA. My reasoning was this: the NCAA had the obvious moral high ground, and using that, overreached and claimed powers it did not actually possess. But maybe the NCAA is smart enough to realize that those circumstances were obviously in their favor, and that schools might otherwise push back on further encroachment and so they have decided to not involve itself in some of these other scandals. I’m sure that is giving the NCAA far too much credit.
LikeLike
I see I didn’t really finish my thought above. I said:
My reasoning was this: the NCAA had the obvious moral high ground, and using that, overreached and claimed powers it did not actually possess.
I should have added
Eventually the NCAA would assert those “powers” that it claimed against a school in a case where it didn’t have overwhelming public support. And a school may discredit the NCAA for sticking its nose in something it shouldn’t be in, which could cause the public to turn on the NCAA.
LikeLike
For me, the biggest benefit to superconferences is the potential to eliminate the NCAA or weaken it. Maybe they can tell the NCAA to either butt out of division one football or we’ll set up our own basketball tourney and take that payoff for ourselves.
LikeLike
I have long thought that the NCAA’s handling of the PSU case would eventually harm the NCAA.
I wish you were right…but I don’t think it will. Reactions to the Penn State sanctions were about 50/50, between those who think they were too harsh, and those who think they were justified. That’s not a good percentage, for something he just pulled out of his ass, bypassing the usual enforcement process. If you’re going to make up a penalty out of nowhere, it ought to have overwhelming support, and here it didn’t.
Emmert won’t admit he screwed up. But with the blowback he’s has gotten, I doubt he’s thinking: “I need to do this more often.” And he’s probably not going to have any reason to. Scandals like this don’t happen very often (thank God).
LikeLike
Penn State was on the national news. UNC is a blip locally.
LikeLike
It’s also PSU football vs. UNC football. If UNC basketball was primarily involved, it would be a far different story — since it’s a big player in hoops (whose tournament the NCAA controls, as opposed to football and bowls), the Tar Heels are “too big to fail.” Short of the death penalty, Chapel Hill will throw football under the bus to protect its precious basketball program.
LikeLike
Here’s an update to the early B1G TV schedule:
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/06/big-ten-adds-11-games-early-season-2013-football-tv-schedule/
LikeLike
FSU’s 2012-13 distribution from the ACC:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/chopping-block/os-cb-florida-state-fsu-acc-conference-distribution-18-million-20130612,0,6430394,full.post
$18.2 million vs. $16.8 last year. $12.188 TV money.
LikeLike
The Big Ten distributed $25.7M per school–see http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing
That’s $7.5M higher than what FSU received from the ACC for FY 2013.
According to this article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html), the annual revenue per Big Ten school is as follows:
FY 2014 – $32M
FY 2015 – $33M
FY 2016 – $34.5M
FY 2017 – $43M
FY 2018 – $44M
FY 2019 – $45M
The jump from FY 2013 to FY 2014 is largely due to the new post-season setup, so Florida State is likely going to keep pace with its Big Ten counterparts on that measure.
The jump from FY 2016 to FY 2017 is the new television contract deal. That’s where we may see a growing difference between the Big Ten and the ACC.
LikeLike
It isn’t clear that those numbers are annual revenue per Big Ten school or annual revenue for Maryland numbers. There could be a difference there given Maryland’s upfront loan situation, which Thamel as reported as well.
“Florida State is likely going to keep pace with its Big Ten counterparts on that measure.”
Through 2016, the ACC, Big XII, SEC and Pac-12 shouldn’t be keeping pace they should all be closing their respective gaps with the Big Ten. As you noted everyone is going to see the BCS to playoff jump. Some of said jump is slightly over-stated by many though ($470 million a year over 12 years isn’t $470 million in year 1). But the Big Ten has 2 new mouths to feed in 2014 (and a very big one in Maryland if they’re basically getting a full-share from the get go). Not to mention, Nebraska is presumably getting a bigger payout every year through 2016 as well.
The Big Ten is going to have more slices to split the pie and other conferences don’t have that issue between now and then. This will of course be rectified in 2017.
LikeLike
The jump from FY 2013 to FY 2014 is largely due to the new post-season setup, so Florida State is likely going to keep pace with its Big Ten counterparts on that measure.
Actually the gab will grow as result of playoff. The ACC’s Orange Bowl is significantly lower than the payouts the B1G, PAC, SEC and XII will be getting from the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t see how one can make the statement the ACC is going to keep pace with due to the playoffs. The playoff bump is ultimately going to push them even further behind given the disparity in the Orange Bowl contract vs. Rose and Sugar (and the fact the SEC/Big Ten will get an equal share of the Orange Bowl payout on a given year).
LikeLike
UNC and its Tobacco Road brethren won’t care — as long as the rest of the nation leaves them alone to continue their delusion that basketball is more important than football. Not sure how well that ultimately will play over the long run from Clemson on south, however.
LikeLike
http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/espn-3d-channel-folding/
ESPN 3D cease broadcasting by the end of the year.
LikeLike
3D television never took off (surprise) like everyone in the industry was hoping it would. The new focus is about finally rolling out 4K, but the prices for the sets are ridiculously high for something that most people won’t appreciate.
LikeLike
I don’t see 3D TV channels being viable until 3D sets no longer require glasses.
LikeLike
It didn’t help that in NYC, Time Warner Cable wanted an extra $15/month just for ESPN3D.
LikeLike
Via Fang’s Bites, we get a press release from Fox Sports about their plans to air college football this year. Of note is that FS1, FSN and Fox College Sports, along with Big Fox will be used. Apparently, Fox Sports 2 (rebranded Fuel TV) won’t be used.
http://fangsbites.com/2013/06/fox-sports-2013-college-football-schedule/
LikeLike
As expected, Luis Suarez now wants to transfer to another club. (Liverpool isn’t good enough to play in the Champions League.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jun/11/liverpool-luis-suarez-media
Lesson here: Unhappy with your contract (GOR)? Then do something outrageous and blame somebody else for the problem. Then the other party has an incentive to release you from the contract (GOR).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22395155/realignment-really-over-now-c-usa-sun-belt-discuss-expansion-pause
The I-A realignment may be on hold. CUSA and the SB have said they’re down for now.
LikeLike
I’d say that any 11-team league is probably looking for #12. It’s only a question of whether the right #12 can be found. As the Big Ten proved, that can take years.
LikeLike
They could also go back to 10 and let Idaho go in a couple years.
But then there are some financial incentives with the playoff to being at 12 among the G-5 conferences.
LikeLike
I just don’t see the SunBelt holding at 11 very long. Clearly whoever they wanted wasn’t ready to move up or the SunBelt wasn’t interested in those clearly saying their ready (Liberty U).
I’m still skeptical that Navy will join the AAC in 2015, so that could trigger more movement in the lower 5.
LikeLike
James Madison would be a better FBS candidate than Liberty, but I sense if JMU chooses to move up, it would prefer C-USA to the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think C-USA would expand to 16 if #15 is JMU.
LikeLike
Keeping up with my anti-NCAA rants, can someone tell me if the state of PA still has (or did they ever) a filed suit against the NCAA? I remember the governor saying he was going to file an action. Just curious as to where it stands.
LikeLike
Got dismissed by the judge a week or so ago.
LikeLike
Thanks. I was never confident of the legality of it. Legality wasn’t my beef with the NCAA. From a legal standpoint it was probably operating within its rights. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
LikeLike
On another Pennsylvania matter, saw this link on another board to the Pitt AD. One reason the ACC was able to keep their invitations to Pitt and SU so quiet was that they only started discussing it a month before it happened. And Pitt didn’t know who the other team was until the night before.
http://blogs.post-gazette.com/sports/pitt-redshirt-diaries/38276-pederson-speaks-on-facilities-transfers-and-yes-uniforms
“- As Pitt gets set to officially enter the ACC next month, Pederson recalled the first time the idea came up. Just as it seemed externally, he said everything fell into place very quickly. His first real conversation with ACC commissioner John Swofford came only about a month before the deal was officially announced in September 2011.
”The first time that it became real for me was the first real conversation John Swofford and I had about this,” Pederson said. “To me, that was when it goes from an idea to more the reality of all this. As we had discussion, it became clearer and clearer that there could be a way to get this done if we both were on the same page with what they were looking for and what we were looking for.
”We really had no idea who else they might be talking to or thinking about. In fact, until the night before we kind of had the formal invitation, that was the first time I knew Syracuse was the other school they were talking to. At that point, you were really keeping it pretty close to the vest as far as what might or might not happen because you didn’t know what anybody else was doing or thinking. “
LikeLike
What happened to Zeek?
LikeLike
If the NCAA dropped the rule of requiring round robin divisions to host a CCG, I’ve been trying to think how else the Big Ten could organize. I don’t think it would switch at all, but I’d hope it would and if it did, I think it would go for this approach:
1. 9 game conference schedule still (10 would be better, but wouldn’t happen)
2. Everyone gets 3 locked games a year. The other 6 rotate. That means playing 3 teams 100% of the time and the other 10, 60% of the time.
3. Teams with the best two records go to the CCG (with a plethora of tie breakers).
I put three games locked games inbecause I think that’s what the Big Ten would want to preserve the vast majority of games they or the schools care most about. They’d look something like this:
Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
Iowa: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota
Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, Rutgers
Minnesota: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Maryland
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Northwestern: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
The only ones there that aren’t rivalries, trophy games, or border games that make sense are a) Michigan State-Northwestern, b) Nebraska and Rutgers, c) Maryland and Purdue. Michigan State-Northwestern is a game Michigan State would like anyway (they’ve expressed a desire to play in Chicago). The other two are pretty random, but Nebraska gives the conference another big name close to New York every year. Meanwhile the most significant game I see missing from that list is probably Nebraska/Minnesota which I don’t think either side will miss a lot (Minnesota would choose the other 3 first and while Nebraska has history with Minnesota, it’s not something they are going to miss having every year).
LikeLike
I do think the Big Ten would seriously consider eliminating divisions if they weren’t needed to stage a CCG.
1. 9 game conference schedule still (10 would be better, but wouldn’t happen)
Ten is worse, because schools would have trouble scheduling 7 home games and would have very little flexibility to bring in good OOC opponents.
2. Everyone gets 3 locked games a year.
That’s the main mistake you’ve made: locking things that don’t need to be locked. There’s no reason for every school to have the identical number of locked games. Demand for Nebraska–Rutgers or Purdue–Maryland is practically non-existent. It’s true that MSU would like games in Chicago, but they have no unique claim to that: they want it for the same reason everybody does.
LikeLike
Marc – I think if the B10 wanted it bad enough, they could get the rule changed. Despite what others may think, I believe the NCAA would have a hard time preventing the B10 from using its own way of determining who should be in the CCG. As Jackson apocryphally said to about a John Marshall ruling – “He’s made his ruling, not let him enforce it.” The NCAA would likely have a difficult time enforcing this rule if the B10 were to really push for it. If its important to the B10, the B10 should just call the NCAA’s bluff. Of course I’m not saying anything the B10 doesn’t know.
LikeLike
SH,
” Despite what others may think, I believe the NCAA would have a hard time preventing the B10 from using its own way of determining who should be in the CCG.”
I don’t know where you get this from. It’s incredibly easy for the NCAA to enforce their rules. The instant the B10 played a game in violation of those rules, the NCAA would make those teams ineligible for a bowl. They’d have an infractions case and would probably fine the B10 a huge amount (at least the $20M+ Fox pays for the game, probably also all CFP money for that year) and put the B10 and those 2 schools on probation. Any future violation could lead to expulsion or the death penalty.
LikeLike
Brian you seem to believe that the NCAA can do whatever it wants, that it is this all-powerful organization and that its rules are above everything else. I don’t blame you for thinking that because that is exactly what the NCAA wants and unfortunately that is the power the schools have far too long ceded to it. But this makes sense so long as the NCAA wields its power wisely. If a whole conference was willing to go against the NCAA is the NCAA willing to go nuclear against that conference. Because the B10 is itself a very powerful organization and unlike the NCAA one which has an actual product line on its own (the schools) not one that is dependent on other supplying the product.
Hypothetically, let’s play your scenario out where the NCAA decides to go nuclear against the B10. Despite the NCAA’s warnings, the B10 has a CCG without divisions. The NCAA makes good on its warnings and makes all its teams ineligible for a bowl and fines them and puts them on probation. The B10 teams as a whole then decide to voluntarily leave this voluntary organization, and they happen to convince the Pac 10 to join them because they have determined they can make more money on their own. Since they own the Rose Bowl and other games, they just go ahead and play them despite the fact that the NCAA has banned them. But since they are no longer part of the NCAA this ban means nothing. Nor does the fine. The B10 and now Pac10 ignore the probation that the NCAA also tried to impose on them. Finally, they just laugh off the death penalty as the Rose Bowl becomes one of the highest rated programs of the year due to the storyline generated from the NCAA going nuclear when it really didn’t have any product to go nuclear with. The B10 and P10 approach the SEC and ACC and agree to hold their own basketball tournament which makes huge amounts of money. They no longer have to share this money with the other 300 NCAA schools.
We live in a better world where the 64 college haves operate in a different universe than the other schools all because the NCAA told the B10 that they could only have a CCG with divisions.
Far fetched – of course. But do I think the NCAA would really risk the potential over divisions. No.
LikeLike
The B10 teams as a whole then decide to voluntarily leave this voluntary organization, and they happen to convince the Pac 10 to join them because they have determined they can make more money on their own.
You left out the part where the all the B1G and PAC schools have to accept a minimum one year death penalty for their entire athletic departments since the regionalized nature of non-revenue sports would make it impossible for the schools to meet their Title IX obligations without the cooperation of the remaining NCAA schools to say nothing of the fact they couldn’t get an infrastructure in place to regulate all their sports in less than a year. Plus, there is no guarantee the breakaway schools could keep their tax exempt status.
The fact is, if the big schools are going to breakaway it will have to be over something much much bigger than divisions.
LikeLike
SH,
“Brian you seem to believe that the NCAA can do whatever it wants,”
No, I think it can enforce its own rules.
“If a whole conference was willing to go against the NCAA is the NCAA willing to go nuclear against that conference.”
Yes. They destroyed the SWC by punishing cheaters and had much of the SEC on probation at the same time for a while. The rest of the schools believe in the rules and insist that they be enforced. That’s why the B10 would never do anything as idiotic as what you suggest. They believe in the system.
“Hypothetically, let’s play your scenario out where the NCAA decides to go nuclear against the B10.”
The much larger hypothetical is the B10 doing what you suggest. The presidents would fire Delany for trying it and they would never let their schools participate in such a game.
That’s why your hypothetical falls apart.
“The B10 teams as a whole then decide to voluntarily leave this voluntary organization,”
Wouldn’t happen.
“and they happen to convince the Pac 10 to join them because they have determined they can make more money on their own.”
Wouldn’t happen.
“Since they own the Rose Bowl and other games, they just go ahead and play them despite the fact that the NCAA has banned them.”
Wouldn’t happen.
Anyone can dream up a ridiculous scenario. It’s not useful for much, though.
LikeLike
You left out the part where the all the B1G and PAC schools have to accept a minimum one year death penalty for their entire athletic departments since the regionalized nature of non-revenue sports would make it impossible for the schools to meet their Title IX obligations without the cooperation of the remaining NCAA schools to say nothing of the fact they couldn’t get an infrastructure in place to regulate all their sports in less than a year.
Look up anti-trust in the dictionary. The death penalty only works because schools voluntarily accept it. Once you’re not in the NCAA, the NCAA is powerless to decide whether you can play a sport or not.
Even assuming, which is exceedingly doubtful, that every other NCAA institution decided not to play the B1G or the PAC in any sport, and got away with it—they could still play each other.
Of course, the remaining members would not permit the NCAA to even attempt this, because too many of them need to play B1G and PAC schools, for revenue and Title IX reasons of their own. The NCAA can give the death penalty to SMU football, because the rest of the country can easily schedule around one school in one sport. The rest of the country can’t easily schedule around 26 major schools simultaneously going off the air in all sports, nor do they want to.
The fact is, if the big schools are going to breakaway it will have to be over something much much bigger than divisions.
I agree with you about that, and I think even SH agrees too.
LikeLike
Hypothetically, let’s play your scenario out where the NCAA decides to go nuclear against the B10. Despite the NCAA’s warnings, the B10 has a CCG without divisions. The NCAA makes good on its warnings and makes all its teams ineligible for a bowl and fines them and puts them on probation. The B10 teams as a whole then decide to voluntarily leave this voluntary organization, and they happen to convince the Pac 10 to join them because they have determined they can make more money on their own. Since they own the Rose Bowl and other games, they just go ahead and play them despite the fact that the NCAA has banned them. But since they are no longer part of the NCAA this ban means nothing. Nor does the fine. The B10 and now Pac10 ignore the probation that the NCAA also tried to impose on them. Finally, they just laugh off the death penalty as the Rose Bowl becomes one of the highest rated programs of the year due to the storyline generated from the NCAA going nuclear when it really didn’t have any product to go nuclear with. The B10 and P10 approach the SEC and ACC and agree to hold their own basketball tournament which makes huge amounts of money. They no longer have to share this money with the other 300 NCAA schools.
SH, you don’t get it. If the big five conferences broke off from the NCAA, even if they succeeded in football, they’d be stranded competitively in sports where competition is essentially regional. (See my entry on this topic elsewhere in this thread.) How do you fill such holes if the NCAA rules that playing your schools is new verboten? Do you honestly expect Washington State to start fielding a team in women’s lacrosse, Wake Forest to institute ice hockey or Iowa State to inaugurate water polo, merely out of the goodness of their hearts? And eliminating most sports other than football, men’s and women’s basketball and baseball would both be a PR disaster and likely run afoul of Title IX. Look at the big picture, please.
LikeLike
“Look up anti-trust in the dictionary. The death penalty only works because schools voluntarily accept it. ”
He’s not saying its an NCAA death penalty. It would be a self created one. You would be abandoning the structure of intercollegiate sports, and probably committing suicide/murder of a number of sports offerings. There would be no way to create a replacement organization in less than a year.
LikeLike
If the big five conferences broke off from the NCAA, even if they succeeded in football, they’d be stranded competitively in sports where competition is essentially regional.
Even those administrators who’ve mooted the idea of breaking away, have not suggested doing so in all sports. No one particularly minds the NCAA in sports like soccer and wrestling that don’t make money. In fact, the breakaway (if it occurred) would probably be only in football.
How do you fill such holes if the NCAA rules that playing your schools is new verboten?
The NCAA can’t do that, not only for anti-trust reasons, but because its members wouldn’t tolerate it. The non-breakaway leagues, like the MAC, survive on paycheck games against larger schools. They need to have those games or the whole structure falls apart.
LikeLike
Plus, if more than just a couple conferences “broke away” it would simply be like dividing the NCAA, creating a new division. Big issues would be needed (scollarship limitation, full cost of attendance, division of non FB money, etc) to cause such a break, not a minor concern over rules about how a single, extra, post season, non bowl FB game is qualified for. That everyone except the 10 team B12 already benefits from.
You can’t just substitute B1G for B12 and argue the concerns are the same. Every one over 10 is having some scheduling issues. Altering this rule isn’t a magical solution. It is an attempt to create an interconference invitational bowl, guaranteeing nothing for winning on the field. B12 has run out the stalking horse of a CCG for under 12 conferences in order to claim a compromise if 12 stays required, but OU and UT can stay in the same division and yet still meet in the CCG many years. I’m sure KSU, WVU, etc are “thrilled” at this (but will remain quiet, don’t want to upset the landlord).
LikeLike
D1 Wrestling championships is the NCAA’s third or fourth biggest money maker. Granted, all the profitable championships added together adds up to a drop in the bucket that is filled by march madness.
LikeLike
“The NCAA can’t do that, not only for anti-trust reasons…”
They can and do all the time. You can request permission to compete with non members (foreign exchange teams, USA baseball/softball, athletes in action, etc). It is often granted, but not always. Without authority there is no governing.
LikeLike
You can’t just substitute B1G for B12 and argue the concerns are the same. Every one over 10 is having some scheduling issues. Altering this rule isn’t a magical solution. It is an attempt to create an interconference invitational bowl, guaranteeing nothing for winning on the field.
That’s kind of silly, which is characteristic of this whole discussion. If a CCG pitting the two winningest teams in the conference doesn’t “guarantee something for winning on the field,” I don’t know what does. Whether or not you favor the idea, surely you understand that.
I’m still waiting for you to answer the question: outside of the league adopting it, why should anyone care what format is used to decide the best two teams for a championship game that is going to be played no matter what?
“The NCAA can’t do that, not only for anti-trust reasons…”
They can and do all the time. You can request permission to compete with non members (foreign exchange teams, USA baseball/softball, athletes in action, etc). It is often granted, but not always.
The members tolerate that, because those games are just sidelights, and they are comparatively rare. If the NCAA tried to take prohibit games that athletic programs actually need, in order to survive, it would be a different story.
LikeLike
Look up anti-trust in the dictionary. The death penalty only works because schools voluntarily accept it. Once you’re not in the NCAA, the NCAA is powerless to decide whether you can play a sport or not.
I didn’t mean an NCAA imposed death penalty; I meant a de facto death penalty that would result from the PAC and Big 10 not having any where to play their non-revs.
Even assuming, which is exceedingly doubtful, that every other NCAA institution decided not to play the B1G or the PAC in any sport, and got away with it—they could still play each other.
That’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is the non-breakaway schools issuing an ultimatum to the Big Ten and PAC; either comply with the NCAA rules, keep FB in the NCAA or you are immediately ejected from the organization in all sports.
And no they couldn’t just play each other because there simply are not enough teams in the Big Ten and PAC that play certain non-revs.
Of course, the remaining members would not permit the NCAA to even attempt this, because too many of them need to play B1G and PAC schools, for revenue and Title IX reasons of their own.
Ejecting the Big 10 and PAC would cause scheduling difficulties for the remaining schools. It would result in scheduling impossibilities for the Big 10 and PAC.
LikeLike
Even those administrators who’ve mooted the idea of breaking away, have not suggested doing so in all sports. No one particularly minds the NCAA in sports like soccer and wrestling that don’t make money. In fact, the breakaway (if it occurred) would probably be only in football.
That is exactly the issue. If the Big Boys want to breakaway they are going to need the cooperation of the small schools in order to ensure they would have homes for their non-revs.
The simple truth, the large schools are not in a position to unilaterally depart from the NCAA, even just for FB, for at least 5 years and probably more like 10.
LikeLike
“I’m still waiting for you to answer the question: outside of the league adopting it, why should anyone care what format is used to decide the best two teams for a championship game that is going to be played no matter what?”
I have answered. It isn’t happening no matter what, unless it is by the same rules that every other conference has been a party to establishing through their self governing body, the NCAA, and operate under to hold a CCG.
Selecting the two winningest teams, without a RR does not determine anything definitive, other than who may or may not have benefited by weaker SOS. Division champs meeting does guarantee the best team will be included, second in division already having been…well, second in that division. Your argument is that a CCG is unnecessary, but you want a money making exibition game. The justification for the extra game Is that equitably determining a champion in a 12+ team conference requires a playoff like format, (an elimination system in leu of playing 11 RR conference games). It’s that or resorting to polls, committees, eye tests, popularity contests and guesses, which does not need an extra game to occur.
LikeLike
This is a sincere question, so if I’m not making it clear, please let me know. Believe it or not, I really don’t understand this, and am hoping someone can explain it.
@ccrider: “I’m still waiting for you to answer the question: outside of the league adopting it, why should anyone care what format is used to decide the best two teams for a championship game that is going to be played no matter what?”
I have answered. It isn’t happening no matter what, unless it is by the same rules that every other conference has been a party to establishing through their self governing body, the NCAA, and operate under to hold a CCG.
What I mean by “no matter what,” is that every FBS league with 12+ teams is playing a CCG; none has elected NOT to play it, even though they could. So one way or another, that game is gonna happen.
So my question, which you have not answered, is why anyone outside of the league making the decision, should care what method is used to qualify the game’s participants?
You just keep responding with the circular statement that rules need to be abided by, which is not the point in dispute. Rules can change. My question is, if it were proposed to change this rule, who would care, and why?
Selecting the two winningest teams, without a RR does not determine anything definitive, other than who may or may not have benefited by weaker SOS.
That would be a good argument for the various league ADs to weigh, as they decide whether to use this scheduling format. But that’s not the question at issue.
The question is: if the ADs believe that this new method actually does a better job of identifying the two worthiest semi-finalists for the league title, why should anyone NOT in the league care if they are mistaken?
The justification for the extra game Is that equitably determining a champion in a 12+ team conference requires a playoff like format, (an elimination system in lieu of playing 11 RR conference games). It’s that or resorting to polls, committees, eye tests, popularity contests and guesses, which does not need an extra game to occur.
I think you know that’s nonsense. Even in the existing system, three teams can finished co-equal first in a division, with each having gone 1-1 vs. the other two. The system of deciding which one goes to the championship is a tie-breaker, not a committee, poll, eye test, or popularity contest.
Meanwhile, the other division could be won by a 6-6 team that already lost to one or more of the others. Look up the Big XII in 2008, certainly not the only time it’s happened, although it is one of the most notorious.
Pro sports have this problem too, but they solve it with wildcards, a solution not available in college football.
LikeLike
Marc
12 team conferences do have discretion on how to choose their champion. They could play an 11 game round robin. They could play 10 or 9 or 8 games and use any tiebreaker they want. They could play an uneven schedule like the SEC did and like the BE did in its first couple of years where one team might play 8 games and another 5. They could even count certain (or all) out of conference games. Conferences have in the past, on occasion had a designated ooc game counted as a conference game. OR, they could split into divisions, play a round robin and an extra game between the division champions. And they could count only division play or all conference games to determine the division champions. What they can’t do is add an extra game just for the heck of it.
LikeLike
Marc:
“My question is, if it were proposed to change this rule, who would care, and why?”
I’m not trying to be flip. The game is an extra game. Rules were established not simply to allow a game, but that the game would serve the purpose the rule originally was requested for, deciding a champion. Not to find second, or create the most attractive matchup. Methods of selection are not elimination systems, therefor not needing the final.
Every conference that can is availing themselves of it. The B1G and the PAC both asked about alternatives. Probably everyone who has, or is contemplating a CCG has at least informally looked into variations. Had a consensus been achieved as to another allowable, acceptable model it would have been enacted.
To summarize:
1: Prob: conferences too big to allow RR (or incomplete RR) championship determination.
2: solution: divide and RR to champion in each half. Allow extra game for those two to play off for title.
3: selection of competitors without regard to division play is to argue that large conferences don’t have a problem identifying a champion. They either don’t have a competitive need for the extra game, or want to use the extra game for other reasons, need or not.
LikeLike
@bullet:
12 team conferences do have discretion on how to choose their champion. They could play an 11 game round robin. [Various other options elided.]
I realize that. You listed a bunch of options that no current conference has considered acceptable — or to my knowledge, considered at all. They’re just too unattractive. To say that people have options, and then list only terrible ones, is not especially useful.
But there is one other option that a lot of people think would be genuinely competitively better — not a money grab or a random game, but actually better. It would allow conference mates to meet more often in the regular season, and it would have a higher probability of identifying a worthy champion.
Of course, CCGs in FBS are money grabs anyway, but that ship has sailed: every 12+ team league is going to play a CCG, because no other good option exists. So the only argument is the qualification mechanism for that game, not whether it’ll happen.
Rules were established not simply to allow a game, but that the game would serve the purpose the rule originally was requested for, deciding a champion.
It would be interesting if someone could find a defense of the rule, as written, from someone who actually wrote or voted on it. @ccrider55 seems stuck on this idea that if you qualify the participants in any other way, it’s not a valid champion, but merely a random extra game. It would be interesting to know if anyone then actually said that, and if the same people still think so today. It is demonstrably untrue, but people sometimes vote for the wrong or ill informed reasons, and opinions do evolve.
Merely to say that that was what people wanted 20 years ago isn’t very illuminating. They didn’t want an FBS playoff then either.
LikeLike
The rule is the demonstration. Created for that reason, providing a method to clearly decide two teams to play in an extra game beyond the 12 allowed, passed by the membership and retained unchanged inspire of the most powerful conferences inquiring about possible variation. If it actually was a problem it would have been addressed. The fact is it isn’t, and hasn’t needed to be.
LikeLike
As long as the Big Ten stays within the NCAA, they’ll follow its rules. They don’t want to set up a precedent of conferences avoiding NCAA rules. If it goes too far, they’ll leave, but to simply ignore rules would end the purpose of the NCAA (set-up by the school to organize play between them).
LikeLike
1. That’s the reason they’ll stick with 9. Personally, I’d be OK with ditching all good out of conference games if it meant 10 conference games, but I know I’m in a big minority there.
2. I have zero complaints if they only lock 2 for some teams. Locking 3 for most schools make sense though. You are really only talking a couple games that don’t have to be annual or the conference wouldn’t want as annual if everyone has 3. I don’t think they’d create a set-up where 8 teams have 3 locked games and 6 teams have 2. The scheduling set-up for that would be very difficult to arrange unless those 6 teams are just playing themselves with the extra game. Again, no complaints if that’s how the conference wants to do it, but the most important thing is lowering the number of locked opponents from 6 down to no more than 3.
LikeLike
Out of curiosity don’t you think eventually a 14th game will be added, allowing 10 conference games and 3 OOG games? Wouldn’t surprise me. I probably prefer 10 & 2. I wish there was a way to further incentivize good teams to play one another.
How does the payout work if two good teams play one another. For instance when Ohio St and Texas had a home and home. Presumably that game paid out more TV money than if either team played a week opponent. But I’m not sure how the revenue streams for such a game work.
One idea may be for the individual teams to receive more direct revenue from such a game so they might seek it out. Just an idea, may not work of course. I’m sure there are already economic factors in play that try to incetivize such games. Of course the economic factors may actually work the other way too.
LikeLike
I hope a regular 13th game regular season (and 14th with a CCG) is never approved. They’ve already changed around a lot to bring more money (playoff, CCGs, realignment, 12th game, stadium expansions, TV deals, even the rules to speed things up for TV). They’ve pushing the kids as far as they should if they want to pretend their amateurs. I think for that reason, 14 games will be a line in the sand unless you are talking about allowing players to make money off the performance.
Ohio State and Texas playing each other both would keep their home game revenue. They miss out somewhat for not having a home game the other year, but the attention the game brings and excitement helps the school both directly and indirectly. Directly, it makes it easier to sell season tickets at a higher price (or more donations to get the chance) as people want to see those games a lot more than vs. a random MAC school. That said, it is still probably more costly than hosting a team you can do a one and done with so you usually only get one of them.
LikeLike
Eric – what about the TV revenue for such a game? How does that work?
LikeLike
SH,
The networks pay for X number of games, but they don’t price each one separately. OSU gets the same money whether they play Texas or Texas State. But if you keep scheduling weak games, the contract value will go down in the future.
The incentive for big games is national coverage and a SOS boost. Coverage helps with recruiting and the SOS helps for the postseason.
LikeLike
If they add an extra game, I hope it’s in the form of an expanded playoff scenario (and allowing an NIT-type secondary tournament) rather than a regular season game.
LikeLike
Yes, I think they will eventually add a 13th regular-season game.
I think . . . 14 games will be a line in the sand.
Well, the history of the sport is that the number of games keeps going up, so I wouldn’t be so sure.
If they add an extra game, I hope it’s in the form of an expanded playoff scenario (and allowing an NIT-type secondary tournament) rather than a regular season game.
The difference is that a 13th regular-season game would allow every school to schedule an extra game, with the revenue that implies. Adding a round to the playoff would allow just four more teams to get an extra game.
LikeLike
Tradition is often an undervalued/appreciated asset, especially among the sports media and in particular when reporting on the ‘old, slow and stodgy’ Big Ten. Fans, however, love tradition and always will. Case in point, the booming ratings of this years (Original Six) Stanley Cup Finals. Highest since (drum roll please) the Wings/Flyers series 16 years ago.
(From Deadline.com)
The Chicago Blackhawks beat the Boston Bruins 4-3 last night in triple overtime in Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals, but it was NBC who really scored. Going from 8 PM-1:06 AM ET, the game drew a 4.8 overnight rating, which is up 100% from the 2.4 overnight rating of last year’s Game 1 between the LA Kings and New Jersey Devils. Wednesday’s result was also the best overnight rating for an Stanley Cup Final Game 1 since the Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers in 1997, which drew a 5.2 overnight rating on Fox. Up 140%
Now that the Hawks are in the finals, FTT can finally admit that the waved off goal against the Wings was the right call. -Go Blackhawks!
LikeLike
GLS – I agree. I never understood why the B12 would get rid of the annual OU-NE game, one if its most valuable commodity. I wish UT/A&M would continue to play. Tradition can be great.
LikeLike
I have to believe after expansion fever settles down you’ll see these rivalries like those restored, at least on a semi-annual basis. OU/NE have already scheduled a few games and eventually money and passion will win out and UT/aTm will clash again.
LikeLike
eventually money and passion will win out and UT/aTm will clash again.
UT already sells out all its home games anyways so I’m not sure where the extra money would come from and right now the fans’ passion is overwhelming against ever playing aTm again. They’ll probably play again someday but it will be at least 10 years (UT’s schedule is already full for the next decade) and I seriously doubt it will ever be close to annual or even semi-annual.
LikeLike
What does selling out a stadium have to do with the value of a game to the networks?
LikeLike
A game against aTm isn’t going to be worth anymore to the networks than a game against Ohio St. or USC or any of the members of college football royalty that Texas can play in place of A&M.
Besides, TV money is less important to Texas than it is to literally every other school in the country. Even if UT received no money from the LHN or Big XII payouts it would still have the wealthiest athletic department in the country by almost $10 million.
LikeLike
“What does selling out a stadium have to do with the value of a game to the networks?”
There really is no “value of the game” to the networks. They’re often paying for the right to air games that haven’t been scheduled yet.
LikeLike
The problem is that the feelings in some of these rivalries aren’t mutual. OU has UT. NE doesn’t mean as much to OU as OU means to NE. OU has no incentive to add NE very often since they sell tickets anyway.
The same is true for UT/TAMU.
A rivalry like KU/MO is more likely to revive since both schools can benefit significantly from it.
LikeLike
“OU has no incentive to add NE very often since they sell tickets anyway.”
The same applies in reverse. Nebraska has sold out every game for 50 years now.
LikeLike
Financially, yes, but I think NE has an emotional incentive to schedule it. OU doesn’t feel as strongly about the game so they need some other incentive to play it regularly.
LikeLike
I think you’re overstating the emotional ties for Nebraska. Were people hugely disappointed the way the Big XII divisions shook out? Yeah, of course. But it is amazing how much 15 years can change something. The last Osborne-Switzer game was 26 years ago. Figure anyone under 8 isn’t going to have much recollection if it. That puts us at 34 years. Anyone under 34 in Nebraska isn’t going to remember the battles of the 70’s and 80’s. The 90’s were terribly one-sided and the 2000’s were equally one-sided in the opposite direction.
As someone who has lived here for a longtime I don’t see this emotional incentive to schedule Oklahoma on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“I think you’re overstating the emotional ties for Nebraska.”
I’m only saying that they’re stronger than the emotional ties for OU, so I don’t think I am.
“As someone who has lived here for a longtime I don’t see this emotional incentive to schedule Oklahoma on a regular basis.”
I see it expressed online quite frequently by NE fans. I almost never see an OU fan talk wistfully about playing NE again. I’m not claiming NE wants this to be annual again, just that they would rather play it more often than OU would want to.
LikeLike
“I’m only saying that they’re stronger than the emotional ties for OU, so I don’t think I am.”
On a relative scale are the emotional ties for Nebraska stronger? Of course. Oklahoma gets the RRS and Nebraska got nothing out of it other than a “faux” rivalry game with Colorado. So yeah the emotional ties are stronger for Nebraska than Colorado.
“I see it expressed online quite frequently by NE fans. I almost never see an OU fan talk wistfully about playing NE again. I’m not claiming NE wants this to be annual again, just that they would rather play it more often than OU would want to.”
The above being said, as someone who was born here, has lived all my life here, and is a season ticket holder, I honestly don’t see any significant clamoring among the Nebraska fan-base demanding playing OU on an infrequent basis much less an annual one. Like I said in my first post it is pretty amazing what 15 years in the Big XII did to that. Nebraska is unquestionably a school without a rival though and it has been for some time. The Big XII tried to appease Nebraska with the Colorado game the day after Thanksgiving in place of OU. That really never took off. We’ll see what happens with the Big Ten’s attempt with Nebraska and Iowa.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/78293/nebraska-fans-make-non-conference-picks
This is from this week. 8 NE fans suggested their preferred OOC games. 2 of 8 mentioned OU, and the comments show a lot more NE fans in favor of playing OU.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I say I see it expressed online. I have no idea how representative it is of the overall fan base.
LikeLike
The “few games” for OU/NE is a one-off tied into the 50th anniversary of “The game of the century.”
LikeLike
To clarify, OU and NU have a home and home scheduled not a single game.
LikeLike
The ‘one off’ for OU/NE is a home and home.
The first game will be played Sept. 18, 2021, in Norman, while the second of the miniseries will be played in Lincoln Sept. 17, 2022.
LikeLike
Yeah I should’ve made that more clear. It is a home and home to tie into the 50th anniversary of the 1971 Game of the Century. I meant One-off in the broader sense that this is a one time (home and home) thing tied to said date instead of the start of a re-occurring thing.
LikeLike
I have to believe after expansion fever settles down you’ll see these rivalries like those restored, at least on a semi-annual basis. OU/NE have already scheduled a few games and eventually money and passion will win out and UT/aTm will clash again.
I don’t believe they will. The Big XII plays nine conference games. With just three games under their control, schools want the flexibility to schedule a variety of opponents and still play 7 home games. Adding a 13th regular-season game might allow some of these rivalries to be restored, but there doesn’t seem to be a push to do that right now.
LikeLike
They’ve just recently added the 12th regular season game a decade ago, it’ll take awhile (most all the current presidents retiring) before they add a 13th.
LikeLike
TX and A&M will meet again, but it will be in a bowl game. At least 2 and maybe 3 SEC-B12 games in the new bowl lineup. Cannot see that pairing being passed up if it is available.
LikeLike
OU was in a down period and didn’t want to be stuck with both Nebraska (then at their peak) and Texas every year. They felt it would be a competitive disadvantage.
LikeLike
This was a response to SH about why OU/NU wasn’t played every year in the Big 12.
LikeLike
OU was in a down period and didn’t want to be stuck with both Nebraska (then at their peak) and Texas every year. They felt it would be a competitive disadvantage.
Beyond that, three kings had to be split into two divisions. One king, which turned out to be Nebraska, had to be apart from the other two. Locking the OU/NE game would have introduced additional competitive imbalances.
LikeLike
Probably the best Cup final game since games 5 and 6 (both multiple OT) of the Stars and Devils in 2000.
LikeLike
ASU strong arms the Irish. They’ll play in Az after all.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22389023/notre-dame-honors-contract-will-play-at-arizona-state-in-14
LikeLike
From Wilner: “Notre Dame informed ASU this spring that it was backing out of the ’14 game. The Sun Devils responded with pitchforks blazing: They hired a national PR firm, a Phoenix-based law firm, a South Bend-based law firm and got permission from the Arizona Regents to pursue legal action. Eventually, Notre Dame backed down. The teams won’t play in South Bend in ’17, but they will tangle Nov. 8, 2014 in Tempe.”
LikeLike
Seriously, what was ND thinking not including a buyout clause in their contract with ASU?
LikeLike
That’s the type of action that I wish the B10 would take against the NCAA regarding the need for divisions and CCG. Let’s see how the NCAA reacts when push comes to shove. Ok, I’m done crusading for this cause. Good for ASU.
LikeLike
SH,
“That’s the type of action that I wish the B10 would take against the NCAA regarding the need for divisions and CCG.”
You’re assuming the B10 is upset with the current rule. You have no evidence to support that position.
“Let’s see how the NCAA reacts when push comes to shove.”
They’d let the members vote and then enforce the outcome, just like they did with a playoff. The NCAA is neutral on the rules, but they’ll defend them vigorously.
LikeLike
“You’re assuming the B10 is upset with the current rule. You have no evidence to support that position.”
I never said I did have any evidence. In fact I said the B10 probably doesn’t care too much or else they would have done it. I gave my far fetched nuclear option scenario above. I don’t think that is something that the B10 wants because it could certainly play out in a much different way. That’s why I said I wish the B10 would take it. Because I think the B10 could start chipping away at the NCAA’s power.
“The NCAA is neutral on the rules, but they’ll defend them vigorously.”
I agree. But this is an area where I think the B10 would have the moral highground so to speak. Start chpping away the power when you have your best footing.
LikeLike
One last try.
The NCAA IS the member schools method of self governing. It is not an autonomous organization that bid for the right to govern. Leaving the NCAA is abandoning all other members. Even a 16 team B1G would flounder with only inter conference games, limited number of teams in many sports, dramatic drop in national relevance and an attendant drop in the desirability/value of what athletic contests would be worth to media and advertisers, and even to the home alumni and fans. No NC’s. No bowl games. No CWS for Indiana (or regionals for any teams).
If several conferences were to leave together (ignoring that concessions would likely be made if possible to avoid this) they would still need to form and enforce rules. Only OU and UT would seem to significantly benefit from your suggested CCG rule changes so it wouldn’t surprise me if that rule would transfer in a similar form.
The question isn’t how a change might hurt (and I think it would) other conferences, but how it would benefit them. If it benefits only one then one gains while the others don’t. Game over.
LikeLike
Let’s pretend the “big five” BCS conferences, as well as Notre Dame and Brigham Young, broke off from the NCAA to form its own autonomous governing body. They would total 66 members.
If the NCAA retaliated by banning its members from scheduling them, the Notre Dame-Navy football game goes by the boards. Many lower-tier bowl games would either be scuttled or held under new auspices.
You could still hold men’s and women’s basketball tourneys (probably with a 16- or 24-team field), but the public wouldn’t be sure whether the new organization or the NCAA had the better event (the latter would still feature the Big East, the American, the A-10, MWC and other solid leagues). It would be similar to 1981-82, when both the NCAA and AIAW held championships in an array of women’s sports.
And what about other sports? Men’s ice hockey would be limited to the six Big Ten members that play the sport, plus Boston College and Notre Dame. I’d guess roughly half of 66 field teams in men’s soccer, about three-quarters in women’s soccer. Men’s lacrosse would have 10 participants (half Big Ten, half ACC), and Johns Hopkins probably couldn’t shift its program into the Big Ten if the NCAA said no. Wrestling would feature all 14 Big Ten members, plus about a dozen more from the ACC, Big 12 and Missouri from the SEC. And I haven’t even brought up water polo. (Say, Brian, could you figure out how many schools from the five conferences plus ND/BYU compete in various sports?)
This scenario could be modified by adding the lower-tier BCS leagues such as the American, MWC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt, as well as the service academies — but if the new organization restricted itself to members who play football in order to avoid “the Providence problem,” a few schools would have to be shed before the new conferences would be accepted.
What I’m trying to say is that divorcing themselves from the NCAA would present the big conferences with an entirely new can of worms. Just something to think about.
LikeLike
SH,
“That’s why I said I wish the B10 would take it. Because I think the B10 could start chipping away at the NCAA’s power.”
The B10 would have to want to reduce the NCAA’s power in order to take that action. The B10 doesn’t want that. Only PSU fans seem to really want that in the B10. Cause and effect?
“But this is an area where I think the B10 would have the moral highground so to speak.”
I think it would be the exact opposite. It would be portrayed as the arrogant B10 trying to control everything because they are too good to follow the same rules as everyone else.
LikeLike
The B10 would have to want to reduce the NCAA’s power in order to take that action. The B10 doesn’t want that.
The Big Ten does want that. Gordon Gee’s sabre-rattling about a breakaway amounts, in essence, to saying: “If we don’t start getting our way, we’ll go somewhere else.” Of course, it’s possible that no one else in the Big Ten believes this, but the much-discussed idea of breaking away is clearly not his alone.
The NCAA is neutral on the rules, but they’ll defend them vigorously.
Actually, the SEC pretty much said “F___ you” to the NCAA when they started their CCG. If a whole league tells the NCAA to “F___ off,” there is not much the NCAA can do about it.
Only OU and UT would seem to significantly benefit from your suggested CCG rule changes so it wouldn’t surprise me if that rule would transfer in a similar form.
Actually, Brian has shown quite persuasively that all conferences would benefit, because of the regular-season scheduling flexibility it would give them. Even if a league elects not to use that flexibility, one would always prefer to have more options than fewer.
Even a 16 team B1G would flounder with only inter conference games, limited number of teams in many sports, dramatic drop in national relevance and an attendant drop in the desirability/value of what athletic contests would be worth to media and advertisers, and even to the home alumni and fans. No NC’s. No bowl games.
That’s just nutty. Bowl games are just privately organized games that people choose to play. If a bowl invites two teams to play, and they accept, there is nothing the NCAA can do to stop them. Of course, maybe the whole country would agree simultaneously not to play the Big Ten, which is a theoretically possible but not very likely outcome.
If the NCAA retaliated by banning its members from scheduling them, the Notre Dame-Navy football game goes by the boards. Many lower-tier bowl games would either be scuttled or held under new auspices.
Look up “anti-trust” in the dictionary. Also look up Congress. Navy is a net beneficiary of playing ND every year, and Navy is a government-run institution. If a bunch of bureaucrats tried to stop that game, all hell would break loose.
LikeLike
The SEC had NCAA rules on its side when it told the NCAA president it was going to do it. That’s a big difference.
LikeLike
Regarding Notre Dame-Navy, that game will NEVER go by the wayside. Notre Dame plays Navy every year as thanks for Navy saving ND during WWII by putting a training base there. Without the Navy’s actions, the school might have been forced to close.
See: http://ndfootballhistory.com/notre-dame-vs-navy-history-renewed (“The series has endured through the decades, and been a hallmark of honor, tradition and respect, because of a promise made during World War II. Notre Dame’s enrollment was severely impacted by the war, threatening its continued viability. The Navy stepped in, and made the Notre Dame campus a major training site, pouring considerable resources into ND. As a result, Notre Dame promised Navy there would always be a spot on the Irish football schedule, for as long as Navy wanted it.”);
See Also: http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/How-Navy-saved-Notre-Dame-after-World-War-II–the-teams-shared-histories-168127246.html
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The Big Ten does want that.”
No, it wants the NCAA to make some different decisions. That’s not the same thing. Making bold public statements is part of the politics of enacting change in a deliberative body.
LikeLike
Could this be a big win for the PAC, as since ASU is able to use some leverage on the Irish that other schools not named USC, Stanford or ASU might be able to get a real crack at playing them?
LikeLike
No. ND was just dumb in that they didn’t include a buyout clause in their contract with ASU. They won’t make that mistake again. If I had to guess, ASU probably won’t see ND at home again for the next 50 years because of this. UCLA and Cal are redundant, so they’re out with the new ACC deal. ND won’t play at OrSU or WSU, either. So basically it’s AZ, OR, UW and maybe CO if they get good again.
I think the ACC deal for ND really cuts out the rest of the P12 as long as ND keeps playing Stanford and USC.
5 ACC
2 B10
2 P12
1 Other (Navy)
That’s 10 of their 12 games every year. Add in BYU, UT, OU, Army, AF, etc and there aren’t many spots left, especially if they want home games.
LikeLike
Yay or nay, expansion is dead at the Super Conference level (Pac, B10, SEC, ACC, Big XII) in the short-term (say 5-years)?
LikeLike
I think the Big XII might make a move in the short-term to get to 12 and get a CCG… I see the Pac 12, B10, SEC, ACC as very stable in the short-term…
LikeLike
Name the two likely newcomers.
I’ll go with Cincinnati and Connecticut, with Temple as a dark horse. Brigham Young might be the best potential candidate, but it brings too many issues (e.g. no Sunday games) to the table. Boise State is a one-trick pony whose staying power is doubtful — this generation’s UNLV basketball.
LikeLike
Agree Boise isn’t coming, but they are a consistantly good wrestling team (not OkSU good, but good), and went to march madness last year.
LikeLike
Cincinnati and BYU. Cincy is one of the top contenders and its location as a bridge between the Big 12 and West Virgina will seal the deal. BYU because they have the best athletics program and biggest fan base and market potential of any of the candidates. Sunday play will be the only non-negotiable issue for BYU, but it won’t keep them out. It’s not that hard to play an Olympic sports game on Saturday or Monday instead of Sunday.
UConn – no way. The Big 12 teams do want to travel to Connecticut every year for Olympic sports.
Boise St. – may be, if it’s a BYU-and-Boise State-for-football-only type of expansion.
South Florida and Central Florida are on the short list. They don’t really help to alleviate the West Virginia distance issue (it’s still 900 miles from Morgantown to Orlando).
LikeLike
Name the two likely newcomers.
The empty set. A CCG isn’t worth enough money to just add anybody, and the only available teams would dilute revenue. The Big XII has a high payout per school, because they’ve got only 10 mouths to feed. The next two they add need to bring in at least 20 percent more money, or it would be a net loss per school. No combination of Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, UNLV, or Boise State, brings in that kind of money.
Unlike the Big Ten, the Big XII doesn’t have a TV network, so the next schools they add aren’t going to bring in more cable viewers. ESPN already overpaid for the Big XII TV deal, so it’s not going to be negotiated upward unless the next two schools added are blockbusters. Obviously, their bowl payout doesn’t change with new members.
So really, the only way for the Big XII to expand without losing money is if they add another king. It would need to be some combo of FSU, Miami, Clemson, and BYU, or something like that, including at least one of the Florida schools. South Florida and Central Florida probably aren’t good enough.
I think the Big XII would take BYU with an acceptable partner. The Big XII already has two conservative Christian schools, and I’m sure they could schedule their way around BYU’s no-games-on-Sunday rule.
LikeLike
The B12 won’t expand because there aren’t two worthy candidates. Some members aren’t sold on expansion anyway, and you won’t convince them with options like UConn and UC.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s on hold for at least 5 years.
And learn to spell your last name, Jim. It’s Delany.
LikeLike
YAY
Otherwise, my vote (as personal preference) would be: Texas & Oklahoma;
On the condition that Michigan has its away games at Ohio State & Michigan State in the same year when its 2 cross-over games (e.g. Texas & Northwestern, Oklahoma & Illinois, Nebraska & Iowa and Wisconsin & Minnesota) are both home games.
Thus Spake Zarathrustra
LikeLike
Texas + Oklahoma to the B10 West, with Purdue moving East would solve all of the B10’s East/West ‘imbalance’ issues, add the enormous Texas market while adding two football kings…
Texas would need to find a way out of the LHN (I don’t think this would be a huge issue, Fox could buy it and combine it with the BTN), Oklahoma would need to look presentable academically to the B10 presidents (I don’t think they allow Oklahoma in the B10, unfortunately) and then there is that GOR of the Big XII’s that some say isn’t worth the paper its written on while others believe it’s iron clad and there is no escaping it…
Plus does Texas still have a ‘Tech’ problem? Does Oklahoma have a lil’ brother (OkSU) problem too? Both are decent programs but I don’t think the B10, SEC or Pac 12 would be the least bit interested in them and Texas & Oklahoma might not be allowed to leave those programs behind unless they fall to a decent home.
LikeLike
Texas + Oklahoma to the B10 West, with Purdue moving East would solve all of the B10′s East/West ‘imbalance’ issues, add the enormous Texas market while adding two football kings…
That would solve the balance issues, but it would completely screw Illinois. That would mean in addition to losing the Illibuck they would also lose games against both the Indiana schools. That’s 3 of our 4 biggest rivals.
Anyways, it won’t happen. If the Big 10 couldn’t live with FSU’s academics there is no reason to believe they would take Oklahoma.
LikeLike
It might solve imbalance issues, but it would also give us 2 conferences instead of 1. You’d literally be playing the other division in that set-up only 2 out of every 9 years even with 9 games. Pods would definitely have to be used.
LikeLike
Your math is really bad, you’d play 2 out of the 8 in the other division every year. So you’d play every team once every 4 years. Not a whole lot different than they do now.
LikeLike
Don’t know how I did 2/9 instead of 1/4. Regardless, right now we play most teams in the other division (once to 9 games) 45% of the time and Purdue/Indiana 29%. Going down to 25% is a big drop.
LikeLike
You say that like using pods would be a terrible thing.
West – UT, OU, NE, IA, WI, MN, NW, IL
East – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, PSU, RU, UMD
7 x 100% in division, 8 x 25% in opposite division
West – UT, OU, NE
North – IA, WI, MN, NW, IL
South – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN
East – PSU, RU, UMD
W/E – 2 x 100% in pod, 10 x 50% in division, 3 x 67% in opposite pod
N/S – 4 x 100% in pod, 6 x 50% in division, 5 x 40% in opposite pod
If forced to choose, I’d take the pods. The B10 was prepared to accept playing 5 teams 40% of the time when NE was added, so these pods would match that. Lots of big brands would still play in NYC and DC, but with more variety than now. The biggest problem is that the balance is off, but the rivalries won’t allow for changing them. The SW combo will be ridiculously strong, though, with 4 kings and 1 prince versus 1 king and 2 princes in the NE.
LikeLike
I don’t mean pods in any negative light at all. If we go to 16, that’s how I want to do it. I don’t want 16 though.
LikeLike
Me neither. I was just pointing out that if it had to happen, pods trump divisions.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten would accept a Texas+Oklahoma combo in a heartbeat. But they wouldn’t accept OSU and Texas Tech.
Texas & Oklahoma might not be allowed to leave those programs behind unless they fall to a decent home.
There is no decent home. None of the other major conferences want TT or OSU. The Pac-12 was willing to take them, as part of a quartet that included UT and OU; but not by themselves. If UT and OU joined the Big Ten, the remaining Big XII schools would need to form a new league that almost certainly would have have mid-major status.
Texas would need to find a way out of the LHN (I don’t think this would be a huge issue…
I don’t think it’s a huge issue either. What IS a huge issue is revenue-sharing: the Big Ten is an “all for one, one for all” league. That was why the negotiations broke down between the Pac-12 and Texas. But if Texas wanted to move badly enough, that problem is solvable. Football is the sport that drives the most revenue, and the LHN shows only one football game a year.
Texas + Oklahoma to the B10 West, with Purdue moving East would solve all of the B10′s East/West ‘imbalance’ issues, add the enormous Texas market while adding two football kings…
This assumes the Big Ten would continue to have static divisions. With 9 conference games and static divisions, some pretty valuable king-king games would hardly ever be played: Michigan-Texas, Ohio State-Oklahoma, and of course many of the classic Big Ten rivalries, like OSU-Illinois, Michigan-Minnesota, Illinois-Purdue, and so on.
LikeLike
If Kansas remained AAU, it might be more palatable to Big Ten presidents than Oklahoma (assuming Kansas could shed KSU). But first, Texas would have to prove it truly can play well with others by sharing revenue. Even if that (and the Texas Tech problem) were to be solved, there’s no potential partner for UT that’s easy to pry which would meet the criteria of AAU membership and big-time athletics.
LikeLike
“I don’t think it’s a huge issue either. What IS a huge issue is revenue-sharing: the Big Ten is an “all for one, one for all” league. That was why the negotiations broke down between the Pac-12 and Texas. But if Texas wanted to move badly enough, that problem is solvable. Football is the sport that drives the most revenue, and the LHN shows only one football game a year.”
I think because of the “all for one” revenue sharing, I don’t think Texas wold ever join the BIG. I think, like Frank has stated, UT would try to get a similar deal like Notre Dame got with the ACC, although travel could be expensive.
There is a lot of dead weight in the Big 12 that no other conference wants. Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas are the only schools that could hop to another conference without a partner. Without Texas the conference doesn’t survive and without both of Oklahoma and Kansas, I am not sure that Texas would prop up the conference anymore, thus putting big time pressure on OU and KU to stay and keep the State schools in a big time conference. Unless the ACC and the Big 12 explode together, allowing the weaker schools to form a conference of their own, I don’t see much expansion in the future; maybe one school from each conference like a UVA and Kansas addition to the BIG. Between the Big 12 and the ACC, I see the ACC as the one to be poached in the future because I don’t see politics as much as a hurtle as most of the schools in the same state are desirable enough to find a good conference: UVA and VT, UNC and Duke and NC State would all finds homes probably.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
I think because of the “all for one” revenue sharing, I don’t think Texas wold ever join the BIG. I think, like Frank has stated, UT would try to get a similar deal like Notre Dame got with the ACC, although travel could be expensive.
There is a lot of dead weight in the Big 12 that no other conference wants.
You may be right. On the other hand, UT may be more amenable to sharing equally in a conference that generates a lot more money (B10 with UT included vs current B12) and has less dead weight.
Tiers to share with:
1. OU vs OSU, MI, PSU, NE
2. OkSU, KSU, WV vs WI, MSU, IA
3. TT, TCU, Baylor vs NW, PU, UMD
4. ISU, KU vs IN, MN, IL, RU
Isn’t the B10 better at each tier in terms of partners and value? Obviously it would cause a lot of travel issues and UT would need to play some TX teams OOC, but the money could be huge.
Now, I’m not predicting UT to the B10. I’m just saying it could happen if there was some triggering event (LHN continues to struggle, someone else leaves, GOR looks likely not to be renewed, etc).
LikeLike
Won’t UT’s choice to renew or not be the only vote that matters, meaning their decision would predate a GOR renewal/non-renewal commitment?
LikeLike
You never know what events may transpire. I wasn’t predicting anything.
LikeLike
Won’t UT’s choice to renew or not be the only vote that matters, meaning their decision would predate a GOR renewal/non-renewal commitment?
That’s it exactly. Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma are the only Big XII members that could conceivably be desired by other leagues. But Texas is the only one that, on its own, could prompt neighboring leagues to expand.
The other seven Big XII schools are almost certainly in the best league they could ever be in, unless TT and OSU get the same sweetheart deal from the Pac-12 that they nearly got last time. So obviously, if Texas stays, they’d sign the next GOR without hesitation.
I agree with Brian that if the revenue gap is big enough, Texas would agree to equal sharing, because they’d be getting more than they do today.
LikeLike
Marc:
Your saying a media money gap will cause UT to give up the LHN? I’m not sure money will drive that decision. They have plenty of that.
LikeLike
The LHN was never about the money. UT thought they might have to PAY to get it on. Its about exposure for the university. But then $15 million is hard to give up, especially when about half is going to the academic side. The issue for UT is whether they get adequate exposure. IMO one or more of the Big 4 (Comcast, Time-Warner, DirectTV, Dish) will finally take it and they will get adequate exposure. But if that doesn’t happen, they will be looking for a different approach come 2032.
LikeLike
Might be for UT’s purposes but I’m not sure only one will be enough for ESPN. They don’t really care what school is being promoted, only that their is enough carriage for ESPN to profit off their far greater than 15M/yr investment.
LikeLike
Regardless of the GOR, the ACC won’t be broken up until its most desirable members come to their senses, as Maryland did (perhaps brought in part by finances in College Park’s case), that football is a heckuva lot more important in the cultural scheme of things than basketball. UVa might be able to evolve to that, but I don’t see it happening at UNC. Judging from its reaction to the studies scandal, it would prefer to throw football under the bus in order to protect its precious men’s basketball program.
LikeLike
What IS a huge issue is revenue-sharing: the Big Ten is an “all for one, one for all” league. That was why the negotiations broke down between the Pac-12 and Texas.
Actually, it had nothing at all to do with revenue sharing. Remember, the PAC had an even more unequal revenue distribution than the Big XII did when the PAC approached UT in 2009. The deal fell apart because Texas wanted to keep its Tier 3 TV rights so it could start its own network.
The same thing happened again the next year when the PAC again tried to annex the Big XII South but UT said they would only agree to the move if they could take the LHN with them.
Anyways, since that happened the Big XII moved to equal distribution and Texas didn’t complain.
LikeLike
Frug:
You’re correct that the PAC was still operating under an uneven system (and was until the current school year began), but it had already been established that the new model was 100% even sharing of all media rights to all events, digital included.
UT was willing to agree to equal sharing of T1 and T2 because they were realizing more from the LHN than unequal of the other was worth. In other words they agreed to call an unequal share of all media rights equal, by removing 15M/yr from the equation.
LikeLike
Actually the PAC changed last year, but we won’t see the distribution until next spring tax filings.
LikeLike
You’re correct that the PAC was still operating under an uneven system (and was until the current school year began), but it had already been established that the new model was 100% even sharing of all media rights to all events, digital included.
You are right about the second PAC attempt, but at the time of the original raid I don’t think they had made the decision yet. Remember, the reason they were able to institute equal revenue sharing was that by adding Colorado and Utah it meant for the first time their were sufficient votes to over rule the LA schools (under PAC rules it took 9 votes to change the revenue distribution system). And even after they voted for equal distribution the league still had to promise USC and UCLA an extra $2 million each if the conference didn’t reach certain revenue thresholds.
Plus, as I have said before TV money doesn’t really matter to Texas all that much.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just did an internet search and every article I look at says that the decision to adopt equal revenue sharing didn’t happen until after Colorado and Utah were added and gained voting rights.
Here is a sample
http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/2012384965_withers18.html
LikeLike
Here is the best evidence of all that the PAC had not made a decision to adopt equal revenue distribution until after the deal with Texas fell apart
Our conference has a long-standing policy of equal revenue sharing with some exceptions for football television revenue. We intend to keep that concept in place. There may be some changes as things evolve. The principals will stay in place.
That was from Larry Scott’s press conference announcing Utah’s admission to the conference. It seems pretty clear that the conference had not yet made a decision and if anything was leaning towards keeping some version of unequal distribution (which they did to a certain extant).
http://seattletimes.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2012145857_more_from_scott_on_expansion_h.html
LikeLike
Yes, the votes hadn’t officially been taken, but the athletic departments knew well in advance. Colo and Utah knew and were depending upon it. The only question was the price to be extracted by the so cal schools. That price turned out to be a guarantee for two years of a couple mill extra if the new media contract wasn’t above a threshold (160M/yr ?), and probably involved assurances as to the 4 Ca schools playing yearly in what ever division setup was adopted. Larry Scott had equal revenue sharing as his top priority from the first day on the job. His hiring assured that was the direction the chancellors and presidents had already decided on.
LikeLike
Frug:
(…towards keeping some version of unequal distribution (which they did to a certain extant).”
In what way did they? The only exception I’m aware of was the ability to retain the local radio broadcast through learfield sports or whoever. I’m not sure whether that is the schools or whether the schools are contracting those rights as a sub of PAC 12 Media Enterprises. Either way, its negligible in the larger picture.
LikeLike
The unequal part I was talking about was the extra $2 million for UCLA and USC.
Yes, the votes hadn’t officially been taken, but the athletic departments knew well in advance. Colo and Utah knew and were depending upon it.
Not according to Larry Scott and multiple media reports. I haven’t seen anything that indicates that the PAC was planning to move an equal distribution if Texas had arrived.
Remember, had the original PAC plan gone through (UC, UT, A&M, OU, OSU, TTU) there would not have had the votes necessary to institute equal revenue sharing. UT, OU, A&M, USC and UCLA would have been enough to block any change to the revenue distribution system even if the other 11 schools had voted together (75% was required to alter the revenue distribution).
Also, even if Utah was expecting an equal stake when they agree to join the conference (there is no evidence they were) that doesn’t matter. They didn’t even get an invite until the Texas deal fell through.
LikeLike
The 2M was sun setting in two years even if target wasn’t met. It was a brief period of transition, sort of like new members not recieving a full share immediately.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on the revenue structure plan. The present and former administrators I talked to were more than confident tier 1 & 2 equality was coming. The existing structure and contracts couldn’t be changed until the media rights deal expired, so yes, it WAS uneven but only the LA schools were not either willing followers (even UW) if not strong advocates of change to equal sharing. And they didn’t grouse as long or loud as would have been expected. They saw the benefit, and the 2M extra conditional guarantee was an assurance they wouldn’t face a sudden 2M drop in income. How T3 rights would be leveraged, what form a conference network would take (as it was a near certainty), was the question. Wholly owned was the answer decided on later.
LikeLike
One option is to add another conference game. Here are example cross-over schedules:
Ohio State: Texas, Minnesota, @Nebraska
Penn State: @Oklahoma, @Northwestern, Iowa
Michigan: Nebraska, Illinois, @Wisconsin
Michigan State: @Iowa, @Texas, Minnesota
Rutgers: Wisconsin, Oklahoma, @Northwestern
Maryland: @Minnesota, @Nebraska, Illinois
Indiana: Northwestern, Iowa, @Texas
Purdue: @Illinois, @Wisconsin, Oklahoma
Texas: @Ohio State, Michigan State, Indiana
Oklahoma: Penn State, @Rutgers, @Purdue
Nebraska: @Michigan, Maryland, Ohio State
Iowa: Michigan State, @Indiana, @Penn State
Wisconsin: @Rutgers, Purdue, Michigan
Minnesota: Maryland, @Ohio State, @Michigan State
Northwestern: @Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers
Illinois: Purdue, @Michigan, @Maryland
For this example year, Ohio State has the toughest cross-over schedule. And it only has 3 home division games. So it could get both Michigan and Penn State at home. Michigan also has 3 home division games, but Michigan State is away, so it could get Penn State at home. Penn State has 4 home division games, one that could be Michigan State since it has away games at Ohio State and Michigan.
Ditto for B1G West: For this example year, Nebraska has the toughest cross-over schedule. And it only has 3 home division games. So it could get both Oklahoma and Texas at home. Texas also has 3 home division games, so it could get Oklahoma at home. Oklahoma has 4 home division games, but away games at Texas and Nebraska.
This year would be tougher for Ohio State and Texas. But Penn State had a similar tough schedule the year before, and Michigan two years before. The next year would be tougher for Oklahoma and thereafter Texas.
Disclaimer: These examples are neither a personal preference nor a recommendation nor guaranteed to be error-free.
“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”
LikeLike
10 conference games isn’t acceptable to the ADs. They can’t schedule any good OOC games since they need 7 home games.
LikeLike
I think the revenue issue itself is probably that high, but have never really understood why. If the Big Ten schools could make significantly more with a little less equal revenue sharing, they’d be stupid not to go for it. Equal works since no one wants to leave the Big Ten, but if the choice is increasing everyone’s paycheck at least 10% (with some closer to 20%) or staying as is, they should opt for the latter. There is nothing moral superior about equal revenue sharing in of itself.
LikeLike
Jim: Calling to tell you the good news. Longhorns and Sooners to the the Big Ten!
Dave: Well! That’s a surprise! (Aside: And better than the last one!)
Jim: That’s why you guys pay me! But it’s not all good news. We gotta rotate the Championship Game between Indianapolis and Dallas.
Dave: (Hmm. We got our ass kicked the last time we played there.) Great venue! Can’t wait to play there.
Jim: But we convinced Bernie to move the Grand Prix to the same weekend. Gonna be great! Tried to get the B1G logo on Ferrari’s car, but it costs too much. Instead we’ll do it ala Yankee Stadium. Going global, baby!
Dave: Yeah, blue and red would be a strange combo. (Along with those cowboy hats on the podium.) How about Indy?
Jim: Not necessary. Plus the speedway is too big. Nobody would see it.
Dave: Now that you mention it, I’ll schedule a visit to the bank. Gonna get a second mortgage on The Big House. (123,321 is our manifest destiny.)
Jim: Love your enthusiasm in A-squared!
Dave: Bob Ufer (RIP) taught us that.
Jim: E Pluribus Unum.
Dave: (Go Blue)
LikeLike
Moral superiority? It’s the idea of stability at all costs.
I don’t care if Notre Dame and Texas come willing and forever, revenue must be shared between the schools.
LikeLike
I don’t buy that equal revenue sharing is anymore a source of stability than destability in the long run. The conferences that adopted it didn’t do for stability. They did it because they were already stable and weren’t worried about the big boys leaving because of it.
The Big 12 did not lose any of its members because of unequal revenue sharing (with most leaving actually for it). Meanwhile the Mountain West only has Boise State because of unequal revenue sharing. Without getting Boise State back, the Big East would be a tweener conference and the Mountain West would be nothing more than the WAC was. Instead its co-top of the Group of 5. PAC-10 lost out on Texas in part because that’s the direction Scott wanted to take the conference and that fact probably does not make them more stable over the long run.
LikeLike
Neither of those examples are comparable to the Big Ten’s current situation.
In any case, the principle of all for one and one for all is utterly noble and any suggestion that we do away with it is nonsense.
LikeLike
All the B12 exits went to conferences that were more equal sharing. That may not have been the primary reason for each leaving, but the attitude and execution of the greater/lesser model, and the resentment it engendered certainly contributed to an instability (they did lose four not minor pieces).
The uneven sharing that attracted Boise gives the MWC viability, not stability. We’re already suggesting they might (not likely) have a B12 invite.
Are you really suggesting an egalitarian system is unstable, or less stable than a feudal master/serf system?
LikeLike
@cc
The unequal revenue sharing contributing to Big 12 instability idea totally flies in the face of all the facts. The fact is every single one of the 4 schools that left was in favor of unequal revenue sharing and generally benefitted from it. Colorado didn’t in the later years, but did in the early years. And they had been trying to get in the Pac 12 almost since they day the Big 12 started. Nebraska and A&M were among the biggest beneficiaries. There were no two schools more aligned on revenue sharing than Texas and Nebraska.
The only schools opposed to unequal revenue sharing were the 5 who didn’t benefit, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., Iowa St., Baylor and Kansas St. All of those schools are still in the Big 12.
At the time Missouri and Texas A&M left, revenue sharing in the Big 12 was exactly the same as in the SEC. At the time Colorado left, revenue sharing in the Pac 12 was LESS equal than in the Big 12. The Pac 12 and Big East had much more skewed distributions than the Big 12. The ACC CURRENTLY has a broader range of distributions than the Big 12 did and they are “equal” revenue sharing for all 3 tiers. The “unequal” Big 12 distributions back in 2010 had about a $4 million gap. The 2011-2 ACC “equal” distribution had about a $5 million gap.
Note that equality stops at the conference doors in the Big 10. They and the Pac 10 were the first to pull away from the CFA. And then the Big 10 did its own deal separate from the Pac 10.
LikeLike
I’m suggesting it’s a big red hearing and different circumstances lead to different models being more stable. By keeping unequal revenue sharing in one area (3rd tier content), the Big 12 managed to come up with a model that made it the best conference for Texas while they would have otherwise been gone as other conferences would have been offering more (just as Missouri, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Nebraska left as they felt other conferences offered them more). If that had happened, schools like Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and others would have been confined to mid-major status.
I don’t view this as a “feudal master/serf system” system in the slightest. If schools bring a lot more to the table, there’s very good arguments for paying them more. Further, incentives for doing well (as happens when not everyone gets exactly the same), push schools to improve. Now that doesn’t mean equal revenue sharing is a bad model either. It can help keep things more stable in rough patches and possibly make conference meetings a little easier. Both have flaws though.
Texas choosing equal revenue sharing would have meant they would have chosen a different league just as the 4 departing members did (since other conference could maximize the average value more). That would have been a decision that would have left several Big 12 members in dire straights. For that decision, I don’t like the fact they are treated as a bully (and I’m not even a Texas fan).
LikeLike
We may disagree on levels (and whether the PAC, although unequal at the time, was on course to institute equality when the commissioner was hired). I agree, and said such, that the monetary differences weren’t the cause of exiting. I do think the self centered attitude, more visible in that conference than others, of a number of schools (of which unequal sharing is only one manifestation) contributed to the instability. Three former Big 8 and one unhappy SWC little brother left. Something in the conference “glue” was lacking.
“And then the Big 10 did its own deal separate from the Pac 10.”
Yes, both broke away from a larger organization so no longer were co members, or conference mates. What kind of deals would you have expected?
LikeLike
@cc
I’m saying the Big 10 espouses unequal revenue sharing, so their fans shouldn’t be holier than thou. The Big 10 believes it generates more and should get more of the money. That’s why they broke away from equal revenue sharing within the roughly 75 school CFA. That’s why they broke away from their joint contract with the Pac 10. The Big 10 just doesn’t do unequal shares within their own conference.
And I think that’s due to the similarity of the schools more than any philosophy. There’s a big gap between USC and Washington St. There’s a pretty big gap between USC, UCLA and the rest. In the Big East there was a big gap in value between Miami and the rest. Those two conferences had the most unequal revenue sharing (a couple of years ago, I saw Pac 10 distributions which went from roughly 7.5 million for USC to roughly 2.5 million for WSU). Among the 11 older Big 10 members, PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, UW, Iowa, Purdue and Illinois all have stadiums seating close to 70k and at times have drawn upper 60s or better. Indiana adds basketball. Minnesota used to be a football power, but they are still in a populous state. Northwestern is the token private school. The financial power of those schools is far less disparate than in any other FBS conference. The SEC used to be the 2nd least disparate, although it is growing less so. Not surprisingly, those were 2 of the 3 most equal conferences in revenue sharing. The pre-FSU ACC was also had very similar schools.
Its a lot easier to give up something when you aren’t leaving a lot on the table. Or, as in the case with Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA, you are making a lot more than you did before.
LikeLike
I believe its the similarity of the institutions that lends stability, not “greed” causing instability. What the Big 10 has done to other conferences is nothing but “greed.” ALL the schools look out for themselves. The Big 10 thought it was better with Nebraska and didn’t care if that left Iowa St., Kansas St., Kansas and Baylor in mid-major status. The possible damage to those programs was far more than the benefit to the Big 10. When they took Maryland and were working on UVA and others, they could have condemned Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville and Wake Forest to mid-major status at best and may have killed off some of their football programs.
There’s no moral superiority contributing to the Big 10’s stability. The Big 10 schools did what they thought was in their own best interest, just the same as everyone else.
LikeLike
That’s why they broke away from equal revenue sharing within the roughly 75 school CFA
Quick clarification; the Big Ten never joined the CFA.
LikeLike
The B1G and the PAC both negotiated their own deals. Had both of them joined wouldn’t that have simply reinstated the situation the court ruled illegal in NCAA v Oklahoma Board of Regents?
LikeLike
If TX and OK leave the XII the other 8 schools will try to make a best of the rest conference. This could finally get Cincinnati, USF, etc. in the XII. The BE only failed in pulling this off because the ACC and XII took 4 top schools. Who will be left in the XII that the B1G, P12, SEC, or ACC is going to take? Maybe Kansas, but not with Kansas State. The 7 to 8 schools left will still be far superior to the AAC or MWC.
LikeLike
There’s a bright line, and you can be on only one side of it. Either you’re a league with an autobid into the top bowls. Or you’re a mid-major with no such guarantee.
Of course, the other problem is that such a league would be waaaaay down the ladder in TV revenue, which would create long-term competitive issues for those schools.
LikeLike
Saw this 9/5/11 article posted on another board. It was interesting reading again what the perspective was at that time. There seems to be a lot of revisionist history going on these days from a lot of schools’ fans.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/real_big_east_j6icSyYnLFtDYQJpeeT4cN
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2013/05/att-official-on-csn-houston-we-didnt-need-to-pay/
Interesting article on why U-Verse is not picking up the Rockets and Astros network in Houston. U-Verse has picked up LHN and was one of the first to sign up for the SEC Network.
LikeLike
@bullet – It’s pretty stunning how long this CSN Houston dispute has gone on with both DirecTV and AT&T. This would have been unthinkable circa 2005 when the Astros won the pennant and the Rockets were in the middle of the Yao Ming years. I’m very curious as to what carriage rate Comcast is asking for here because it’s very unusual for a pro sports RSN dispute to spill over into multiple seasons for the applicable teams. We’ve seen one season missed in other markets (even YES had tough carriage negotiations initially in the NYC market), but this Houston situation is beyond the norm.
By the way, I think the “lack of intensity of viewers” comment is largely posturing by the AT&T rep, particularly when the same carrier is essentially the only major one with the LHN. They just don’t like the price (which, to be fair, could very well be a justifiable position with Comcast’s negotiating history).
LikeLike
Next February, I’m guessing most Houston will be delighted to turn on their AT&T system and discover they can’t watch a big Rockets game…but they will be able to see A&M’s basketball team battle Auburn.
LikeLike
Houston tends to be a front-runner town. And the Lastros have been absolutely abysmal the last few years (so much so the National League let the American League have the whole state of Texas-another example of why baseball is declining-stupid leadership).
The Comets won 4 straight WNBA championships. Now they don’t exist.
The Rockets have been frustrating, finishing 9th in the West 2 or 3 years running. And clearly, without a healthy Yao, not being good enough to beat the best teams (Harden may have changed that this year as they finally made the playoffs).
The Aeros won a couple of WHA championships with Gordie and his sons. But they didn’t make the NHL merger and folded. The minor league Aeros won a couple championships, but not recently and are moving to Des Moines (although that may be an arena issue).
The Houston Cougars follow the same pattern, although that tends to be true of college teams in pro sports towns (Miami, USC).
Pro football is the lone exception.
So I’m not sure the intensity argument is all hype. There are certainly Longhorn fans switching to U-Verse. I would if I could get it in my area.
LikeLike
Rockets fans are a little spoiled. Moses Malone, Elvin Hayes, Ralph Sampson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Yao Ming. And Drexler and Barkley were there at the end of their careers. I first got cable way back when primarily because a local sports network (in the early days of RSNs) got the Rockets games. I got to see Hannah Storm doing the halftime show in her first TV gig. Everything was pretty bare bones as RSNs were a new idea. But I can definitely see Rocket fans losing intensity.
LikeLike
@bullet: “…astros…Comets…Rockets…Aeros…Cougars…”
It’s really sad that the Owls can’t even make it into a post on fan apathy. 😦
LikeLike
But you gave the Nats Anthony Rendon. Thank you!
LikeLike
Well the Owls are consistent. At least once the Oilers came to town and stole 40,000 of their fans.
LikeLike
Now while I don’t believe the intensity comment is all hype, its ALWAYS about the price.
LikeLike
Hopefully this situation will give the SEC fans some pause in their belief that the SECN is going to hit the ground running as a cash cow. Besides the gulf states, the SEC will have a fight on its hands to get coverage in Florida, Texas, and Missouri as well as some of the urban areas within its territory like Atlanta and Nashville. The BTN had to fight tooth and nail when the economy was better, and streaming was in its infancy, when it started and will have a huge fight in New Jersey and Maryland now, not to mention the ultimately dream of NYC.
LikeLike
I’ll jump in before Andy and say that getting the SECN on in MO won’t be an issue. The cities are always tougher, and KC and STL both have lots of fans of other conferences, but MO follows Mizzou pretty strongly.
LikeLike
Post here the order of B1G football schedules in terms of toughness in your opinion. If you want to add Maryland and Rutgers in preparation of their future membership feel free to do so. I am interested to see who each of you think got the easy and hard schedules.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Post here the order of B1G football schedules in terms of toughness in your opinion. If you want to add Maryland and Rutgers in preparation of their future membership feel free to do so. I am interested to see who each of you think got the easy and hard schedules.”
1 = hardest
2013 B10:
Leaders:
1. IL – no NE
2. IN – no NE, NW
3. PU – no MI, NW
4. PSU – no MI, MSU, NW
5. WI – no MI, MSU, NE
6. OSU – no OSU, NE, MSU
Legends:
1. IA – no PSU
2. NW – no PSU, NW
3. MI – no WI, MI
4. MN – no OSU
5. NE – no OSU, WI, NE
6. MSU – no OSU, WI, PSU, MSU
B10 Overall:
1. IA
2. IL
3. IN
4. PU
5. NW
6. MI
7. MN
8. PSU
9. WI
10. NE
11. OSU
12. MSU
2013 overall:
1. IL
2. IA
3. PU
4. IN
5. NW
6. MI
7. MN
8. WI
9. PSU
10. NE
11. MSU
12. OSU
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks for your thoughts and the links. When you did yours were you just looking at in conference games or were you accounting for the OOC games too?
LikeLike
I did both. B10 overall is based on B10 games only. 2013 overall is based on the whole schedule.
Average of the 3 lists I posted:
4. PU
11. IL
20 IA
21 MI
30 PSU
37 IN
44 MN
47 NW
58 MSU
62 WI
65 OSU
77 NE
LikeLike
http://www.collegefootballuniverseblog.com/1/post/2013/06/college-football-strength-of-schedule-preseason-2013.html
Here’s some website’s opinion based on their preseason rankings:
8. PU
14. IL
18. IA
22. MI
29. IN
30. PSU
33. MN
36. NW
43. WI
46. OSU
51. MSU
52. NE
LikeLike
http://www.4down20.com/sos/
And another.
2. PU
7. IA
9. IL
10. MI
16. PSU
17. MN
28. NW
39. IN
42. MSU
45. OSU
52. WI
79. NE
LikeLike
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2013/MAR13/DBMar28.html
And the NCAA’s method based on last year’s records.
3. PU
11. IL
31. MI
34. IA
42. IN
44. PSU
77. NW
80. MSU
83. MN
92. WI
99. NE
105. OSU
LikeLike
“I believe its the similarity of the institutions that lends stability, not “greed” causing instability. What the Big 10 has done to other conferences is nothing but “greed.”
Well, something was sure out of whack or the “greedy” Big Ten, PAC 10 and SEC wouldn’t have found willing partners to leave the Big XII. I agree with you that the revenue sharing argument is a red herring. I also believe that Texas has every right to look out for their own best interest. I do think, however, that they were shorts-sighted when pursuing those interests by not taking the other members of the conference into consideration. Of course they were the the biggest fish in the pond and should have had a loud and prominent voice in conference matters. A little tact and give-and -take for the stability of the Big XII was what was lacking. If this wasn’t the case, then why did four of the five Big XII members with options decided to leave for a different conference? Was the money better for those that left? Sure, but I would suggest there was something more. I believe T.Boone Pickens a few years back, when LHN was created, stated it best:
“This conversation is going to come up every year as long as the conference is not equal. You’ve got to have an equal deal like the SEC……You can fix the Big 12 now, but it’s got to go to an equal deal, and it’s not equal.”
Texas, which seemed to be in control of the situation last season as a half-dozen league members considered invitations from the Pac-12, might have overplayed its hand with the creation of the Longhorn Network, which has been cited by supporters of A&M and other Big 12 schools as giving the Longhorns an unfair advantage.
“The network could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he said. “A lot of people didn’t understand how dominant Texas was in the Big 12, how powerful they were.”
Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds “is a friend of mine,” Pickens said. “But DeLoss had too many cards and he played every damn one of them. I think that’s too bad. You get tired of saying ‘aaah’ while you get something shoved down your throat. I think that’s where we came out.”
Nobody has come out of all of this covered in glory but to blame the Big XII’s break up on the “greed” of others is not the whole story.
LikeLike
“I believe its the similarity of the institutions that lends stability, not “greed” causing instability. What the Big 10 has done to other conferences is nothing but “greed.”
…
Nobody has come out of all of this covered in glory but to blame the Big XII’s break up on the “greed” of others is not the whole story.
The use of the word “greed” dooms the argument, right from the start — as if there is something inherently sinful about seeking the best deal that one can get. Conferences are voluntary associations of schools for mutual convenience. At some point, if another conference is markedly better, and is willing to accept a particular school, then the school move. This is not greed. It’s how the process should work.
LikeLike
I’m not criticizing the Big 10. I’m criticizing those who say they don’t act the same as everyone else. The only conferences who have gone out of their way to be predatory are the MWC with the WAC and the ACC with the BE.
With their alumni base, CU viewed the Pac 10 as markedly better for them than the Big 12. For Texas A&M it was predominately a branding issue. The Pac 16 discussions obviously got them thinking about alternatives. For Missouri it was stability as well as income projections. 2 years earlier they, according to that Post article, had an agreement in principle to move to the Big East as their best option. Nebraska’s president said he had an excellent working relationship with Texas. The Texas president did tell him about the Pac 16 discussions, although he had already heard through the grapevine and was exploring options. Nebraska foresaw better rivalries, better income and better academic prestige (and maybe mistakenly a couple more votes in the AAU!).
LikeLike
The only conferences who have gone out of their way to be predatory are the MWC with the WAC and the ACC with the BE.
I am not clear on how you distinguish the ACC’s actions from those of any other league. Obviously, the original Big East was the main casualty of the ACC’s growth, just as Betamax was also main casualty of VHS’s growth. That’s how markets work: lesser products get overtaken by better ones.
At the turn of the century, the ACC had nine teams, making it the smallest, and therefore the most vulnerable of the current Big Five leagues. It strengthened itself the only way it could, by taking teams from the the next weaker one, the Big East.
By the time the ACC’s next raid came along, Pitt and Syracuse correctly realized that the Big East was probably no longer going to be a peer of the other Big Five. They saw an opportunity to improve their lot, and did so. Louisville was simply a replacement for Maryland.
LikeLike
The only conferences who have gone out of their way to be predatory are the MWC with the WAC and the ACC with the BE.
The PAC tried to cannibalize the Big XII. Twice.
LikeLike
Or was UT attempting a variation of the SWC/B8 takeover?
😉
LikeLike
Marc – I agree with you; I like to use the term “water finds its level”. Louisville, Utah, TCU… these are schools that earned their place by rising up through WAC/Mountain West/Conference USA levels and into elite conferences.
Along the same lines, the Big Ten was accused of greed for wanting to start a Big Ten Hockey Conference! Seriously! At the time, Michigan had about 30 varsity sports. 29 of them played in The Big Ten. One played in the CCHA. I mean, the nerve of Michigan wanting to bring their hockey team under the Big Ten umbrella!
LikeLike
Anyone else think Amaritrade Park is a bit too large? Looks like little league outfielders placement on a HS field.
LikeLike
The dimensions are exactly the same as they were at Rosenblatt. That being said, there are two key differences. First the stadium is oriented 90 degrees differently. This affects winds. Secondly and probably more importantly the NCAA went to BBCOR bats. We’ll see what they ultimately decide to do.
LikeLike
I think it’s better for the game to have fewer home runs. It brings more strategy into play on both sides. Stealing, hit and runs, bunting, infield positioning, etc is better than glorified batting practice. Baseball wasn’t really meant to be a 12-10 sort of game.
Now if they could just make a game take less than 4 frickin hours.
LikeLike
Now if they could just make a game take less than 4 frickin hours.
If I had a complaint about the CWS it would be that coaches (cough, Augie Garrido, cough) slow the game way down when the games are close. I know why they do it, and there isn’t much you can do to stop it, but I wish they would keep a normal pace.
LikeLike
Brian:
I agree, but it looks like the center fielders are all camping half way (or less) from second to the center field fence most of the time. Having watched a fair amount of college base ball the last couple decades it is a striking departure from the placement of outfielders in most games I’ve seen.
LikeLike
So what’s new? Did the B1G expand to 20 yet? What are the divisions?
Texas/Nebraska/Iowa/Illinois/Northwestern
Michigan/Michigan State/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Indiana
Notre Dame/Ohio State/Penn State/Purdue/Rutgers
Florida State/North Carolina/Virginia/Maryland/Duke
Man, that’s a pretty slick conference. Watch out, world, the B-1-G is going to DOMINATE!
LikeLike
Andy, a more realistic fantasy would be substituting Georgia Tech for Florida State — AAU, you know. (Notre Dame has sufficient undergraduate academic heft to compensate for its lack of AAU status, and with ND and Texas, FSU is superfluous.)
LikeLike
vp, if we’re talking realistic then you can forget about a Big 20 or even a Big 16. The ACC isn’t going to break up, and the Big 12 doesn’t have any schools worth taking other than Texas, and Texas isn’t going to join. Also they’ve signed a grant of rights.
You could always take UConn, Cincinatti, Temple, Tulane, Rice, the University of Toronto, or maybe Johns Hopkins could start a football team.
But who knows, maybe in 2040 the ACC will finally break up.
LikeLike
Well, I did use the word “fantasy.” And I’m not necessarily saying that fantasy is mine.
LikeLike
This scenario (B10 adding Texas, ND, FSU, NC, Virginia, Duke) is just as realistic as Missouri’s chances of joining the B10.
LikeLike
I assume you’re trying to razz me with that, but I haven’t had any hope of Missouri joining the Big Ten since the Big Ten chose to sit and wait on Notre Dame and let Missouri walk to the SEC. Then once Notre Dame joined the ACC, instead of having the option of including Missouri in a 2 or 4 school expansion, they were left with only Rutgers and Maryland. Meanwhile, Missouri is a full member in the strongest athletic conference in America.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, in just over a year Maryland and Rutgers will be in the strongest athletic/academic conference in America. And that’s a combo I like better.
LikeLike
Academic, yes. Athletic, not really. The B1G is getting weaker with the addition of those two. And it’s fairly weak already. At this rate the B1G might become the 5th or 6th best conference academically.
As far as academics, the SEC isn’t great but it’s not as bad as it used to be.
Vandy is on par with Northwestern, Florida and A&M are on par with schools like Penn State and Ohio State, Mizzou is in the same general ballpark as Iowa, Indiana and Rutgers (higher or lower depending on which metrics you use), and Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky aren’t really all that different from Nebraska. So that’s half of the SEC that’s at least in the same general range as the Big Ten.
As for the bottom half of the SEC… well, those schools aren’t really B1G calibre. I won’t argue with that.
LikeLike
damn, meant to type B1G will rank 5th or 6th athletically. But I’m sure you could tell that’s what I was trying to type.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s the worst B10 team academically by far though – it’s a bit of a stretch to make that comparison with the SEC with Neb as the data point.
LikeLike
Academically, Nebraska and Missouri are peer institutions.
LikeLike
Sort of. Unlike Nebraska, Missouri is AAU, ranks around 35 spots higher nationally in research dollars, has substantially more students, and a higher ACT average (26 vs 25). But their endowment sizes are basically identical and Missouri only 4 spots higher in the USNews ranking this year (last year it was around 12 spots higher).
If you’re talking research dollars, Missouri ranks ahead of Indiana and Nebraska, with Iowa next on the list pretty far ahead of Missouri . If you’re talking endowment size, Missouri ranks ahead of Iowa and Rutgers. If you’re talking ACT scores, Missouri ranks ahead of Nebraska, tied with Michigan State and Iowa, nearly identical SAT average to Rutgers and within a point of Indiana and Penn State.
If you’re talking USNews ranking, Missouri is only ahead of Nebraska, with the closest other B1G institution as Indiana (14 spots ahead this year, less than only about 6 spots ahead last year). Purdue, Rutgers, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Iowa are all ahead of Missouri but still in the same general tier in USNews.
So, what I’m saying is, depending on how you define “peer institution”, then if Missouri is a peer institution of Nebraska, then it is also a probably peer institution of Indiana, Iowa, Rutgers, and Michigan State as well.
LikeLike
From Missouri’s list:
Peer colleges that also chose this college as a peer
Iowa State U
Michigan State U
Rutgers U, New Brunswick
SUNY, Stony Brook
U of Arizona
U of Colorado, Boulder
U of Kansas
U of Michigan, Ann Arbor
U of Nebraska, Lincoln
U of Pittsburgh main campus
U of Virginia
U of Washington
U of Wisconsin, Madison
LikeLike
looks about right, although Michigan was being kind.
LikeLike
Michigan lists about every flagship in the country as their peer.
LikeLike
Actually, no. It looks like Michigan selected all AAU schools as their peers, and since Missouri is AAU they made the cut.
LikeLike
duff – congrats on your Hoosiers win at the CWS.
Get ready for the cow bells.
LikeLike
No matter what they say, we don’t need more cowbell.
LikeLike
And sorry about your Tigers, as all 3 seeded teams lost their first game.
Elimination games:
UL vs OrSU
UNC vs LSU
Winner’s bracket:
IN vs MS St
UCLA vs NCSU
LikeLike
Alan, I was rooting for the Tigers because even if they won the CWS they are not a threat to IU winning the Capitol One Cup but UCLA still is. Really wish you guys had painted them with their first loss but would happy to see you eliminate the Tar Heels. How do you think the game with Mississippi State will go and did you go to Omaha?
LikeLike
duff – that was a tough loss with no earned runs and errors by the National Freshman of the Year and a very good defensive catcher. Going into the game yesterday, I thought UCLA was the second best team in the tournament. Last night they were the best. My Tigers have won the CWS by coming out of the losers bracket before. We may see a Plutco/Nola rematch on Friday.
Regarding Miss State, the good news is that their starting pitching falls way off after their #1 starter, the bad news is that the Dawgs have the best bullpen in the SEC.
If LSU makes it to the championship series, I may go. I haven’t been to the CWS since 1991.
LikeLike
Back to my favorite topic: Capital One Cup and the Director’s Cup : ). Also, pay attention to my link if you’ve been following the repercussions of concussions (<– sorry, had to say it).
It looks like the magic number for IU, men's side, to win the Capital One Cup is now 1. But, Louisville must be eliminated by or before the round of 4. Sure Lville can still make it to the semi-finals and beat IU, but if eliminated, the Capital One definitely goes to Bloomington. UNC or UCLA could still win it all, but IU will have earned more overall points by placing 4th or higher. UNC has sealed the women's side of the Capital One. Clearly, IU is in the driver's seat to win this thing. I'd be impressed if they pulled it off, esp with baseball being the deciding sport.
As for the Director's Cup: Stanford has sealed it. UCLA could overtake Fla for second place, but they need to place 2nd or higher in the CWS.
More concussion news and gloom prognostications for football – an engaging read. I think football is here to stay, but its popularity could diminish.
"The truth will set you free": http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2013/06/ex-detroit_lion_lem_barney_foo.html
LikeLike
For a variety of reasons, I doubt football is in any danger of diminishing into a regional sport, the Southeast’s equivalent of water polo.
LikeLike
No, it won’t ever fall to water polo levels : ). But never say never. A scandal or mass public health concern can hurt any iconic name, brand or activity. I can’t believe how much of a baseball fan I used to be, boxing as well. I even use to have Lance Armstrong quotes in my bathroom mirror : ). What I find interesting about the event cited in the above article are the genuine concerns & acts Hoke & Dantonio are committing themselves to & they’re not alone. The CIC website has an admirable link to the “Traumatic Brain Injury Research Collaboration”.
http://www.cic.net/projects/traumatic-brain-injury-research-collaboration
Football’s issues can be addressed effectively. But no doubt, more Barney stories are coming.
LikeLike
Boxing is dead until there’s a major culture change in the sport – it’s too corrupt to be taken seriously.
Baseball’s slowly returning to it’s heyday. I’m sure Frank could do a whole post on MLB expansion/realignment. Personally, I think moving Tampa Bay to Montreal and breaking up the divisions somewhat could help.
LikeLike
I don’t know about that, would like to see it return to its “heyday”. Cable contracts are keeping a lot of MLB’s smaller markets just above water. MLB scores big when it comes up with a salary cap similar to the NFL – the revenue disparity between the haves and have nots needs to close. I still enjoy the game and the playoffs have lately brought in more mid-size market teams. Of course I’m rooting for TB vs NYY. But most, emphasize “most” of the WS champs the past 20 years have been larger market teams, not the case with NFL.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say “just above water”. MLB is filthy stinking rich, despite the wails of the “smaller market owners”.
The problem is that a good portion of the owners would rather pocket the revenues than put them back into the club, and the majority of them are utterly opposed to spend money at all. Houston was sold at $610 million, and they’re the worst club in the league. The Dodgers, one of the largest clubs in every regard was sold at $2.15 billion.
Cable networks are shoveling cash at a resurgent sport that dominates the entire summer. You have to engineer a fiscal crisis like Frank McCourt to lose money in baseball.
LikeLike
Ideally Tampa would move to Fairfield Country (CT), Northern NJ, or Brooklyn.
NYC is a baseball town and could easily support a third team. Especially one that is as good and well run as Tampa is.
LikeLike
Maybe by then the NFL will start adopting rugby league rules for those who still like full contact sports. With their outrageous marketing power, I’m sure they can find a way to get people to show and watch. After all, they still need to fill up those fancy new stadia still being built.
LikeLike
When I looked at the Capitol One Cup before the series started it had TAMU winning it unless IU won 2 games and Louisville lost before you got to the last 4. UCLA and UNC had to win it all to even have a shot and now the Tar Heels and Cards are down a game and both are facing elimination in their second games. If both lose not only would they both be out but the Capitol One Cup would be down to IU, UCLA, and TAMU with TAMU not having a chance for more points.
LikeLike
Unless Lville pulls off a miracle, this sucker is down to IU, UNC and UCLA. UNC does not look to advance & as usual, at least one ACC team was over-seeded. Don’t get me wrong ACC fans, you’ve been knocking on the door for a while & I’d be a fool to say BIG baseball is better than the ACC since say 1983 (I think the year Mi made the CWS before IU, present CWS) or 1990-1991 when perennial chokers, FSU, joined your conference. But, if UNC is eliminated, your conference may have the lonely distinction of 3 teams: Clemson, FSU & UNC, who’ve earned double digit CWS appearances, but no NC. That’s beyond a curse, a lot of sore throats in ACC baseball land – choke galore.
As I stated in a previous post, IU locks up the Cup with a semi-finals appearance. They get there if they beat MissSt.
PS Lville has had some chances to close the gap here – at least 4 stranded runners the past 2 innings.
LikeLike
Ouch! IU had that game. Earning their way into the semi-finals is a taller order at this point. If they get past OrSt, beating MSU twice in a row will be very difficult.
LikeLike
To make the semi-finals, IU just needs to beat Oregon State tomorrow. The rematch(es) with Mississippi State would be for a spot in the final series.
LikeLike
I think I know that Arch. Taller order means what it means. Had IU won last night they’d already be in the semi-finals and the Capital One Cup would be theirs. They don’t beat Oregon State, UNC or UCLA could win the CWS, thus take the Cup.
LikeLike
Pingback: Capital One Cup Criticism | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Nice take : ). I agree with many of your points. — BIG Fan
LikeLike
Where I have the issue is how they pick what sports gets points and which sports get 20 or 60. If water polo is only in the PAC then does it deserve points as no other conference can compete? I am willing to allow soccer or track and field their 60 but so few conferences play lacrosse it seems unfair to award them 60 as well. Maybe it needs to be based on the schools participating.
60 points – for sports all conferences play like football, basketball, baseball, track & field, and soccer (SEC does not have soccer but everybody else does so soccer is in)
40 points for sports 3 of the 5 primary conferences cover
20 points for sports 2 of the 5 primary conferences cover
0 points for sports only 1 of the 5 primary conferences cover (goodbye water polo)
LikeLike
How many teams/sports have been dropped since T9 implementation? The money has exploded but the offerings have diminished. I’m not sure judging an athletic department simply by the least common denominators is much better than simply declaring FB and BB as the only sports that count, since they produce (and consume) the most money.
If the NCAA sponsors it, there should be points.
LikeLike
On a lighter note of disagreement, your “Confidential Cup”, which you admittedly inject bias towards the ACC relegates Women’s Volleyball to Tier 2. This sport has more than enough competition to field a 64 team tourney, annually, similar to basketball. There are far more Women’s Volleyball teams than lacrosse, in fact more than men’s and women’s lacrosse combined. A system (Capital One or Director’s) should be heavily based on actual D1 participation, an argument I’ve made throughout this entire blog.
As for your argument about the quality of BIG sports as opposed to the mighty dollar, slight grain of truth in your claim. But, I think the BIG often thinks in terms of long-term branding and quality, they’re not necessarily stuck in ephemeral terms. AAU does matter, as well as flagship status.
Quality or quantity? BIG basketball, for example, is like ACC baseball, they get to the semi-finals/finals, they just don’t win often enough. But at least the BIG has won 7 NCs in basketball since 1955, the last time an “actual membership ACC team” won a NC in baseball. This includes 3 in the modern era & the last team to go undefeated (1976 Indiana). Throw in the fact that the BIG has plenty of second places in men’s basketball since WF’s baseball NC: 13 runners up. ACC Baseball, despite numerous, numerous CWS appearances, has only made it to the championship game-series 4 times since 1955. If you’re bent on fact checking, remember when FSU & Miami actually joined the ACC.
Football: I’ll take the BIG’s mediocre track record over the ACC’s any day. The ACC”s BCS record speaks for itself – the worst amongst BCS conferences. The BIG has 12 BCS wins (2 vacated) to the ACC’s 3 BCS wins – that’s 3x the victories. Vacated records don’t matter at the end of the day, the teams already played & the result unfolded. Conversely, vacated records means the world in terms of ethics & fairness – point taken & I won’t disagree. Btw, two of the BIG’s BCS wins came at the expense of the ACC.
M. Soccer ( a sport I care about): despite the ACC’s depth, IU is still king & they did it again last year, won it all. IU has 30 more NCAA tourney wins than Virginia, the most successful ACC team.The BIG will have Md soon enough, clearly the second best M. Soccer program in the ACC. Clemson may argue otherwise because they have as many NCAA tourney wins, but Md has one more NC . Thus, the future between these two conferences in this sport will likely even out in depth terms. People forget that Wisc and MSU combine for 3 NCs & Mich and OSU have recently made trips to the College Cup.
The ACC, amongst all conferences, does in fact possess the best men’s basketball (I’ll give an interesting take on that shortly), men’s lacrosse, men’s & women’s soccer & field hockey. But that’s really all – there’s only one major sport amongst those listed. Meanwhile the BIG tops the ACC in NCs, following sports: wrestling, m. cross country, volleyball (m & w), m. gymnastics, hockey (m & w), swimming (m) & football. Now that Md is BIG bound, w. lacrosse likely tips to the BIG. ACC field hockey prestige also took a huge hit with Md’s forthcoming departure (they in fact have the most NCs amongst current ACC schools). Btw, I consider w. volleyball and football major sports – laugh all you want at the former, my claim, but that sport is surging and it means a lot to the other sex. I cite sports, minus f. hockey, where the ACC will likely need sustained success to catch the BIG, if ever. On humorous note, BIG baseball has 6 NC’s to the ACC’s 1, yet the BIG has less than half the ACC’s CWS appearances. A tradition of bad luck and choking aside, I agree, ACC baseball is much better than the BIG, modern terms.
As for M. Basketball, I wouldn’t count the BIG as distant second to the ACC, they are capable of matching the ACC in NCs down the road. Btw, the Pac12 still technically holds the most NCs – the ACC evens the mark once Lville joins & the SEC has more NCs than the BIG – they have 11. But neither the Pac12 nor SEC matches the BIG’s depth nor final four appearances. Anyways, I genuinely believe the BIG has better prep basketball in its footprint than the ACC. In fact the ACC has a history of greater dependency on the recruits within the BIG footprint as opposed to the BIG recruiting ACC territory. You could say the same about the coaches as well. In terms of NCs, future membership totals, the BIG does need to close the gap (ACC = 16, BIG = 11). The BIG has one less team. But in one phone call, the BIG closes the gap: UConn. This school would join the BIG over the ACC in a heatrbeat – suddenly hypothetical membership NC totals go to 16-14, slight ACC edge, but not in w. basketball, BIG prevails. One could also argue that a BIG phone call to KU adds yet another basketball power: I truly think KU would devour a BIG invite, even risk GOR conditions. So who could the ACC add to get to 16 teams? Perhaps Cincy, thus future membership NC totals would put the ACC @ 18 the BIG @ 17. All of sudden either the BIG or ACC, if my hypothetical expansion scenario comes to fruition, could make a genuine claim as best “M. Basketball Conference”. But the BIG would have more upside in terms of recruiting footprint, and the fact that the ACC has 4 HOF coaches on the brink of reitirement (K, Roy, Pitino & Boeheim). On the women’s side, the BIG still prevails because of UConn alone. Sidebar, neither the BIG nor ACC can make a claim anytime soon when it comes to football.
There are other sports, less participation, where either the BIG or ACC hold credible leads in terms of NCs – women’s golf (ACC) or fencing (BIG). But my main point here is that the BIG, like the ACC, consistently contends and wins NCs in many sports – a mark of quality that also adds quantity. You overstated, but I still like your blog.
LikeLike
Technical note: when speaking of Men’s Basketball NCs, future membership, I always added Md to the BIG, but did not subtract from the ACC. Thus any ACC totals should be reduced by 1. I did include Syracuse and Lville when calculating ACC totals.
LikeLike
Wish I’d been able to comment earlier on this (since I’ve been pushing JHU to the Big Ten for almost 3-4 years now when I first started commenting here).
I’m a big fan of the JHU addition, and I’m okay with this first 5 years being a searching out period for both sides. I also see no issue with JHU keeping their ESPNU deal (the Big Ten will get exposure for its men’s hockey programs through that as well so it’s a win-win).
I think we need to step back and think about the fact that for JHU this is a big step; yes they’re a big time program in men’s lacrosse, but they haven’t been involved with a big conference like the Big Ten full of giant public institutions and all of the things that go along with that. I think they want to take it slowly before committing for say 50 years to this…
As far as the JHU women’s lacrosse program goes, I think that’s a bigger conundrum for both sides.
My understanding of the situation is that competitive issues were a big part of the reason why they pulled out of the ALC (basically the Big Ten and SEC and JHU women’s lacrosse conference).
Now that Maryland is joining Northwestern in the Big Ten’s women’s lacrosse conference, I’m not sure JHU wants any part of that…
The flip side of this is that the women’s lacrosse tournament is in expansion mode, so ironically there may not be much of a competition problem going forward if they think they can still get good bids. But competing with Maryland and Northwestern which are seemingly in the Final Four or championship game in women’s lacrosse every year is going to be a tough decision.
LikeLike
zeek,
The prodigal commenter returns.
“Wish I’d been able to comment earlier on this (since I’ve been pushing JHU to the Big Ten for almost 3-4 years now when I first started commenting here).”
They were waiting on you to get busy before deciding.
“I’m a big fan of the JHU addition,”
I’m mostly ambivalent.
Pros for the B10:
1. M LAX league (it’s one more tie between schools, and should be helpful for the newbies)
2. M LAX autobid (even if JHU and UMD always get it or would get in anyway)
3. More publicity for the B10 name in a new area (in the east/mid-Atlantic and in LAX in general)
4. No partial membership for a I-A school
5. Potential to have a LAX king in the conference permanently
6. Potential to have the top research school in the US in the CIC
7. JHU improves the SOS for all the B10 teams
8. ESPNU exposure is good for the B10 teams
9. The B10 beat out the ACC for JHU, which is always good for PR purposes
Cons for the B10:
1. Less incentive for a 6th B10 member to add M LAX
2. JHU may dominate the autobid, keeping full B10 members out
3. Establishes partial membership as something the B10 does
4. The B10 looks weak by not getting the W LAX team or the TV deal
5. The trial period may result in JHU leaving, then the 5 men’s teams will be searching for a home
6. It would look bad for someone to leave the CIC voluntarily
7. It would look really bad for someone to leave the B10 voluntarily
“and I’m okay with this first 5 years being a searching out period for both sides.”
It’s certainly understandable since they’ve been independent for so long. More importantly, they’ve never been a member of a major conference in any sport so they don’t know what they’re getting into. The B10 is a little different from the Centennial Conference or the UAA. It was also probably needed as a selling point to their alumni to give them a chance to get used to the new situation.
“I also see no issue with JHU keeping their ESPNU deal”
I agree that it’s beneficial for the B10. LAX fans watch ESPNU, so you want to play there. Besides, 2 networks covering you is always better than just one. Now you get free promotion all spring long as upcoming JHU games get promoted. Plus, it means no monetary issues in terms of splitting BTN revenue with JHU.
“(the Big Ten will get exposure for its men’s hockey programs through that as well so it’s a win-win).”
How so? Does ESPNU also cover some B10 road games in hockey?
“I think we need to step back and think about the fact that for JHU this is a big step;”
For those that object, I believe it’s more about the principle of allowing partial membership than anything else. The trial period isn’t really an issue.
“As far as the JHU women’s lacrosse program goes, I think that’s a bigger conundrum for both sides.”
If the men decide to stay in the B10, then the women become more of an issue to me. As long as they don’t join another conference, they don’t bother me right now. If the men are in, though, then the women need to join. Being in a conference with the best should help them recruit better coaches and players until they are also elite.
LikeLike
Whoops, dunno how I included the Big Ten’s hockey programs into that discussion (too much hockey on the mind right now).
I actually think the women’s issue will be somewhat moot. The tournament has expanded 50% and JHU’s major issue was that they were just falling outside of the tournament bracket over most of the past decade or so. I think tournament expansion will get rid of that competitive issue for the women eventually joining the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Brian,
Baltimore is basically ground zero for lacrosse; like Minnesota hockey or Indiana Basketball or Texas football. The lacrosse recruits (and regular student body recruits) in Baltimore and DC will get to see Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State visit every year. I think that actually entices programs like Michigan State and Northwestern to look into men’s lacrosse: wealthy students willing to pay the out-of-state tuition.
And I’m not concerned with the “precedent” of partial membership. It’s a very unique situation, and likely won’t be considered in most sports; certainly not football or basketball. It’s kind of like Notre Dame not being AAU.
Also, if JHU were to “leave” the CIC as a partial/probationary member, I’m not worried about how it looks. The faculty and the Presidents know the value of the CIC; I think it’s pretty established that the CIC can only help the Big Ten, it’s the strongest cooperative in education, and would be a benefit to just about every school out there. From Texas to Notre Dame to UNC to Oklahoma to Florida State – the CIC would be a benefit to them.
Finally, I would expect that the TV contract isn’t a big deal. I’m sure the message is that if they choose to stick around past five years, that once the ESPNU contract is over, that JHU would need to join in with the Big Ten network and negotiate the deals together.
LikeLike
I am not so sure of that. ESPNU televises every home Johns Hopkins lacrosse game. Every one. BTN doesn’t have enough airtime to put every Hopkins game (or 100% of any school’s games) on the air.
That’s why the league doesn’t mind the ESPNU deal: it’s covering a lot of games that BTN wouldn’t cover anyway. Granted, there are some it would, but for the most part the two complement one an other.
LikeLike
Cliff,
“Baltimore is basically ground zero for lacrosse; like Minnesota hockey or Indiana Basketball or Texas football.”
Isn’t Long Island just as big a lacrosse area? That’s the impression I have, anyway. Not really relevant to anything, just curious.
“The lacrosse recruits (and regular student body recruits) in Baltimore and DC will get to see Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State visit every year. I think that actually entices programs like Michigan State and Northwestern to look into men’s lacrosse: wealthy students willing to pay the out-of-state tuition.”
I think Title IX concerns trump any interest in adding a men’s sport right now.
“And I’m not concerned with the “precedent” of partial membership.”
I’m not either, since the B10 isn’t bound by precedent. But it is always easier to do something new the second time than the first.
“The faculty and the Presidents know the value of the CIC;”
Yes, but someone leaving voluntarily says that value isn’t all that big, at least not to JHU. Maybe that causes other schools to rethink the CIC’s value to them. Again, it’s just a minor thing. Everything on both lists are fairly minor which is why I’m ambivalent.
“Finally, I would expect that the TV contract isn’t a big deal. I’m sure the message is that if they choose to stick around past five years, that once the ESPNU contract is over, that JHU would need to join in with the Big Ten network and negotiate the deals together.”
I’d think the B10 would look to join the ESPNU deal rather than end it altogether just like with ESPN and football. They could split the deal so the networks alternate picks of which games to televise, with a requirement that all 6 teams appear at least once on both networks (or some similar diversity clause). Or maybe they require ESPNU to show all 2-3 of the B10 games at JHU as part of their package but otherwise let that deal stand. The real fight might be over the B10 tournament games. Maybe BTN gets the semis and ESPNU the final? Or maybe the B10 tries a 6 team tournament with play-in games for the semis and BTN gets the play-in games?
LikeLike
Marc – there are only 14 lacrosse games, each year, most on Saturday. So that’s only 7 home games for Hopkins for ESPNU. And with only 5 Big Ten opponents, that’s only 2-3 Big Ten teams on ESPNU each year, and likewise, only 2-3 Hopkins appearances on BTN each year (not counting the inevitable B1G Lax Tournament, which may or may not be on BTN). For now, I think the exposure is fine. And I’m not saying that every Hopkins game needs to eventually be on the BTN, I’m just saying that they should grant their rights to the B1G and be part of the league wide negotiations. If it’s ESPNU/BTN that’s fine, but maybe it’s Fox Sports 1/BTN,
Brian – Yeah, Lacrosse on Long Island is probably just as big of a deal; but I suppose the conversation was focusing on Hopkins. And Rutgers kinds sorta adds Long Island to the footprint, too. Probably like there are two “Ground Zeroes” for hockey – Minnesota and New England. But I think you get the picture.
I agree that Title IX needs to be addressed. But I believe that between the new bowl alignment, the BTN revenue from NYC / Jersey / MD / DC, and then finally the new Tier I / Tier II TV contracts, that the Big Ten schools will be flush with money. At that time, it will be a lot easier to add a (few) sports. And Lacrosse is a sport growing in the midwest, it connects to the new eastern schools, and it’s less expensive than, say, adding an ice hockey arena. Michigan State once had varsity lacrosse, and Northwestern obviously has women’s lacrosse, and both have reasons for connecting to the East, so I think those are obvious choices to add men’s lacrosse.
I do agree that having men’s lax on multiple networks would be fine. I think that accommodating JHU’s ESPNU contract is not unlike the Big Ten accommodating Penn State and Rutgers and their previously scheduled football games. Instead of forcing them to play in October or November, the Big Ten allowed them to keep the games in mid-September in 2014-5.
It’s just not a bad idea to try to let the schools keep their prior engagements, as switching conferences is hard enough without trying to make too many demands.
LikeLike
If Big Ten Lacrosse projects to be the second or third strongest conference, then it seems likely the Big Ten Lacrosse tournament final at the very least is on ESPNU or better. But, of course, it would be possible to put together a Classic featuring two or three Big Ten schools. Big Ten vs Ivy League or Big Ten vs New Big East.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578547781699014930.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
The NCAA is bringing some power back to the ADs. There will be a council of 10 ADs that report to Emmert and his senior staff on a variety of issues like recruiting reform.
“It’s clear right now where the association has gone, it’s pushed the pendulum too far in one direction,” Emmert said in the interview. “And it really has cut athletic directors out of the national discussion.”
LikeLike
The Dude of WV’s latest report/hope/invention/rumor is that the Big Ten was all set to add FSU and Virginia. Ohio State called in every last chip it had, to persuade wavering schools to accept the Seminoles, only to get left at the altar, about which the Buckeyes are not happy campers. At the last minute, FSU bailed after Swofford persuaded them that an eventual ACC network would eliminate the huge revenue disparity between the two leagues. After that, Virginia bailed too.
Not endorsing, just sharing.
LikeLike
By sharing, you are endorsing. We all know that they are outright lies.
LikeLike
Oh, come on. Until something happens, realignment rumor-mongering is just entertainment.
LikeLike
Didn’t he say in his last blog that he was done covering expansion?
LikeLike
Yes. That lasted a day. One of his most predictable prediction failures.
LikeLike
Interesting that he has protected his Twitter account again…
LikeLike
So to paraphrase Maxwell Smart, how close was he to being right? Why, of course he was THIS close.
LikeLike
Its merely a repackaging of the news reports that Swofford visited both Tallahassee and Charlottesville in order to shore up support. Anyone can rewrite the news and claim them to be retroactively sourced to them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/78411/commissioner-jim-delany-big-ten-bowl-lineup-taking-shape
A summary of where things stand on the B10 bowl picture.
So when will we see the full, official lineup? Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com on Friday that he hopes it will be “weeks, not months.” And from his point of view, the league has accomplished its goals with the next lineup.
“I think what you’ll see is a truly national slate of bowls,” Delany said. “I think you’ll see us probably stronger on the West Coast than we’ve been. You’ll see us as strong in Florida as we’ve been, but probably not as much on New Year’s [Day]. I think you’ll see us in Texas, and you’ll see us with some games in our region, some games on the East Coast. I think it’s going to be a great slate. We’ve made a lot of progress.”
LikeLike
Hallelujah…as a Big Ten fan, I was so sick of having 3 or 4 bowl games playing simultaneously at noon on NYD. Who cares if NYD is a coveted spot? If half of your viewers for that spot are conflicted and can’t watch, that’s a rating bomb.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner somehow got a hold of the Pac-12’s television contract payouts per year from ESPN/Fox.
2013: $185,000,000 million
2014: $194,250,000 million
2015: $204,540,000 million
2016: $215,060,000 million
2017: $226,140,000 million
2018: $237,780,000 million
2019: $250,020,000 million
2020: $262,900,000 million
2021: $276,420,000 million
2022: $290,660,000 million
2023: $305,620,000 million
2024: $321,340,000 million
With a $30 million signing bonus.
That totals up to be approximately $3 billion over the 12 years. Other interesting things to note: 1) the 2013 payout is just shy of 75% of the average life of contract payout of about $247.5 million. The growth rate is approximately 5.1% annually. Just nice to see actual number examples of things we’ve discussed over the years here i.e. averages don’t reflect what someone is actually getting paid on a given year, contracts escalate, etc.
Full Wilner report
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/06/17/pac-12-conference-annual-payouts-from-espn-and-fox-the-official-numbers/
LikeLike
“Scott’s email, obtained by the Hotline, is among the countless documents filed in Ed O’Bannon’s lawsuit against the NCAA. (There’s a huge court date Thursday in Oakland, by the way.)”
LikeLike
Here’s the “confidential” email:
Click to access Pac-12%20TV%20contract.pdf
LikeLike
GT AD said that the ACC payouts would be $12.8 million/school in 2014 and escalate to $22.7 million at the end of the contract. This was 4/23 after the GOR was signed.
LikeLike
The GOR isn’t signed as of yet. 22.7 at the end of contract means 10-15 years down the road.
The BIG,SEC, and Pac12 make that and more now. And.. the BIG will have a
new contract in 2 years
An ACC Network is less unlikely because ESPN has no interest. Plus, the ACC has to buy out FOX Sports before that can happen.
Look for the schools to slowly peal off to the BIG and SEC as has been talked about in the last
year
LikeLike
The B1G, SEC and P12 don’t make that much in TV revenues right now, just in total conference revenues. 2012-13 B1G TV revenues were about $18.5. Nostradamus’ posted Wilner’s list of P12 distributions. They’re at $15.4 now, and reach $21.9 in 2020.
The ACC is failing behind, but its not yet a huge separation. It will continue to grow.
LikeLike
The GOR isn’t signed as of yet.
On April 22, the ACC announced on its website, “The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents announced today that each of the current and future 15-member institutions has signed a grant of media rights, effective immediately.”
Is there a reliable source stating that they lied? I’m talking about paid media, not a fan blog, hobbyist twitter feed, or anonymous message board post.
LikeLike
There were a couple of articles saying it was effective July 1. But its all academic.
LikeLike
Saying it’s effective July 1, is not the same thing as unsigned.
Some hopeful fans have suggested that the schools could actually back out of it before July 1, and I haven’t seen that confirmed. Just because a contract has a future effective date, does not mean the parties can cancel without penalty. I assume July 1 was chosen simply because it’s the standard start date of a new academic year. That doesn’t make it any less binding.
Another unsubstantiated rumor is that the GOR has an “out” clause in the event an ACC network fails to materialize by a certain date. That’s another one of those reports I won’t believe until an authoritative source reports it.
LikeLike
How could it be anything other than for a period starting in July 1? Rights for July 1 2012 to the end of June 2013 were already assigned.
This seems to be a confusion between the time when the agreement is made and the period that the agreement covers … these long term Grant of Rights are a grant of rights OVER a period of time … the time that the grant is executed and the time that the covered period begins are quite often two distinct dates on the calendar, and I would be very much surprised if every sportwriter writing on the subject understands the distinction.
LikeLike
According to a Wazzu fansite, WSU is close to finalizing an agreement to play Rutgers in 2014-2015, home and away. Wazzu would host in 2014, in Seattle, and visit Piscataway in 2015.
http://allcougdup.com/2013/06/17/washington-state-football-will-play-rutgers-scarlet-knights-in-2014-and-2015/
Significant, because RU would most likely replace Wisconsin in WSU’s 2014-15 non-conference schedule. If true, then that makes it more likely Wisconsin would seal the deal to play LSU in those years.
LikeLike