(Note: as conference realignment has slowed down, I’m going to shift back toward looking at some of the broader issues in the business of college sports, such as the impact of television rights, tensions between the power conferences and the NCAA, and the new playoff system. I’ll also likely get into some related pro sports angles with how the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball are dealing with domestic franchises along with looking internationally for new markets and fans. Obviously, if conference realignment heats up again, I’ll cover it thoroughly here. For those that still need a conference realignment fix, I had a Big Ten-focused realignment Q&A last week with Off Tackle Empire and will have a different Big 12/Texas-focused one with Burnt Orange Nation in the near future.)
The notion of the power conferences splitting away from the non-power leagues to form either a new association separate from the NCAA or a different division (hereinafter called the “Super FBS”) has been percolating over the past few years. For various reasons, the talk has been intensifying lately with the settling of the conference realignment landscape and increased calls for greater compensation for student athletes beyond their respective scholarships (with the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit against the NCAA as a backdrop)*. There is already a de facto split between the 5 power FBS conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and ACC) and the rest of Division I schools in terms of TV and postseason football revenue, so it seems natural to many observers that a split along those lines would make sense.
(* In the interest of full disclosure, I’m personally a strong supporter of paying college athletes. While the cost of a college scholarship is substantial, the power conference athletic departments are still receiving outsized revenue gains off of the backs of football and men’s basketball players and they ought to be compensated accordingly. Now, I understand why colleges want to fight those types of payments to the death and there are major Title IX implications, as it’s likely that payments would have to be made across the board to all non-revenue sport athletes on top of the revenue generators. It’s easy to point to the quarterback whose jersey is getting sold nationwide and say that it isn’t fair that he hasn’t been compensated fully, yet should a water polo player at the same school be receiving the same type of payment? There’s no easy answer to this. From my vantage point, the inequity of the quarterback not getting fully compensated for the revenue that he’s bringing in for a school is much greater than the thought that non-revenue athletes would have to get paid, too, but I know others may disagree.)
Warren K. Zola had an excellent commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education that outlined several potential proposals that a Super FBS division could implement that would serve both the commercial reality of college sports and improving student-athlete welfare:
-
Have athletics scholarships cover the full cost of attendance and not be capped at tuition and fees, room and board, and required books. A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.
-
Embrace the Olympic amateur model by lifting the restriction on college athletes’ commercial opportunities. This shift would offer any student the opportunity to secure endorsement deals or receive payment for the use of his or her name and image.
-
Create an education fund that provides continuing financial assistance to college athletes, allowing them to complete their degrees even after their athletics eligibility, and corresponding scholarship, has expired.
-
Provide full health insurance for all athletes and cover all deductibles for injuries related to participation in an intercollegiate sport. Offer full disability insurance to elite athletes, protecting them against catastrophic injuries that could derail their professional careers.
-
Allow athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions, negotiating commercial opportunities, and navigating the transition from college to professional sports.
I believe that all of these suggestions are on the mark. The reference to the “underground compensation system” is astute and one of the largest issues that I have with the current NCAA model of anachronistic recruiting regulations on the books with haphazard and inconsistent enforcement of those terrible rules on top of them. NCAA recruiting rules are sort of like campaign finance regulations in Washington – everyone publicly votes for them on one day and then privately tries to find loopholes around them the next day. I’m much more of a full disclosure-type of person as opposed to attempting to put the brakes on market-based transactions, where I believe colleges and universities would have better control over the “underground” market if they acknowledge that it exists and provide a viable alternative that allows for athletes to take advantage of their talent to get stipends directly from schools and commercial endorsements.
The last bullet about allowing athletes to hire agents is an interesting one. There have been many prominent power brokers over the years, such as Worldwide Wes for basketball*, that have effectively taken that role, so I believe that there’s some benefit to formalizing that type of relationship. The NCAA’s agent contact rules are just as backwards with spotty enforcement as the organizations recruiting rules, so having a reactionary stance of zero tolerance simply isn’t realistic in today’s world. It’s better to get those relationships out in the open and snuff out as much under-the-table action as possible.
(* If you haven’t read it already, this GQ piece on Worldwide Wes from a few years ago is one of the most fascinating profiles that you’ll ever see of a behind-the-scenes sports figure.)
So, I see a lot of potential benefits to separating the power conferences away from the non-power conferences simply from the student-athlete perspective. Of course, the increased control and, in turn, revenue that the power conferences would see from a breakaway would be the real reason why they’d want to do it. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it also makes it difficult to draw up clear criteria as to why a school or conference would be in “regular” FBS while another one is in Super FBS. For instance, would it really benefit the 5 power conferences very much if, say, the AAC and Mountain West Conference are willing to pay student stipends, thereby qualifying for Super FBS? It would seem that the power conferences would only want to split off into a new division if they could ensure that they’re the only ones in it or else it would defeat the purpose of that split*.
(* Speaking of power conference revenue, one byproduct of the Ed O’Bannon case is that the specific terms and payment schedule of the Pac-12’s new contract with ESPN and Fox have been disclosed. Nothing is too surprising, although it’s interesting to see some of the items that we have speculated on confirmed, such as the rights fees escalating approximately 5% per year. The term sheet is here.)
Now, there’s the more nuclear option of the 5 power conferences simply breaking away completely from the NCAA that would serve as a clean revenue-based split, although I find that to be an option that guys such as Jim Delany and Mike Slive would prefer to keep in their back pockets than one that would ever be implemented. While I generally believe that many non-power conference fans overstate their influence with politicians (i.e. mistakenly thinking that they’ll step in to help them with the playoff system or taxing power school revenue), a full-scale break-off would be one of those events that could definitely spur an untenable political backlash. It might be a move that the power conferences would secretly like in the back of their respective heads, but there are too many political landmines (particularly at the state-by-state level) to realistically engage in that scenario.
The upshot is that nothing is really easy or clear here. Power conferences definitely want more autonomy, but the process of making sure that they’re truly their own group without perceived “interlopers” might be more difficult to achieve than any changes about compensating student-athletes. All of Zola’s suggestions could still be implemented in theory without creating a Super FBS Division – it’s just that the power schools and maybe a couple of the non-power conferences are probably the only ones that could afford to put them into place.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Real Clear Sports)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
GBR
LikeLike
Go Blue!!
LikeLike
MIZ
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
I’ve always thought that following the Olympic model of allowing endorsements is the easiest and best solution. Players can receive some of the money sloshing around. It goes to the players which the schools are truly making money off of, the popular football and basketball players. It totally complies with Title IX.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more. Additionally, it doesn’t hit the athletic department budget, it complies with Title IX (as you said), it gives those players legitimate business exposure beyond the seedy $500 handshake and their theoretical classroom curriculum, and gives them a viable, legal outlet for using their fame and accomplishments to help enrich their lives (instead of just the head coach and his top assistants).
Of course, the NCAA is still way behind the curb that the IOC banished around 1986, thus allowing Olympians to be paid: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-02-13/sports/sp-23346_1_rule-change.
LikeLike
The issue is of course, some schools would attract far more ‘endorsements’ than others. Some of those endorsements might be say of questionable circumstances; e.g. contingent on going to University X.
LikeLike
Big whoop.
It’s not a level playing field anyway. Let’s stop pretending that it is.
LikeLike
Then you’ve just made a small problem into a massive one. All the top recruits will start playing for the programs with the most and wealthiest boosters.
LikeLike
hmm…. interesting question. Let’s take Cam Newton as an example. What is a game-changing QB like CN worth on the open market? In the underground market, he was supposedly worth about $200,000. But that was under constrained bidding. If all teams had been allowed to bid for Cam Newton, in theory, the price would have gone up (that is, more demand, same supply = higher price).
But on the other hand, in a free market for all QBs, every school already “bought” their QB, so maybe there is no increased demand .. ? Don’t know.
Try this: What is the “endorsement deal” for a 4* OLman? How about a 4* left tackle? Will there be “endorsement deals” for three-stars?
There are about 300 or so “elite” recruits every year (elite being a 4 or 5-star rated player).
All the top 40-ish programs have enough money and have enough rich boosters to pay the “endorsement deals.”
Interesting tax implications: an endorsement deal would be a business expense for Joe’s Car Dealership.
A tangle of other questions: what do we do about this? 5* gets endorsement deal but then transfers to another school for a better endorsement deal. (Does that happen with Olympic athletes? Jump from Team USA to Team Canada?)
What happens if the player is a bust and loses his endorsement deal?
How about that 3* that proves to be underrated? Now he wants an endorsement deal and starts looking around.
Seems to me we end up with a lot more transferring?
How does it impact coaching? Already the elite players come in somewhat “entitled.” Now we add a bunch of legit money on top?
Do we put an upper limit on endorsement deals? Say $300,000? a million?
Does this seriously impact the on-field product (like in Bball) as the elite players leave even earlier. Johnny Manziel would have millions in endorsements right now. Would he bother playing his soph and junior years?
Then this: what about group endorsements. The Ohio State OLine brought to you by Value City? Now they all have Value City logos on their jerseys during the game?
Interesting to contemplate what the Olympic model would actually entail.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – Tangential to this, here’s a great clip of Charles Barkley from last year about recruiting a young Dirk Nowitzki to go to Auburn (including some commentary on how $200,000 for Cam Newton was a “good deal” for Auburn and how things get done in the SEC):
LikeLike
Noone really knows how good HS players will be. Texas offered RGIII and Johnny Manziel as defensive secondary players because they thought Garrett Gilbert (now at SMU) would be great. The Texas 2009 recruiting class was ranked #1 in the nation. Only 2 of those players were contributors.
So if you have a good contributor getting nothing while non-contributors get big deals, what does that do to team unity?
IMO the Olympic model would be more of a mess than now.
As for agents, they have a history of stealing from clients. Sicking agents on 17 year olds is really not in their best interest.
LikeLike
No one really knows how good HS players will be. . . . So if you have a good contributor getting nothing while non-contributors get big deals, what does that do to team unity?
I’m not sure the relevance of that. Assuming that players are able to do endorsements, presumably they’d be earned based on actual performance, not merely what they did in high school.
As for agents, they have a history of stealing from clients.
There are also quack doctors, but no one has outlawed medicine.
LikeLike
As some have noted, there is the recruiting aspect. Endorsement deals would come with their signing. Now they could well be year-to-year, but schools with well healed boosters would be doing deals with HS recruits. A very top recruit might be able to get a 4 year deal.
As for doctors, the % of quacks is pretty small and doctors usually are dealing with adults, not 17 year olds.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
Even in defeat.
LikeLike
LSU going two and bar-b-que is one of the most shocking things I’ve seen at the CWS in a long time.
LikeLike
My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. I’m sure other conference schools would demand home and home series., meaning that the best a school could hope for would be six home games a year. The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away. (I know that their athletics departments would be strapped for cash if they didn’t.)
I disagree with Frank on the political clout of the non-power conference schools. While on an individual basis most of them would not have significant political clout, I believe that all of them combined could stir up a considerable amount of support. On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools. Politicians from both parties and across the country would not let that happen. Not to mention the senators and Congressmen who represent states and districts that only have non-power conference schools such as Nevada, Hawaii, Fresno, the 1-4 Corridor in Florida, Houston, Philadelphia, Connecticut, just to name a few.
Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate. (I thought about counting New York as well, because the only public school in New York which plays FBS football is in a non-power five conference, but I extremely doubt that Buffalo holds anywhere near the political clout in New York that say UConn does in Connecticut.) I personally doubt the power conferences will ever risk losing their tax-exempt status in a political backlash.
LikeLike
I agree with Greg. I think the Olympic model is the ideal solution for everyone.
LikeLike
That was supposed to be 1/10 not 1/5th.
LikeLike
My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. . . .The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away.
That’s easy: the power and non-power schools would continue to play each other. It’s obvious that this would happen, because both need each other. The power schools need a couple of cupcake games a year, to get 7 home dates and secure bowl eligibility. The non-power schools need those games for the paycheck, which helps fund their athletic departments.
On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools.
Which is why they’d never do it. There is simply no reason to exclude the service academies, which receive 100% government funding and aren’t subject to the usual scholarship rules anyway.
LikeLike
My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off. . . .The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year, and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away.
That’s easy: the power and non-power schools would continue to play each other. It’s obvious that this would happen, because both need each other. The power schools need a couple of cupcake games a year, to get 7 home dates and secure bowl eligibility. The non-power schools need those games for the paycheck, which helps fund their athletic departments.
Then any “break-off” from the NCAA would require the lower-tier FBS conferences (MWC, the American, C-USA, Sun Belt, MAC) to join with the top five leagues, plus the service academics, Notre Dame and Brigham Young). I still think those conferences would mandate any schools in this new federation must field football teams, thus taking the A-10, Big East, etc. out of the equation and requiring members of those leagues who want to remain playing FBS football to join one of the lower-tier FBS leagues.
With 120 or so members, the new federation would have enough schools to stage championships in virtually every sport — something that can’t be said were it restricted to the five power leagues, ND and BYU.
LikeLike
I think you misunderstood what’s meant by “breaking away.” Your 120 is essentially all of FBS. That’s what they have now. You don’t break away to duplicate exactly the same thing you already have.
The big leagues have no desire to create a cocoon in non-revenue sports, from which the non-power leagues would be excluded. Outside of football, the power schools are a completely different bunch. In hockey, for instance, Minnesota–Duluth and Union are major programs. They’re not going to get left out, since there aren’t enough hockey schools to go around. The same is true in other sports (Hopkins, Loyola, Hofstra, and the Ivies in lacrosse).
If it happens (not that I believe it will), the breakaway would probably be only in football, where the greatest disparities exist.
LikeLike
I don’t think its clear what “breaking away” will entail. Basketball is where the power schools biggest gripes are. Football is where its easiest to partly break away, but its also where they have already achieved their financial goals of getting the lion’s share of the $.
LikeLike
Yeah, the top schools are forced to share far more of their BB revenue than their FB revenue.
The NCAA takes a massive cut of the MBB tournie (it accounts for 90% of the organizations budget). Meanwhile the only money the NCAA makes from FB is the relative pittance it gets from selling bowl licenses.
LikeLike
Problem is, a big reason for the popularity of the NCAA tournament is Cinderella. If the top schools break away, most of the potential Cinderellas are gone too. And if you require all broken-away schools to play football, you’re excluding Gonzaga and the A-10 and Big East, meaning you don’t even have a true national championship anymore.
LikeLike
Problem is, a big reason for the popularity of the NCAA tournament is Cinderella.
The Cinderellas would still be there…only they would hail from the Sun Belt, C-USA and MAC and be named Florida Atlantic, Old Dominion and Ball State instead of Florida Gulf Coast, George Mason and Butler.
LikeLike
Fun fact: The last time a Big East Catholic or other non-football school won the national title was Villanova 1985.
LikeLike
My question is, how would the power conference schools be guaranteed seven home games a season if they broke off.
Depends what kind of a breakaway you are talking about. If they completely left the NCAA then they couldn’t play any NCAA schools for anti-trust reasons. If it was just another division split then they might have options.
I’m sure other conference schools would demand home and home series., meaning that the best a school could hope for would be six home games a year.
I don’t know, Colorado and Wazzoo are selling home games so they could continue to do so in the future.
The only way that it could feasibly be done is to allow each school to play at least two of the non-power conference schools a year,
Depends how much the power schools would be willing to pay WF, Duke and ISU to agree to guarantee games.
and who knows how willing they would be to continue playing the power conference schools if they broke away
If the money is right they will play games. FCS schools still play FBS schools.
On a basic level, trying to exclude Army, Navy, and Air Force would be political suicide for the power 5 schools
Ehh. I doubt it would be a huge issue. I mean exactly are they going to be missing out on? A chance to compete for a playoff spot they know they know they will never qualify for anyways? A chance to play 2 games against a Big Boy school (which they might still be allowed to do)?
Plus there is no guarantee they would even want to come along. Army bailed on CUSA after they realized the competition would be too tough and a division composed entirely of power schools and the other service academies would be much worse by several orders of magnitude.
Remember, after the ’78 division split the Ivies (who are probably even better connected than the service academies) got a waiver to stay at the top level temporarily and tried to force an amendment through that would have permanently let them stay at the 1A level even though they no longer met the qualifications, only to drop down voluntarily after a couple years because they realized they simply couldn’t handle the increased competition.
Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate.
A bunch of schools got left behind after the ’78 split…
LikeLike
Also, it is possible that schools would stop requiring 7 home games if they broke away. Without body bag games TV networks would pay a higher rate and the big schools would no longer have to share any revenue with the smaller conferences (or give up valuable bids to the postseason system).
LikeLike
If they completely left the NCAA then they couldn’t play any NCAA schools for anti-trust reasons.
Complete nonsense. There’s no anti-trust rule that says teams from two different voluntary sports associations cannot play each other. For instance,NCAA Division III schools compete against NAIA schools with some frequency, and there are various other exceptions.
LikeLike
Yeah, I should rephrase.
If the schools broke away and reorganized their AD’s as for profit entities (which I suspect they would have to do if they completely left, especially on less than favorable terms) then they would risk anti-trust violations by competing against NCAA schools.
LikeLike
Which I guess brings up another point no one has mentioned; the possibility that schools could completely leave the NCAA and reorganize their athletic departments as profit entities. While it would require them to pay taxes, it would free them of Title IX obligations and give them political freedom to run themselves however they want.
Personally I doubt they would do this (not only would they have to start paying taxes they probably have to make players employees which would mean unionization and a bunch of other stuff) but I wouldn’t completely rule it out as a possibility some time in the next 2 decades.
LikeLike
The major school presidents don’t want their athletic departments to be (legally) for-profit entities, a shift that would invite a host of problems without commensurate benefits. What they want is to be able to rewrite the participation rules, without being outvoted by the smaller schools, e.g., to be able to offer full cost-of-attendance scholarships.
LikeLike
Frankly, if schools turn completely into “pro” profit making organizations I’d say screw them. If i want to follow professionals I’ll follow the actual top pros (NFL, NBA, etc). Colleges currently provide the pool of future pros, but they aren’t fundamentally a minor league system. I spent a couple years at a small NAIA school. They would find an increase in support from me and others who value college athletics for the sport, not the money that can be squeezed from it. I’d also say all the presidents and chancellors will have failed/betrayed their educational mission.
LikeLike
“Unless I’m doing the math wrong, there are at least 10 senators who represent states with exclusively non-power conference schools, (2 each from Connecticut, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Hawaii) which is 1/5 of the senate. ”
There’s 100 senators, so that’s only 10% of the Senate. Of the rest, 18 (ND, SD, MT, AK, NH, VT, ME, RI, DE) represent states with no FBS schools, so they presumably would not care either way. 72 senators come from states with power conference schools. The percentages in Congress are much worse. 407 of 435 (~94%) of Congressmen come from states with a major conference school. 12 more come from the neutral states, leaving just 16 (<4%) from those 5 states.
Obviously some of these legislators might not vote along these lines, but that's an extremely uphill fight.
LikeLike
Many of those Senators might not come from power conference schools. It doesn’t take a lot to cause problems. Tulane and the MWC have successfully changed things in the past (not getting everything they want, but getting some of it). BYU is not someone you would want to leave out. Politically, stopping with 65 would be difficult.
LikeLike
The state of Utah politicians on their own were starting to be a real problem for the NCAA. P12 adding Utah helped.
LikeLike
Larry Scott says: “You’re welcome.”
LikeLike
The direct path to 7 home games is to have 12 regular season games, preceded by a week in which one “regular FBS” season opening game is played at the Super FBS home.
LikeLike
Go Huskers!
LikeLike
Personally, I think the easiest thing to do would be to let boosters pay athletes. It would probably be the easiest way (relatively speaking) to get around Title IX since the university wouldn’t actually be providing the benefits.
On the other hand, it would absolutely destroy what little competitive balance college FB and BB have, so it might not be worth it.
LikeLike
I also don’t understand why an actual split would be the best course for the power schools. An actual split would result in 6 home/6 road games. The schools likely want a de jure split where they have a huge monetary advantage over the bottom 6, but still have the ability to play the lessor teams in order to fill out their schedules and have 7 home games. The bottom 6 would still want to receive the relative windfall that they receive from playing money games at the power 5.
Staying within the same division but having a huge monetary advantage also provides political cover. All of this would happen if endorsements were allowed.
LikeLike
@greg: “An actual split would result in 6 home/6 road games.”
This is really the only positive in a split I could endorse. I will continue to rail against unbalanced scheduling. It’s absurd to claim that ‘my school needs more home games for the money’ and ‘we have to pay our little brothers so they can survive’. It’s a pure competitive issue. Until there is a level playing field college sports will continue to be a traveshamockery.
LikeLike
Until there is a level playing field college sports will continue to be a traveshamockery.
You really think that requiring everyone to play the same number home games is going to make a level playing field? I mean if you want to argue that it is philosophically wrong to allow some teams to play more home games that is one thing, but to suggest that altering that will have any discernible effect on competitive balance is either naive or disingenuous. The fact is parity in college sports is virtually non-existent and mandating equal numbers of home and away games isn’t going to do anything to change that. It will just mean that everyone makes less money.
LikeLike
A separate federation could set up its own rules…so how about a 13-game football schedule? The top five leagues could thus be guaranteed seven home games, while those in the five lower conferences would settle for six.
LikeLike
A separate federation could set up its own rules…so how about a 13-game football schedule?
They could play 13 games without leaving the NCAA. The number of games has been increased over and over again. That’s not a difficult thing to achieve within the current construct, assuming they want that—which they don’t.
LikeLike
I would think a 6/6 requirement would be terrible. College football benefits greatly from the imbalance. It displaces games from schools with 15k seat stadiums that are half full at $15 a ticket to the largest stadiums that are (nearly) full for $60 a seat. More people are able to attend games at the stadiums people want to visit. More money flows into college football, including more money to the teams at the bottom who are losing the home games. More players get to play in the better venues, a real highlight for the players on the smaller teams. More games are televised, since the flow of games goes from bottom end schools that are not always televised to the power schools that have virtually every game on TV.
The downside? Some percentage of the games are not competitive. Not a huge increase, but its there. I’ll take that tradeoff.
LikeLike
A 6/6 split isn’t inevitable. The new upper division or new organization could still play their 2 annual paycheck games against the old. Those games would continue because both sides need them. The upper-division teams need the near-automatic wins and the home games. The lower-division teams need the paycheck.
LikeLike
Depends on what the priority is. If the priority is parity, then a 6/6 schedule is actually a VERY good thing. A home-tilted schedule is a tremendous advantage from a competitive standpoint.
However, if the priority is something else, like creating more fan interest or generating more revenue, then a 6/6 schedule is a disaster. The power schools have way more fans, interest, and value than the non-power schools. As has been mentioned, forcing a power team to play on the road 6 times reduces gate revenue and disturbs the power team’s fan base – which may be 10 times larger than the team hosting the 6th road game on the schedule.
I would love to see more balanced schedules in major college football. I would also love to see fewer SEC v. FCS and Big ten v. MAC games and more Big Ten v. SEC or ACC and Big 12 v. PAC 12 type games. But I fully understand that those in control of college football don’t view balanced schedules and parity as important as other priorities.
LikeLike
Embracing the Olympic model is the best option. I remember when Olympic participants were nominally amateurs, and some leaders in the Olympic movement thought it would ruin the games if the athletes were allowed to be paid. Well, that was decades ago, and it doesn’t seem to have ruined the Games. Of course, Olympic amateurism was a sham anyway, which was one of the reasons why they abolished it.
A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.
This, I don’t believe. It’s human nature that, for most people, no amount of money is too much. If the “system” pays them $3,000, and a booster offers them $10,000 more under the table, they’re probably going to take it.
LikeLike
I agree that the Olympic model seems like the best option. It bypasses a multitude of issues, including Title IX and non-revenue generating men’s sports. If you’re not generating revenue, sorry, but you’re getting an incredible deal already through athletic scholarship alone.
If McDonald’s wants to sign Braxton Miller to an endorsement deal, I think they should be able to.
However, it doesn’t really solve the booster problem. You’re just bringing them out of the shadows and legalizing it. Let’s give an example of Bob. Bob is a booster. Bob owns a local landscaping company. He wants to have Braxton Miller endorse his landscaping company. He doesn’t care if it generates him a dime of profits. He’s just supporting the school.
How small of a company can you get? Can Little Johnny’s Lemonade Stands sponsor Braxton Miller (funded by Johnny’s booster dad)?
Should you limit endorsements to publicly traded companies? I don’t know. At least they have shareholders to answer to.
LikeLike
Should you limit endorsements to publicly traded companies? I don’t know. At least they have shareholders to answer to.
As we’ve seen with Nike and Oregon, a publicly traded company can funnel an awful lot of money into one program, if the CEO is sufficiently motivated to do so.
LikeLike
General observation: there is at least one billionaire hanging around every top 40-ish program.
LikeLike
Having played college football on a scholarship, I firmly believe that some type of stipend is both necessary and important. Playing football at the college level is literally a full-time job. The demands aren’t just physical, mental and emotional–football alone eats clock hours like crazy. Practice, s&c, team meetings, film meetings, group meetings, game planning, memorizing and studying playbooks, travel AND somehow you’re supposed to go to class and do schoolwork. Football took all my time.
(BTW, when people getting snarky about how stupid some conference’s–okay, SEC’s–players are, I just shake my head. Realistically, they have to be pretty damn smart just to stay in the program and perform correctly.)
Ultimately, it’s virtually impossible to pursue certain majors that are time-intensive and you simply can’t get a job like other students.
FWIW, I left football because it was simply incompatible with the demands of a theater major.
One other thing that bothers me–I think athletes should get a travel stipend based on the distance between their home and school. The Midwest/west school I attended recruited heavily in the south and many athletes were stuck on campus over breaks because they (or their family) did not have the money to get back-and-forth.
It’s absolutely insane to have a program pulling in tens of millions on the backs of some athletes that can’t get back-and-forth for major breaks and holidays, and don’t have the pocket money to buy food on the weekends. Reminds me of something Jaime Dimon would think up.
Don’t get me wrong–it’s great to get a full scholarship, but anyone that refers to it as a “free ride” has no idea what they’re talking about.
LikeLike
keith,
“Having played college football on a scholarship, I firmly believe that some type of stipend is both necessary and important.”
It literally can’t be necessary since players have done without it for years. I also question it’s importance. Athletes are eligible for Pell grants up to $5000/year plus they get tons of free stuff nobody else gets (tutoring, food, etc). It’s a contract they enter willingly. Nobody forces them to do it.
“Playing football at the college level is literally a full-time job. The demands aren’t just physical, mental and emotional–football alone eats clock hours like crazy. Practice, s&c, team meetings, film meetings, group meetings, game planning, memorizing and studying playbooks, travel AND somehow you’re supposed to go to class and do schoolwork. Football took all my time.”
And that’s why they get a full scholarship, room and board, free tutoring, free books, etc. That adds up to tens of thousands of dollars per year (obviously varies wildly from school to school) which is a pretty good salary for someone without a college degree or much work experience. On top of that, they are getting elite coaching (worth thousands of dollars for all the hours they get) in what could be their chosen profession.
“(BTW, when people getting snarky about how stupid some conference’s–okay, SEC’s–players are, I just shake my head. Realistically, they have to be pretty damn smart just to stay in the program and perform correctly.)”
Umm, no. Some elite athletes have graduated from certain schools and still been illiterate because tutors do so much of the work for them. You don’t have to be smart if the system takes care of your grades.
“Ultimately, it’s virtually impossible to pursue certain majors that are time-intensive and you simply can’t get a job like other students.
FWIW, I left football because it was simply incompatible with the demands of a theater major.”
Which exactly what the choice should be. Every student has to choose between their major, extracurriculars and jobs in terms of time demands. if you don’t like the balance, then drop something.
“One other thing that bothers me–I think athletes should get a travel stipend based on the distance between their home and school. The Midwest/west school I attended recruited heavily in the south and many athletes were stuck on campus over breaks because they (or their family) did not have the money to get back-and-forth.”
Lots of students can’t afford to go home. Boo hoo. If going home is so important, go to school near home. How do you think international students feel? Many out of state students have to stay in town, too.
“It’s absolutely insane to have a program pulling in tens of millions on the backs of some athletes that can’t get back-and-forth for major breaks and holidays, and don’t have the pocket money to buy food on the weekends. Reminds me of something Jaime Dimon would think up.”
If it’s an emergency, the NCAA has a fund to cover travel. If it isn’t, schools provide free internet so you can always call home for free. Besides, bus tickets or even discount airlines don’t cost that much.
“Don’t get me wrong–it’s great to get a full scholarship, but anyone that refers to it as a “free ride” has no idea what they’re talking about.”
Save the complaining for the people working their way through school, having to earn their tuition while also taking a full course load. They don’t get all the free tutors or first access to scheduling to make things convenient. They also don’t get free food or potential job training worth tens of thousands.
LikeLike
“…like campaign finance regulations in Washington – everyone publicly votes for them on one day and then privately tries to find loopholes around them the next day.”
No…they don’t vote for it until they get the loopholes inserted in the legislation.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
I can see a whole bunch of trouble coming. Lets take Illinois for example: Since Illinois is a strong Union State, why can’t Illini football and basketball players petition to become Unionized State Employees? Then watch all the “Student Athletes” including “Woman’s Olympic Sports” that few care about, demand the right to get paid and get represented by Unions? In fact, even non-right to work States, athletes can start to petition the National Labor Relations Board and the Courts to become Unionized Workers. While the large Universities can afford this, if I am a smaller School like a Rice, maybe I shut down my entire sports program (even Baseball)? Speaking of baseball, if I am a B10 School (say Penn State), maybe I get rid of that program instead of offering everyone full rides and paying them as well? Something to think about?
LikeLike
Players can’t unionize; they aren’t employees.
LikeLike
If youre demanding and receiving increased compensation for services, what are you?
LikeLike
Student athlete?
Anyways, I don’t think that players are actually “demanding” anything.
LikeLike
If they aren’t asking, and they are the supposed benificaries, who is driving the movement? Are agents and comercial interest so entrenched already we cave to their demands “in the interest” of their future potential associates?
I have no problem with adjusting the amount scholarships are worth in any number of ways. I do have a huge problem with creating a professional class of athletes at an academic institution. A soccer player, a golfer, LAX, etc. should be treated the same as a FB QB (and the reverse), and be governed by the same rules.
LikeLike
If they aren’t asking, and they are the supposed benificaries, who is driving the movement?
Current players are seldom the dirvers of reform, because their tenure is too short for their views to make a difference, bearing in mind that most changes take years. Playing a Division I sport is basically a near-full-time job. By the time players know enough to realize what they’d like to change, their time is up.
Now, the merits of the idea are worthy of debate; I am not wholly decided. But it would certainly be wrong to suggest that because the current players aren’t agitating for it, therefore they don’t need it.
LikeLike
Couldn’t that argument be made upon birth? There has to be a starting point.
If the time demands are getting too great (although 50-80% or more manage school, social life, and athletics, and graduate) then simply reduce the allowed amount of time the sport is allowed.
Lets make sure monetary changes address legitimate concerns regarding true needs and aren’t simply a recruiting tool, a bribe above board, or a new profit stream for external entities.
LikeLike
Couldn’t that argument be made upon birth? There has to be a starting point.
Children are minors. College athletes are adults.
LikeLike
Can’t buy booze. Some states won’t grant a full drivers license until 21 if violations occur during the 16-18 year old period. They are kids or adults only because we choose to label them such. But they are (or should be) students. That is the definition and the governing structure.
If the schools are not providing what some may think is the optimum opportunity they are free to search for a better structure. It isn’t the schools responsibility to provide what they don’t think appropriate, but others may. Appearently the current structure provides what most deem most desirable as very few who qualify choose not to avail themselves of it.
LikeLike
You seem to be fond of these circular arguments. The rules have changed thousands of times. They’ll change again.
The claim that “the current structure provides what most deem most desirable” could have been trotted out every time a change was proposed. All you can really say, is that at some point in the past, a majority believed the rules they’d agreed to were the best ones. Maybe they still are; maybe they’re not. Majorities aren’t permanent. Otherwise, nothing would ever change.
LikeLike
I think we completely agree. I’m just suggesting that a lot (not all) of the arguments for professionalizing D1 FB are not comming from the only group that should have a say in any change, the schools and their administrators. I’m sure they will examine even those ideas they strongly dislike while doing due diligence. That’s not necessarily support.
It isn’t a circular argument because, as you said, change does occur. Then we get to critique it’s wisdom. 😉 It isn’t changing the current structure I’m most concerned with. It’s the potential abandonment of it in a couple currently popular sports, in favor of a different and professional model.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
The quickest fix to the ethical problems of not paying college athletes would be for the NFL and NBA to end their age-limit embargo. No adult should be forced into college sports if they feel they are better off playing professionally, simply because the professional leagues like college as a de facto farm system. I think the “0 or 3” system from baseball should be adopted across the board.
That said, I strongly agree with the stipend, medical insurance, and education fund ideas proposed, as well as guaranteed 4 year scholarships mentioned in the article. I am a little mixed on the agent part, but schools should work harder to prepare athletes for the rest of their life, whether professional sports or otherwise.
The suggestion to allow endorsement deals would be no different from an open professional market. Boosters would quickly hire athletes to “endorse” their business for whatever amount they want.
LikeLike
The four year guarantee would have to go if you are going to allow dramatically increased compensation. We already have U Oregon pushing the limits of corporate ownership. You really think having businesses wanting to leverage their choice of marketing agents making coaching and athletic department decisions through subtle or overt coercion? Coaches would become as impotent as NBA coaches in the face of corporate backed players.
LikeLike
I like the notion of Olympic-style allowing of endorsements; if its good enough for the Olympics, any problems that would crop up in college are symptoms of other problems. I also agree that, if we really want to salvage some semblance of the original ideals of college sports, we need to get the “de facto NFL and NBA farm system” elements to stop contaminating it; that means baseball-style farm systems for both leagues. I have more thoughts on this here: http://sports.morganwick.com/2011/09/college-footballs-moment-of-truth/
LikeLike
I would really hope that the Olympic option is never adopted since it will allow universities (and often states) to increase their hypocrisy. We don’t need more hypocrisy in college athletics. The Cost of Attendance model simply attempts to re-distribute a small slice of revenue to players — it does not affect any ills in college sports and slightly reduces (e.g., by $3000 per player) the hypocrisy.
As has already been mentioned by others, the “Olympic” option does not address any ills in college football—- it simply encourages the formation of a legal “athletic-corporate-government” complex that would soon remind us of the “military – industrial ” complex. Cost of attendance payments do increase “revenue-sharing” for players in sports that do not typically generate illegal payments for athletes or for players in revenue-generating sports at universities that attempt to tamp down illegal payments. Cost of attendance partially addresses an issue while the Olympic option does not address any problem — it just shifts the funding mechanism and changes who pays athletes. Neither proposal “evens the playing field.”
For example would 501c3 Foundations be allowed to pay players to represent the social justice and education mission of the Foundation? If a state makes its highest priority fielding a top-notch football team, then the Olympic option provides an excellent conduit. Nice commercials of Billy and Sue playing with “the Children” and pocketing another $25,000 of taxpayers’ money from the Save the Children Foundation. Miraculously, the more a foundation pays football players and the more players who are paid to represent it, the greater will be the grants they receive from the state and corporations — without one word being spoken – just a wink and nod. Praise the Lord. Political gridlock? Impossible to pass legislation — see what happens when a state needs to tidy up some laws that stand in its way to provide a conduit for funds to organizations that indirectly support football players at state U. You will have whiplash watching legislation fly by — and of course, not every state legislature will play — only where there is a consensus that football performance at state U. is really, really important and the voters will reward you if you help football.
This is just one of thousands of games that will be played — limited only by the creativity of people who want to use the tax code to get what they want — and that scenario generates a tremendous amount of creativity.
Cost of attendance payments represents a bonus for players at programs where cheating already occurs and a pay increase for players at programs that don’t condone extra-legal payments, but paying schemes do not alter any practice or shift any field.
Ultimately, you either increase regulation, monitoring and auditing of players and schools — and to achieve this you would need the NSA, not the NCAA to assume responsibility for compliance, you could have a negotiated outcome — a labor contract between a players’ union and a Power 5 association (good luck) or simply let the market decide how much a school is willing to pay for a player — and schools (and states) will never want to publicly admit how much they would be willing to pay for a d-line recruit vs a National Merit finalist — bad PR (maybe).
LikeLike
all excellent issues. i had not considered the not-for-profit angle.
add this question: what about athletes receiving controversial endorsement deals? Some athlete has strong views on abortion and gets a non-profit endorsement (either pro or con). Now the school and team are dealing with the PR consequences.
So, now we need rules to limit the type of endorsement deals. No religion, no politics.
What about “free” endorsements? Some player loves dogs and agrees to endorse the local humane society for free or some nominal $10 payment. Seems okay, but kinda defeats the purpose of allowing endorsements.
The NCAA will need another telephone book of rules for the endorsement deals.
Btw, I am not necessarily against the idea of endorsements. Just pointing out the massively long list of possible unanticipated consequences.
LikeLike
I can envision endorsements localized and tailored to specific colleges, states and regions. For example, a hosiery manufacturer might sign one leggy, photogenic basketball or volleyball player each from a conference to endorse pantyhose.
LikeLike
I wonder if the power conferences could end up getting the same result as a full-fledged split just by adding cost-of-attendance and other reforms to the existing FBS. That way, schools that couldn’t afford the increased financial commitment would, ideally, drop down. There would be more “interlopers”, but really, it’s only because of the power conferences that we have bowls; the non-power conferences are in FBS for the money, not the bowls, and there’s no reason to have two lower-tier football subdivisions of Division I.
LikeLike
I wonder if the power conferences could end up getting the same result as a full-fledged split just by adding cost-of-attendance and other reforms to the existing FBS.
For Title IX reasons, they can’t do it only for football. They’d need to do it in all sports, which means the legislation would need to pass for all of Division I, not just FBS.
In any event, the bigger schools would surely want to do it for basketball too, which means all of Division I has to agree.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the exception for T9 people seem to think exists. As long as any program or programs are a beneficiary of support of the school (facilities, staff, scholarships, bond offerings, media negotiations, etc. are all school controlled program support), and the school receives any public money, there is no escape from T9 requirements. If there were one it would have been exploited long ago.
LikeLike
So basically, this would be bumping Division II down to Division III and DIII down to DIV?
LikeLike
They can either bump everything else down, or merge mini-FBS with FCS.
LikeLike
Except that was the point I was trying to make. If you’re making a full split, your merged low-FBS/FCS is effectively the new Division II.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Its an interesting question of where they draw the line. In 1984 when CFA was formed, 64 schools were included while the Big 10/Pac 10 did a separate deal. That’s 84 of 105 or 106 schools. The 10 MAC schools and 8 Big West schools (Fresno, UNLV, Utah St., San Jose St. now in WAC, New Mexico St. and 3 schools that have dropped football-Long Beach, Pacific, Fullerton St.) were excluded as were 3 or 4 of the 23 independents.
Included were SWC-9, SEC-10, Big 8-8, WAC-10, ACC-8, Independents 19. Independents included ACC schools-Miami, FSU, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville; Big 10 schools Penn St., Rutgers; AAC schools Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy, ECU; CUSA S. Mississippi; Sun Belt-Louisiana-Lafayette; Big 12 WV; SEC-S. Carolina; Independents Army, Notre Dame. Wichita St. may have also been still a major at that time (dropped fb in 1986). Not sure which were the indies left out, but it would have been out of the group including Rutgers, Temple, Tulsa, S. Miss, ECU, ULL and Wichita St.
LikeLike
Now the Big 10/Pac 12/Big 12/SEC/ACC get in. I think the MWC and AAC get in as well but there’s a lot bigger financial line between the Big 5 and MWC/AAC than from the MWC/AAC to the rest. MAC and the BW replacement-Sun Belt likely get left out again. CUSA is on the bubble, but as it is mostly schools moving up it probably gets left out.
LikeLike
Schools moving up since 1984:
Akron 1987
La Tech 1989
Arkansas St. 1992
Nevada 1992
La Monroe 1994
North Texas 1995
UAB 1996
Boise 1996
UCF 1996
Idaho 1997
Marshall 1998
Buffalo 1999
Mid. TN 1999
USF 2001
UConn 2002
Troy 2002
FIU 2006
FAU 2006
WKU 2009
UMass 2012
UTSA 2012
TX St. 2012
S. Alabama 2012
Georgia St. 2013
Old Dominion, UNCC, Georgia Southern and Appalachian St. are scheduled to move up in the next couple of years.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s 28 schools. Not coincidentally, all but three of the 2014 C-USA is on the list (excluding Southern Miss, Rice, and UTEP) and only one of the 2014 Sun Belt is not on the list (Louisiana-Lafayette).
Most of the MWC and AAC are NOT on the list (only Boise and Nevada in the MWC and UCF, USF, and UConn in the American).
Surprisingly, most of the future MAC is NOT on the list (only Buffalo, Akron, and UMass).
LikeLike
Why is it surprising that most of the “future” (and current) MAC, the most stable of the Go5 conferences, is not on the list? After all, Tressel, Ara Parseghian, Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler all coached in the MAC, and that was just the one school.
LikeLike
Agreed. The Michigan “directionals,” Bowling Green, Toledo, Miami U., and Ohio U. are as much “core” schools to the MAC as the Research Triangle schools and Wake Forest are to the ACC.
LikeLike
Most MAC schools get fewer than 15,000 fans in home attendance. The national perception is that the MAC is on par with the Sun Belt. Most of the Sun Belt is on the list.
LikeLike
On another board, someone researched the Carnegie classification and USNWR ranking for all the FBS schools. 80% of the 65 power schools were Very High Research and all but TCU were High or Very High Research (they were classified as “Doctoral Research University”). And all were considered “national” universities by USNWR and included in their top 200 rankings.
The MAC was one the closest of the G5 to match that profile with 11 of 13 Very High or High (2 VH, 9 H) and 1 “Doctoral Research University” and 12 of 13 “National” (all but EMU) with 8 of those 12 ranked in the top 200.
AAC had 9/12 VH or H (6VH, 3 H), 2 “DRU” and 1 other (Navy). 11/12 were “national” (Navy was liberal arts category) and all but Memphis were ranked of the “national” group.
The MWC, CUSA and SB had more that didn’t fit the national research university profile and many of those are more recent move-ups. So the fact that many don’t fit the “club” could increase the desire for the P5 to split.
MWC 3 VH, 5 H, 4 other. 8 national (7 ranked-UNLV not ranked), 4 other (San Jose, Fresno, Boise-regional-Air Force liberal arts).
CUSA 2 VH, 8 H, 2 DRU, 2 other. 12 national (4 ranked), 2 other (WKU, Marshall-regional).
SB 1 VH, 4 H, 1 DRU, 5 other. 6 national (2 ranked), 5 other (Troy, Texas St., UL-Monroe, Appalachian St., Arkansas St. regional).
LikeLike
Its an interesting question of where they draw the line. In 1984 when CFA was formed, 64 schools were included while the Big 10/Pac 10 did a separate deal. . . . Included were SWC-9, SEC-10, Big 8-8, WAC-10, ACC-8, Independents 19.
This was apparently not a “power school vs. mid-major” type of split, since the WAC was in, but the Big Ten and Pac-10 were out.
LikeLike
Yes it was. The Big 10 and Pac 10 opted to do their own deal although the CFA wanted them. It was simply 2 “power” groups-the Big 10/Pac 10 and CFA.
LikeLike
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/19/big-10-provosts-question-partnerships-ed-tech-companies
MOOC-Skeptical Provosts
June 19, 2013
The provosts of Big 10 universities and the University of Chicago are in high-level talks to create an online education network across their campuses, which collectively enroll more than 500,000 students a year.
And these provosts from some of America’s top research universities have concluded that they – not corporate entrepreneurs and investors — must drive online education efforts.
LikeLike
This could be really cool. Imagine being able to take a course at Rutgers and apply it immediately and seamlessly to your Nebraska degree program. Imagine the niche courses that could emerge with that critical mass of students.
I love the vision they’re setting out.
LikeLike
The stipend is a no-brainer.
But, it shouldn’t be pushed through because it will deter black market booster transactions or because it will allow the power schools to separate themselves.
It should be approved because the current scholarship benefits don’t cover the full costs of attendance for most institutions – and student-athletes do not have room in their schedules to be gainfully employed elsewhere. If the schools can afford it, then they should do it. That is the winning argument for stipends.
The idea to allow athletes to have agent representation and to have commercial/sponsorship opportunities is an interesting discussion. On one hand, the power schools would seemingly have a huge advantage, because they likely have the largest and wealthiest booster networks that can help provide commercial and sponsorship opportunities. However, what if a smaller, weaker school happens to be in a large media market that is full of businesses that could provide ample commercial and sponsorship opportunities? This could be a HUGE competitive advantage for some of the non-power programs. For instance, I could see some companies in Philadelphia stepping it up and providing huge opportunities for Temple players, simply because they are local. Boom! Temple starts to attract top recruits because of the commercial opportunities.
Is that good or bad? Over a few years, Temple could become a dominant team that actually has an easy path to the playoff with a weak American Conference schedule. That becomes very complicated and cut-throat competitive very quickly.
UNLV and San Diego State (the only decent markets in the MWC) could end up dominating the MWC. Is that fair? Desirable?
LikeLike
The idea to allow athletes to have agent representation . . . is an interesting discussion. On one hand, the power schools would seemingly have a huge advantage
Actually, the schools lose a lot if the athletes have representation. Right now, the schools have the advantage because they’re in control. One of their biggest fears is that professional agents would tilt more of the balance of power toward the athlete.
LikeLike
Interesting perspective from 1981 when I-A was at 137 members and there was pressure to reorganize the NCAA.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124798/1/index.htm
LikeLike
I actually reread that article when I was looking up the timing of the “Ivy Amendment” yesterday. Really interesting stuff.
LikeLike
I think may favorite part is that in 1981 Penn St.’s AD had a budget of $9 million, or a little more over $23 million in today’s dollars meaning that over the past 32 years PSU’s athletic budget has grown at 469% the rate of inflation.
LikeLike
And Chuck Neinas was heavily involved, although almost all the other players have changed.
LikeLike
“…has grown at 469% the rate of inflation.”
I’m sure something similar has happened at most D1 schools.
All that new money, and yet few schools have increased the number of athletic offerings since that time. Many have actually contracted. What exactly has all the new money gotten us except more expensive versions of what we already had?
LikeLike
What would you have them do? After all, the cost of tuition (and therefore scholarships) has probably increased at a similar rate (a result of plunging state support as a % of operating revenue and higher demand for college educations) and in 1981 Title IX was still in the early stages of full implementation meaning those costs had yet to be fully realized.
The simple fact is it is just more expensive to run an athletic department now.
LikeLike
Just checked and tuition + fees at PSU for an in state student in 1981 was roughly $1900 or about $4869 in today’s dollars. For comparison, in state tuition + fess at PSU last year was $15,124 or an inflation adjusted increase of 311%. Combine that with full Title IX implementation and you probably eat up pretty much all the increased revenue.
LikeLike
I understand, but has it been 450%+ the inflation rate? Perhaps 15-20M coaches contracts, not to mention those being bought out? Coordinators pushing past 1M/yr at some schools. When there is more money available schools have been making the assumption that more of it will make current programs better.
Just an observation: Some schools are very successful in a larger number of sports, while others seem to be in the same relative place as 35 years ago in spite of concentrating the money in fewer offerings. Doesn’t seem like there is as direct a correlation between money and winning as people would like to believe.
LikeLike
In 1981 Texas in-state tuition and fees were $400. Now they are $10,000.
LikeLike
Women’s sports scholarships have dramatically increased. In 1981 Texas, for example, didn’t have women’s rowing, soccer or softball.
LikeLike
So the cost of T9 is implementation (there are no new w basket ball teams in D1 that weren’t there pre T9) a third of the budget above inflation… 150% of the AD budget increases, above inflation? I don’t buy it. There were decent, if not yet fully equal women’s athletics at that time. They existed within that 9M budget. Women’s athletics weren’t being created out of whole cloth. They didn’t magically appear when the NCAA decided to sanction championships at various times in different sports.
LikeLike
Wilber’s comment sums up my feelings:
“My, my, my. All that money.
And just think, the vast majority will have already been spent.”
LikeLike
Nothing against rowing, but is there a huge number of Texas HS girls rowing teams? Are they offering opportunities for girls competing in the state?
LikeLike
@ccrider
Just because women’s teams existed pre-Title IX doesn’t mean Title IX didn’t increase the cost to run it. Schools had invest more in the facilities and coaching staffs for its women’s sports teams as well as granting more scholarships (remember just because a school had a team pre-Title IX doesn’t mean they were granting it equivalent scholarships.
Did full Title IX implementation raise costs a full 150%? Probably not, but honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if it came close to doubling them at many schools.
LikeLike
@cc
No, there aren’t. Rowing is popular because you can offer a lot of scholarships (I believe it is 20) and there are a lot of participants, thereby helping on Title IX compliance. I remember a WSJ article a few years back about it. There was a California HS student who was about 6 ft. tall and an athlete is some other sport (soccer/swimming?) and had never rowed. She was heavily pursued by Division I rowing programs. Its pretty ridiculous.
LikeLike
Other schools do Equestrian for the same reason.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Thanks. Seems an odd choice with the cost of equipment required.
Frug:
I’m sure you are mostly right. Please forgive my cynicism. I’ve been involved trying to prevent the cutting of a few teams over several decades. T9 has often been trotted out as a justification. Occasionally true at small schools. Cost cutting cited even in cases where the sport had been existing for a number of years solely on self raised funds. On the occasion we got admins into court they admitted that neither T9 or tight money required the move. They did it because they wanted to. If we’d gotten to court a bit sooner the judge would have stopped the cut, but he said it was moot as the program had already ceased to exist, there was no action he could stop to save what was already gone. Even though the process the U required was not followed.
Sorry, ending bitter rant. But you get the idea. Big sports needed coaches a jacuzzi, massage, and bar facility with gold and diamond encrusted sinks an toilets…
LikeLike
Thanks for posting that. Coincidentally, I was looking the other day for a good explanation of why the Ivys dropped out of I-A, and that explained it.
For those who are doubtful, the article shows a pretty good template for how the major schools can strongarm the NCAA. The Association needs the big schools. If they act in unity or near-unity, they can pretty much do whatever they please.
LikeLike
The most under appreciated advantage that the Big Boys have had over the past 40 years in FB is that they have simply been the numerical majority, and it is one of the reasons why the power conferences were so keen on making the post season contracts so much longer this time around; within the next five years the have nots will out number the haves without further expansion. (That’s also the same reason that the B1G, PAC, SEC and XII kept talking about how they would work with the ACC to ensure that its champ got a decent bowl tie in since without the power conferences would have been the minority)
LikeLike
I don’t really see them all that worried about having a majority. It’s not like there are really a lot of straight I-A votes with winner take all. There are some major issues with the NCAA, but that’s often a whole division 1 issue (I believe the stipends are for instance) where they have been vastly outnumbered for a long time.
Most things directly with how football is run (the bowls, the TV contracts, etc) are outside of the NCAA’s control. While the Group of 5 might be part of the system there, there is nothing that required the power 5 to put them there. If the Power 5 could have created their own CFP working with the bowls and left out the Group of 5 entirely (just as the Group of 5 could have done as well for that matter). Politically/PR speaking that would have been difficult so the Group of 5 did have some power there, but it wasn’t oversized much beyond their natural power and they essentially used to it to stay part of the system and get one CFP bowl each year guaranteed. The non-CFP bowls were much simpler. The bowls are under no obligation to sign with anyone they don’t want. It doesn’t matter if the Group of 5 grows to the Group of 20; most bowls would still sign with two power conferences if given the chance.
LikeLike
I think you have a point. It was pretty clear that the G6 (WAC was still a part) was irrelevant in the playoff discussion. Everything was decided by negotiations between the 5 major conference commissioners and ND’s AD.
LikeLike
It was pretty clear that the G6 (WAC was still a part) was irrelevant in the playoff discussion. Everything was decided by negotiations between the 5 major conference commissioners and ND’s AD.
That is in large part because the G5 had the voting majority.
LikeLike
That is in large part because the G5 had the voting majority.
That wasn’t why they were able to do what they did. It’s not as if they had a vote, and the mid-majors lost. The voting majority actually had nothing to do with it at all. Bear in mind, even the prior system (the BCS) didn’t treat everyone equally, and there wasn’t any vote then either.
What the Big Five (plus Notre Dame) cleverly did, when they designed the BCS, was to give the mid-majors more than they ever had before (an auto-bid, if they met certain criteria). In the pre-BCS world, where bowls just made offers to whomever they jolly well pleased, the mid-majors weren’t guaranteed anything, so this was a step up.
In the playoff, the Big Five have done it yet again, guaranteeing that the best mid-major will always have a bid. This is an improvement, because the BCS autobid criteria were stringent, and in some years no mid-major would qualify. Now, there will always be at least one mid-major who gets to have dinner at the adults’ table.
These are pragmatic deals for the Big Five to make, but it’s more for political reasons, not because they can outvote anybody.
LikeLike
Marc:
Nobody votes, or needs to when you can count noses ahead of time. The mid’s while unequally treated would have got zip if they didn’t have enough votes to gain what they got in leu of the powers actually leaving.
LikeLike
…enough votes to…
Votes here meaning support, potential votes, if a vote were taken.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: That’s an interesting fiction, but show me one authoritative source for it. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over which schools get to attend which bowls. Therefore, the idea that the mid-majors could alter the bowl lineup by voting (even if they had the numbers) cannot possibly be true.
LikeLike
The BCS set up and bowl access, and future possible playoff qualification?
Otherwise…the power conferences just granted BCS access and other concessions out of a feeling of good will? If leverage wasn’t involved, you tell me what was.
LikeLike
@Marc
The NCAA could end the entire bowl system if it wanted to.
If the have nots had a voting majority they could institute a FCS-type playoff and insist on equal revenue sharing.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/04/21/bcs-antitrust-suit/index.html
If you want a demonstration as what we are talking about Marc read this article which directly deals with what have happened if the ACC and Big East and been relegated before the 2011.
Essentially, that would add 20 schools to the have-nots list. The 2011 season will begin with 66 haves and 54 have-nots in the FBS. Under the system outlined above, have-nots would outnumber haves 74-46 and would win any vote that didn’t involve the top revenue-generating schools breaking free from the NCAA. (Which is its own solution, but that’s another argument for another day.) John Infante, the author of the excellent Bylaw Blog, explained to me on Twitter that even with the voting rules required to do something as complex as changing the FBS football postseason, the have-nots in this scenario would have the necessary votes to pass anything they wanted if they stood united.
John Infante then goes on to breakdown the voting procedure and shows as long as the have-nots stayed united they could have instituted whatever college football postseason they wanted.
LikeLike
The NCAA could end the entire bowl system if it wanted to.
The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization. It could end the bowls, only if the members affected continue to volunteer to participate on the new terms, which the leagues participating in the bowls clearly would not do. Can you find a source, showing that the NCAA or any significant cohort of its members ever threatened to do this?
If you want a demonstration as what we are talking about Marc read this article which directly deals with what have happened if the ACC and Big East and been relegated before the 2011.
The article you cited supports my point, rather than refuting it. It’s about anti-trust, which is exactly the reason — not vote-counting within the NCAA — why the power leagues continue to throw the mid-majors a lifeline.
LikeLike
Marc:
He was making a worst case example of what the NCAA could do, not what they have tried. The (veiled) threat of the power conferences leaving would not be being discussed here and elsewhere if their wasn’t concerns they felt the have-nots weren’t addressing, and their acquiescence was necessary within the current structure.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: The relevant examples are limited to the scope that the NCAA has historically regulated, like cost-of-attendance scholarships. No one in authority has ever suggested that the NCAA would ever try to blow up football in petulant retaliation for the power schools’ refusal to share more revenue.
LikeLike
Correct, but they are playing a game of chicken. The power conferences seem to be suggesting “change” will be necessary if their concerns aren’t addressed. It’s just a matter of assigning blame. One side says failure to address an issue(s) is causing the issue, and the other that creating the issue is.
LikeLike
I think what may happen is that the private universities will conclude that they’re better off getting out of the “football and basketball business” and simply go the D-III route. What I would like to see is a more realistic assessment about the role of college and universities in the development of athletes. The cost of attending universities is only going higher. Can the universities truly continue trying to hold up an ideal about student-athletes when the revenue sports continue to take so much time and resources from where it should go?
I know this is a radical statement, as it goes against the ideal of college athletics, but perhaps in the long run both schools and athletes benefit by the schools getting out of the revenue sports in general. The problem here is the professional leagues don’t want to spend $$$ on development. They love the current set-up where the development of young athletes is placed on education and various youth sports organizations. However, for example, Major League Soccer is slowly realizing that they would have to bear more of the cost of developing future players as colleges aren’t doing a good enough job of developing players needed to make that league more competitive. So the various teams are putting monies into academies that would allow young athletes to bypass college in order to develop their game faster. This has been already done in Europe for decades. I could see a future where the NBA and NFL would be forced to take on the burden of development by the schools getting out of major athletics in a big way. By then, we could see the beginning of a true pro/rel structure being in place, as private organizations fill in the void left by the schools.That is something that I would support.
LikeLike
I think what may happen is that the private universities will conclude that they’re better off getting out of the “football and basketball business” and simply go the D-III route.
Duke is private. I don’t see them getting out of basketball.
LikeLike
USC is private. I don’t see them getting out of football.
LikeLike
Ditto Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The impact on Basketball is far, far less than the impact on Football, simply because schools are limited to a total of 28 scholarship players … 13 men, 15 women, so it becomes critical whether this is a breakaway athletic association, a new NCAA division, or a new NCAA Division 1 subdivision. In the latter case, there may be a handful of schools who might find dropping down to mini-FBS and focusing on bball has substantial appeal … but a handful of schools could be readily replaced by a handful of ambitious schools in the mini-FBS.
LikeLike
I think this was more likely before the massive increase in rights fees. Are Wake, Duke, BC, SU and Miami going to give up $18 million a year? Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, USC and Stanford would give up more than that (and USC a whole lot more in ticket sales). SMU and Tulane have invested in new stadiums, along with TCU and Baylor. Will BYU serve their mission better being less visible? Its part of Notre Dame’s identity. That leaves Tulsa and Rice. Rice studied it a few years ago and figured out their only choice was the Division 3 UAA when their travel would be massively increased.
Barring some scandal (along the lines of Miami/UNC combined) driving the ACC schools out of it with the non-contract schools following in a new academic league, I don’t see the private schools moving out. The ones who were going to pull out already have-the Ivies, Xavier, Dayton, Tampa, Pacific along with a number of others over the years.
LikeLike
BTN is growing rapidly. Interesting article from Crain’s Business.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130618/BLOGS04/130619800/
LikeLike
BTN’s overall TV ratings are up 12 percent year over year, and the network’s profits “are the highest they’ve ever been, and next year they’ll be higher,” said an optimistic Mr. Silverman, who has shepherded the network since its inception in 2007.
12% growth is impressive.
The network will carry more live football games this fall than ever, topping last year’s 42. And while the many of the top-tier games are shown on ESPN (per the conference’s 10-year media rights deal that goes through the 2015-16 season), Mr. Silverman says BTN’s growth has earned it the right to get an even larger share of premier conference matchups when the conference selects a new rights partner.
That’s a shame. I’d rather see the big games stay on the major networks. It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal, with the BTN paying more instead. The money probably works out better for the B10 this way, but I’m not a fan of it.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. You don’t like Delany, you don’t like expansion and you don’t like the BTN’s expanding its slate of games. I’ll bet you saw Woody throat-throttle that Clemson kid live didn’t you?
“It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal”
Bull.
LikeLike
“Let me get this straight.”
OK.
“You don’t like Delany,”
No, I dislike some of his decisions. I look forward to having a new commissioner. I’ve never met Jim Delany, so I have no opinion of him personally.
“you don’t like expansion”
No, I don’t.
“and you don’t like the BTN’s expanding its slate of games.”
Yes, I just said that.
“I’ll bet you saw Woody throat-throttle that Clemson kid live didn’t you?”
Nope. And I’d guess most older fans like Delany.
It will also undermine the value of the Tier 1 TV deal
“Bull.”
No, it definitely will reduce it’s value. The money follows the good games. If the BTN takes more of those good games, then some of the money will be diverted to the BTN contract instead. The source of the money is irrelevant to the schools, so they’ll take whichever deals best meet their needs (money vs exposure vs control).
The question you should have asked is why that matters, since I said the total money will probably increase this way.
LikeLike
Tiers are priority. Tier 1 by definition has first choice.
LikeLike
The P12N model distorts/redefines “tiers”. They participate in tier one and two like a jr. tier one partner.
LikeLike
If the BTN has more good games, by definition that means Tier 1 either has fewer or worse, which either way means networks won’t want to pay as much for it.
LikeLike
But advertisers will pay more for BTN spots if that’s where viewers are. Demand for broader carriage likely will go up. A game doesn’t drop it’s intrinsic value simply by changing distribution platform. BTN becomes less a leftover depository and more of a tier one jr partner.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“But advertisers will pay more for BTN spots if that’s where viewers are.”
But generally not as much as they’d pay for a truly national network.
“Demand for broader carriage likely will go up. A game doesn’t drop it’s intrinsic value simply by changing distribution platform.”
Value is conserved, but it changes form. Some of the monetary value of the games would turn into other forms (leverage, etc).
“BTN becomes less a leftover depository and more of a tier one jr partner.”
Yes, that’s true.
LikeLike
“The money probably works out better for the B10 this way.”
Yes. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. I’d expect something similar to the Pac-12 where the network gets a first or second selection 7 weeks.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Yes. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it.”
I think your premise is too simple. They might well take lower revenue to gain more exposure or more control or something else they want. Last time they chose to eliminate time slot exclusivity rather than get paid more by ESPN, for example.
LikeLike
I’d characterize that as an apples to oranges situation. I agree my premise is simple, but I think things get fairly straight forward when a new contract is being negotiated.
“They might well take lower revenue to gain more exposure or more control or something else they want.”
More exposure means more revenue. I still don’t think they’re going to do any thing to shoot themselves in the foot here money wise. More control, I’m not really sure applies here. The Big Ten is in pretty much complete control of what they take to the market for the networks to bid on. Here are the terms what are you going to pay for it? What else could they want?
” Last time they chose to eliminate time slot exclusivity rather than get paid more by ESPN, for example.”
Apples to oranges. Being in a contract and out of a contract are significantly different for starters. Secondly, that move was part necessity for BTN to get access to that window with an extra conference game most weeks. It also could be argued that was a move to maximize revenue. Getting a 3rd slot many Saturday’s for your highest rated programs when you own 50% of a network is probably more valuable than a Nebraska full-share from ESPN.
LikeLike
More exposure doesn’t necessarily mean more revenue. 3 extra games on BTN with 2 less on ESPN is more exposure but almost certainly less money.
LikeLike
True but by exposure here we are talking about top tier games. Presumably the Big Ten moving more “top tier” games to BTN would be for revenue optimization. They aren’t going to move games for “exposure” to the network for the sake of “exposure.”
Clearly the conference/BTN thinks they can make more money by giving BTN some better selections.
LikeLike
“More exposure doesn’t necessarily mean more revenue. 3 extra games on BTN with 2 less on ESPN is more exposure but almost certainly less money.”
Perhaps, in a static situation. The B1G will soon be larger and encompassing new, valuable markets. Better leverage improves likely penetration of those markets.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“True but by exposure here we are talking about top tier games. Presumably the Big Ten moving more “top tier” games to BTN would be for revenue optimization. They aren’t going to move games for “exposure” to the network for the sake of “exposure.”
Clearly the conference/BTN thinks they can make more money by giving BTN some better selections.”
Or they think they need better games on BTN to have a chance to get access to the new major media markets. ESPN might offer the B10 more to not let the BTN grow. The presidents balance multiple desires (revenue, exposure to potential students. exposure to alumni, etc). Maximizing short term revenue isn’t always the smart choice.
The B10 could have made more by playing weeknight games during the season, but they refuse. The B10 could have made more by playing more night games, but the B10 chose to be cautious. The B10 might have made more by sticking with 8 B10 games (more inventory), but they chose to focus on fans’ desires and SOS instead.
They may make more money this way or they may not. That hasn’t always been the primary concern of the presidents.
LikeLike
A couple of key comments;
“This past football season marked the first time all games shown on BTN television were in sync with those on BTN2Go, the network’s smart device app, and on BTN.com, allowing commercials to run consistently across all three if a media buyer wanted.”
“The percentage of fans watching games on TV still represents about 90 percent of the audience, but that online viewership is growing, he said.”
LikeLike
I’ve watched most of the CWS on my tablet or phone.
LikeLike
Love the transmedia BTN.
LikeLike
I wish they’d let you pay to watch things online without getting BTN. I don’t want to pay to support the other channels I’d have to get in order to also get BTN (sports package or a higher tier of service), but I’d pay a premium to watch some games online.
LikeLike
But Fox wants you to support some of those other channels.
LikeLike
Too bad. I choose to support none of them, including BTN, instead.
LikeLike
Since Brian would effectively like to order BTN a la carte, I have some idle thoughts on what a la carte might mean for the BTN.
I think most regional sports networks will wither away because even YES won’t really be able to cough up the money to keep operating from just the New York market, and even if they can, teams won’t want to target their games to just the hardcore fan, so you might see professional teams flock back to broadcast. (I include the Longhorn Network in this category.) On the other hand, the Big Ten and SEC, but not any other conferences, have enough depth of fandom that their respective networks *can* survive in an a la carte landscape.
The question is whether that’s a good move for the conferences. Realistically, they can’t put any remotely marquee games or a disproportionately large number of them on the conference network if they want exposure for the conference and relevance outside their own regions; I guess they can try to pick ahead of ESPN or do without them entirely, but even in a greatly reduced state ESPN is probably making more money than BTN or SECN because it appeals to a broader cross-section of the American landscape and adding Big Ten or SEC games probably isn’t going to drive up its price more than whatever a conference network is charging.
Then you wonder what the other three major conferences are doing. Without RSNs or conference networks, the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 are scrambling to find outlets for their games. The big networks would love to fill up their schedule with them, and they can probably get at least two games apiece from them this way; ESPN still has room on its schedule for another 1-2 games; but I suspect they’d need multiple syndication timeslots to fill out the rest. Syndication only distributes games within each conference’s territory, but if the ACC and Big 12 start distributing games within SEC and Big Ten territory, that could put them at a massive recruiting and exposure advantage. The SEC could lose any claim to Texas, the Big Ten any claim to the Northeast. It could undermine the ground for continuing to run conference networks to begin with.
I may be way off base with these idle wonderings, but the point I want to make is that bundling is a key underpinning of the boom in sports rights fees, and I can’t say that unbundling would kill the BTN itself, but it could cause a chain reaction that would make its existence look kinda stupid.
LikeLike
@morganwick – Yeah, I think true a la carte would likely kill a lot of channels, which would then have the effect of having only the most general interest channels surviving – essentially, the cable channel lineup that existed circa 1990.
The thing is that I don’t think people really want a la carte. In fact, there’s actually much less tolerance for PPV-type arrangements now than 20 years ago. They want the “all-you-eat buffet”, but are moving toward paying for it by categories of content (movies, TV shows, music) as opposed to packages of channels. For example, Netflix streaming and Hulu aren’t really a la carte beyond the fact that you’re paying for those packages individually. Instead, those services provide really mirror what you get on cable – they’re huge libraries of movies and TV shows that you have access to at an all-you-can-eat buffet price (not just content from a specific channel).
I could see one or more sports platforms like ESPN3 doing the same for sports. Maybe Fox would aggregate all of their content from their national and regional channels (FS1, BTN, YES) to create something similar to ESPN3.
Now, the thing with sports is that it’s not an on-demand product like movies and scripted TV shows. The advantage of being able to stream sports online is usually more about convenience and access to games while you’re traveling or what’s not on your TV package than a preferred method of watching. Sports events are watched by a lot of people at the exact same time, which is what TV still does better (and probably will always do better) than the Internet. This is a key distinction in the desirability of watching TV shows and movies online (which people love having on-demand) compared to sports (which are appointment TV that people want to watch live at a specific time) that a lot of people miss.
LikeLike
“I may be way off base with these idle wonderings, but the point I want to make is that bundling is a key underpinning of the boom in sports rights fees…”
I think you are off base. As Frank says live sports have leverage no other entertainment has. It wouldn’t surprise me if the sports offerings bring more value to a bundle than they are credited with. Everyone points to their increasing cost, but do we know some part of that is not floating kids, nature, pseudo news, cartoon, etc channels?
LikeLike
Well, I actually want online access without getting the BTN. I’d accept getting BTN a la carte except I know a la carte is terrible for consumers. I just refuse to fund all the other sports networks that would come with adding the BTN.
LikeLike
I know a la carte won’t fly, but I wonder if some form of choice will get added. Maybe they create tiers of channels and you can pick 3 of them for $X, 5 of them for $Y or all of them for $Z. that would let people tailor their packages a little.
LikeLike
OSU cancelled their CMU game in 2016 to make room for a 9th B10 game. Still on the schedule are BGSU, Tulsa and @OU. 2016 was the only year OSU needed to drop a game. I hope others follow suit and drop a weak game.
LikeLike
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/403521/
A good look at the issues with playing I-AA teams from MN’s AD. TV really pushed for the B10 to stop playing those teams, apparently. I’m curious when they say the same thing to the ACC, B12 and SEC.
LikeLike
Wilner on the O’Bannon case: most important happening in thirty years.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/06/19/the-ed-obannon-case-class-certification-hearing-thursday-is-a-momentous-day-for-the-ncaa/
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2013/06/19/college-football-playoff-selection-committee/?sct=uk_t2_a5
There will be no dry run for the CFP committee this season, and in fact they may not even decide on the committee’s details this year.
LikeLike
Probably a bad move as this would have been a good way to transition to the new system. Just like modern america in that they sell you the beta version and fix the bugs after the fact.
LikeLike
I understand their concerns about it leaking out and potentially undermining the BCS. I’d rather they go back and use a past season as a dry run (2007 maybe). But regardless, they probably won’t have a committee assembled until next summer.
LikeLike
good morning !!
LikeLike
My take on what’ll eventually happen (not what should, but what will):
1. The major programs won’t fully break away. Whether they like the NCAA or not, they don’t have the appetite for creating a whole new structure for sports like rowing and tennis that don’t make money.
2. As Frank noted, there is already a de facto “Division I-A+”, consisting of the football schools in the Big Five leagues, plus Notre Dame. At some point, this cohort’s status will probably get written into the NCAA bylaws as a separate subdivision of Division I, which would then allow them to make their own rules without getting outvoted by the mid-majors.
3. Contrary to persistent belief, the major schools have no appetite to force the mid-majors out of the Big Time. The power schools still want (and need) to play the mid-majors in football, and many schools that are weak in football are kings in other sports. What they’ll do is announce the principles they intend to live by, and any school wiling to participate can join. They’re not going to say to the Sun Belt Conference, “Sorry, you’re out.” They’ll say something like, “From now on, we’re granting our athletes a $5k stipend,” and it’ll be up to the Sun Belt to decide if they want to participate on those terms.
4. The schools have no appetite at all for reforms that would allow athletes to get paid or accept endorsements. They’ll do anything they can to prevent this. They do have an appetite for reforms like full cost-of-attendance scholarships, which would raise the boat for all athletes simultaneously. This will probably happen eventually, in some form. I could see them supporting similar reforms like an education fund or health insurance, that don’t involve third parties paying the athlete directly.
5. The schools also have no appetite for permitting players to hire agents. Right now, schools hold the upper hand, because no player in a 4-year career has time to mobilize against the existing system. By the time a player realizes what’s right and wrong about the system, his eligibility is expired. An agent who represents dozens of elite athletes at any given time, and hundreds or thousands over a period of many years, is going to be in a far better position to fight the NCAA.
6. If Ed O’Bannon wins, it will be less consequential than many people think. Obviously, it means the schools will have to share some of the money they’re earning, but the “parade of horribles” in the NCAA’s legal filings is grossly exaggerated. Obviously, it’s in the NCAA’s interests to try to claim that if O’Bannon wins, the world will end. They said the same thing when the schools sued to get control of their football TV rights. It’s more-or-less the NCAA’s canned response whenever anyone challenges them, and can’t be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think you are right on most points. While I would love to see the power schools leave the NCAA, such a move would would have a lot of implications and there would be many things to over come on the political front (tax-exemption, antitrust) and on the PR front. The former being the biggest concern. However, I think they could strip some power away from the NCAA.
I don’t think a stipend solves anything. It may suspend the conversation for a few years, but eventually there will be a call for an increased stipend, or a non-uniform stipend.
LikeLike
I think O’Bannon wins on the class action ruling. That will mean tens of millions of legal fees and a probable expensive settlement down the road.
It will mean a lot because millions will be sucked out of revenue sports. That will push the power schools to break away from the NCAA. And that will doom sports programs and scholarships at a lot of schools. It may lead to the end of national championships in Divisions II and III.
And the power schools will figure out a way around the settlement for players going forward-minor royalties after they graduate for replays, selling jerseys w/o numbers or numbers no one uses.
LikeLike
Marc: agree pretty much with your sense of what WILL happen.
A note on the O’Bannon case: His lawsuit seeks a lot of remedies and pursues a lot of legal theories of recovery. Some of the theories are stronger than others. The piece of the lawsuit concerning use of his likeness is, in my view, pretty strong, particularly since the NCAA itself never asked for or received any waivers from the athletes. That may also be the basis for a class action. But that count is mostly directed at the NCAA which directly licenses the video games, etc. If O’Bannon wins that count, that would be huge for him and any co-plaintiffs but would not directly impact the schools themselves.
For this reason, I actually agree that the consequences of an O’Bannon victory will be less than everyone is predicting.
LikeLike
I withdraw my own comment. Here’s a much better summary from SI. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130619/ncaa-ed-obannon-hearing-primer/
LikeLike
Frank,
You know I love the blog but you could not wait another few days to see if IU wins the Capitol One Cup? It would be the first B1G school to do so.
LikeLike
Fantastic pitching duel last night. Neither pitcher deserved a loss.
LikeLike
First CWS shutout since ’85, and first complete game by both pitchers since ’06.
LikeLike
Should read first 1-0 shutout since ’85.
Apologies to the Owls.
LikeLike
IU will truly need some obvious luck. Hoosiers can only earn 15 pts more, max, final round of scoring. If either UNC or UCLA wins, IU finishes second. Time to root for OreSt or MssSt – I can’t say MSU, that distinction belongs to the Spartans of East Lansing : ). No matter what, IU was a very tough out. A great statement for BIG baseball, which has been awful for too long.
LikeLike
What I do not understand is why hockey and baseball players can make themselves eligible for the professional draft–without losing eligibility if rejecting–but the NCAA cannot allow the same thing for football and basketball players.
LikeLike
The football and basketball rules are specific to the NFL and NBA, not to the NCAA. The NFL says you must be 3 years out of high school to be draft-eligible, and the NBA says you have to be one year out. It is not an NCAA rule.
LikeLike
No, that’s not what he asked. What he asked was why baseball and hockey players who are drafted can still come back and play in college (assuming they haven’t used up all four years of eligibility), but football and basketball players cannot.
In football and basketball, sometimes a player comes out early, and then is drafted way lower than he expected. You would think that as long as he hasn’t signed a pro contract, he ought to be considered still an amateur, and eligible to return to his college team. But the rules don’t allow that, and he was asking why.
LikeLike
I think part of it is whether he has sign an agent or not. Are NFL and NBA team precluded from drafting someone who has said he’s remaining in school and taking their chances? Isn’t there a second NFL or NBA deadline kids can back out after declaring, as long as they haven’t hired an agent? (John Elway?) It is before the draft, but that may be a NFL/NBA rule as their limited number of picks are valuable enough to need assurances, while MLB drafts anything that is semi coordinated and left handed among their yearly 50 round first year draft.
LikeLike
That is not what I am talking about. If a guy is a 21-year old junior, he has to decide whether or not to enter the draft or come back to college. His simple “declaration” to enter the draft causes him to lose eligibility, whereas actually being drafted by a MLB team does not disturb the process. The NCAA rules are all that I care about. Whether the NFL or NBA allow some to enter is up to them. The NCAA controls when kids can come back. In my opinion, anyone who has not signed a contract for $$$ should not lose eligibility.
LikeLike
I don’t know about hockey, but (if memory serves me right) baseball players don’t declare draft eligibility in the same BB or FB players. Baseball teams simply draft whoever they want (with some restrictions) and the player decides whether or not to sign a contract.
LikeLike
Fair enough. But the NCAA could say–being drafted by the NFL or NBA is irrelevant. If you want to stay in college, so be it. If you want to put yourself in position to be drafted, so be it. Until you get $$$, you are an amateur.
I just cannot help but think that there is a racial component mixed into these rules at some level. whether it is .000001% or 20%, I don’t know. All I know is that Brian Holzinger played for the Buffalo Sabres moments after winning the Hobey Baker award. Being drafted by the Sabres did not stop him from being able to play for a college and the NHL during one season. That could happen in football or basketball if the NCAA allowed drafted players to remain eligible as long as they do not sign.
LikeLike
Part of it is timing. The FB declaration day is just a few weeks before national signing day. The coaches need to know which players are coming back so they know how many new players to sign. If a player can change his mind, some poor freshman would be SOL.
The NFL has moved the draft to May now. You’d have to push back NSD until mid to late May, right when the school year is ending. Is it fair to the incoming freshmen to leave them wondering that late if they have a scholarship coming or need to make other plans?
LikeLike
Somehow baseball and hockey have figured out how to manage it all.
In fact, it could work the opposite. A kid is drafted in 2014. Does not sign. Plays the 2014 season for his college team. He has two choices when season ends–signs with NFL team immediately after college season ends and reports to NFL team on February 1 based on prior drafting. Or wait until the next draft. Either way, what harm to the NCAA in allowing a kid to be drafted without giving up a spot?
It is tougher for the NFL to make it all work, but there are fewer problems there anyway. By the NFL not drafting kids until 3 years removed from H.S., this eliminates most of the problems.
The real problem is basketball. There has to be a better system.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to know if timing is the reason for the rule, or if the rule was written for some other reason. Even if the football rule is due to the timing, it woudn’t explain basketball.
LikeLike
Baseball players do not declare for the draft. Any player that graduated from high school is eligible until they enter a 4 year college. When in a 4 year program they are eligible after their Junior year. Going to Junior College does not effect draft eligibility (can be picked after each year). It is not unusual for a senior graduating from college to have been drafted 3 times (high school, junior, senior). There is also an apples and oranges comparison. Baseball has 40 draft rounds compared to 2 for Basketball and 7 for Football. If the NCAA passed a rule that said no player that had been drafted could play there would be no Division I baseball. Just too many picks for teams not to take a chance.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that a person can be drafted and not lose NCAA eligibility. Pretty straightforward. This is because there is nothing inherent in being drafted that should cause the amateur status to be revoked. Drafting means nothing.
LikeLike
The football and basketball drafts used to be larger. But there was really no need for it.
LikeLike
Isn’t it after your scheduled HS graduation, three years after your HS class would graduate, and again the following year? There is a college player this year (in the CWS) that just finished his 3rd college year, but was not drafted. And I believe he was not draft elligible. He graduated HS a year early and became a college starter immediately. I’m no scout but I think a young switch hitting regular infielder in a successful college program would at least draw a low draft pick.
LikeLike
I wrote about it here too. http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2013/04/12/n-c-a-absurdity/
LikeLike
Can someone refresh my memory as to the following:
I recall vaguely that there was a case where a student-athlete hired a lawyer to defend his athletic interests. The NCAA considered the lawyer an “agent” and disqualified the athlete. The athlete sued and got a preliminary injunction, on the basis that it was a violation of state law for the NCAA to prevent athletes from hiring their own lawyer.
Knowing how explosive this would be if it were upheld on appeal (which it might very well have been), the NCAA reached a settlement with the athlete. As part of the settlement, the athlete got his eligibility back, and the judge’s preliminary ruling never became final. The athlete got what he wanted, and the NCAA was able to make an extremely undesirable ruling go away.
LikeLike
@Marc: I don’t have any personal recollection of this, but maybe these Google News Archive search results are on point:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LzlfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TFMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=773,5208218&dq=college+athlete+hired+attorney+agent+eligibility&hl=en
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/1998/07/01/mcdavid_back/
If the above is not what you are looking for, I would appreciate it if you can post the info when you do find it. I am intrigued.
LikeLike
Thank you. I am pretty sure the first item above was the case that I recalled.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9407768/val-ackerman-emerges-front-runner-big-east-commissioner
The BE is looking to hire former WNBA commissioner Val Ackerman to run the league.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2013-06-17/ackerman-s-white-paper-outlines-recommendations-spark-growt
That’s important for many reasons, but one is that she just finished a report for the NCAA on how to improve women’s basketball. She gave several ideas for ways to improve the tournament (scheduling changes, location changes, etc).
As for the regular season:
1. Cut down regular-season games.
2. Reduce scholarships on teams from 15 to 13 in order to disperse talent.
3. A 24-second shot clock.
4. 10-minute quarters instead of halves.
5. Shrink or eliminate conference tournaments.
The article has a link to her whole white paper if anyone’s interested.
LikeLike
Sounds like a good hire for the BE. Someone who writes a report with suggestions, none of which will be used. They aren’t going to reduce the regular sesason, they aren’t going to the NBA 24 second clock, they aren’t going to quarters and they aren’t going to eliminate the conference tournaments. And as for scholarships, that is simply because of Title IX. They need more scholarships in women’s sports to offset football.
LikeLike
Not only football … for instance, at a 60/40 F/M University, 13 Men’s BBall players need to be offset by more than 13 Women’s scholarships.
LikeLike
Frank,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on paying players.
“While the cost of a college scholarship is substantial, the power conference athletic departments are still receiving outsized revenue gains off of the backs of football and men’s basketball players and they ought to be compensated accordingly.”
Out of state tuition and fees plus room and board is about $36k for 2 semesters at OSU, so call it roughly $50k per year. That’s $250,000 the player is paid.
Now, how much 40 hours a week of elite personal training and professional training worth? $2000 per week? That’s another $500,000 for the player.
Players get free tutoring, too. 5 hours a week would be worth $25,000.
That’s 775,000 over 5 years, or $155,000 per year.
That’s a pretty good salary for someone without a college education and limited work experience. That’s without mentioning the value of a college degree itself, which many of these players wouldn’t get without the scholarship offer. It’s commonly said to be worth over $1M in your lifetime.
$155,000 per year times 85 scholarship players is $13,175,000 per year. Do schools make more than that per year? Yes, if they are major programs. But they also have a lot of other expenses (coaches, facilities, university overhead, etc). OSU made $58M in 2011-2 from football. OSU had expenses of $34M, leaving $24M. The players received more than half of that in value. How is that not fair compensation?
“Now, I understand why colleges want to fight those types of payments to the death and there are major Title IX implications, as it’s likely that payments would have to be made across the board to all non-revenue sport athletes on top of the revenue generators. It’s easy to point to the quarterback whose jersey is getting sold nationwide and say that it isn’t fair that he hasn’t been compensated fully, yet should a water polo player at the same school be receiving the same type of payment?”
That jersey doesn’t sell if it doesn’t have the school’s name on it. Jerseys without player names would still sell well. People are forced to choose one with a current player’s number generally. We have no idea how much of the value is attributable to the player.
LikeLike
@Brian: I agree with you that the athletes already are handsomely paid.
But your post doesn’t entirely respond to the issues. Two of FTT’s five proposals (allowing players to accept outside endorsements; allowing players to hire agents) would not require the schools to spend any more money.
Another of his proposals (full cost-of-attendance scholarships) is actually favored by the larger schools, including OSU. So apparently they do not think they are paying the players enough.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But your post doesn’t entirely respond to the issues. Two of FTT’s five proposals (allowing players to accept outside endorsements; allowing players to hire agents) would not require the schools to spend any more money.
Another of his proposals (full cost-of-attendance scholarships) is actually favored by the larger schools, including OSU. So apparently they do not think they are paying the players enough.”
That’s probably because that comment was solely in response to Frank’s footnote about paying players, which I quoted in it’s entirety.
I’ll address the rest of Frank’s post separately.
LikeLike
Dropping a kid on a college campus without any spending money is problematic. A non-athlete can work. A scholarship athlete for a revenue sport cannot. What, exactly, is that kid supposed to do to get spending money? To go on a date, see a movie, do laundry.
The scholarship has life value, but on a day-to-day basis it is not so helpful. We see too many college athletes stealing.
When I was a college student, so many of my peers had seemingly limitless spending ability via their parents. I did not. I worked to earn spending money (and pay for part of school). If I could not work–what else could I have done? These kids devote enough time and serve as ambassadors of the University just walking around campus. We cannot find up to $250/week for these kids?
Heck, even $100/week from school year start to end, conditioned on them staying out of trouble (i.e. failing to serve as good ambassadors of the University) and having good grades is fine with me. $100 times 40 weeks = $4,000 times 100 athletes per school = $400,000. <5% of the budget for schools in the 5 major conferences (1% of the Big 10 budgets by 2018, right?). Which is fair given that these kids in the revenue-generating sports FUND so many other sports.
Not getting rich, just having a decent standard of living outside of sports.
LikeLike
I don’t think the stipend would stop “underground” payments at all. However, I do think they should do it. These athletes don’t have time to work and colleges should be able to pay them the full cost of attendance. Many of these athletes are poor and don’t have spending money.
I think the education fund is a ridiculous idea. They have a full scholarship while they are in school. They should finish then. Do they have “education funds” for regular students who don’t finish in 5 years?
They certainly should cover injuries. I believe they do that now. However, disability should be the responsibility of the player. How do you define “elite” players that get disability? If they are concerned about disability, go pro or get their own insurance. Many do both of those. If they can’t afford it, I would think they could get a legitimate loan from someone other than an agent if they really had potential.
LikeLike
Agree. There will always be greed.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Dropping a kid on a college campus without any spending money is problematic. A non-athlete can work. A scholarship athlete for a revenue sport cannot. What, exactly, is that kid supposed to do to get spending money? To go on a date, see a movie, do laundry.”
If he’s that poor, he can get a $5000+ Pell grant every year. That should cover plenty of movies. If not, he can get money from his family. Or maybe he could spend less on things he doesn’t need and magically he’d find he actually does have money.
Or he could not play football and work a job to pay for school. Football isn’t mandatory.
“We see too many college athletes stealing.”
They aren’t all poor.
“I worked to earn spending money (and pay for part of school). If I could not work–what else could I have done?”
Gotten student loans. Gotten scholarships. Sold stuff. Not wasted money on things you didn’t need. Gone to a cheaper school. College isn’t mandatory and neither is playing football. You make choices and they come with sacrifices.
LikeLike
Michigan presented its FY 2014 Athletic Department Budget to the Regents yesterday for approval. The actual document hasn’t been posted on the university website yet, but per the press release in the link below, revenue is projected to be $146.4M with expenses of $137.5M for a net profit of $8.9M.
The FY 2013 budget ended up having a $10.2M surplus. The original projection from last year at this time was a surplus of $4.4M with approx. $130M.3 in revenue.
See http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/062013aaa.html and http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-m-athletic-department-budget-fy-2014/ for more information.
The second article gives some information on the $146M.4 revenue figure. $49.3M from ticket sales and $33.2M in donations makes up $82.5M of that figure. The remainder ($63.9M) should come from licensing royalties, corporate sponsorships, facilities revenue, other sources and conference distributions. We’ll get some more details on these revenue items (with a projection for conference distributions) in due course.
In FY 2013, those items were projected to contribute $53.2M in revenue, so it looks like there was a nearly $10.7M revenue increase in projections for those items in FY 2014. If most of that comes from conference distributions due to increased post-season payouts, then that would seem to confirm the approx. $32M in FY 2014 conference distributions that was mentioned last year when Maryland and Rutgers joined the conference.
LikeLike
Here’s Michigan’s FY 2014 Athletic Department budget document–see http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf
The fiscal year runs from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, so the increase in conference distributions from the playoff I wrote about before will be shown in next year’s submission for the FY 2015 budget.
Conference Distributions from this document and previous budgets show the following revenue amounts (television share in brackens)
FY 2008 – $18.79M ($13.93M)
FY 2009 – $19.17M ($14.43M)
FY 2010 – $19.97M ($14.89M)
FY 2011 – $22.85M ($16.67M)
FY 2012 – $24.65M ($17.74M)
FY 2013 – $25.73M ($18.98M)
FY 2014 (projected) – $26.50M ($19.93M)
Over this time period, conference distributions have gone up an average of around $1.29M per year. That would put FY 2015 at $27.79M and FY 2016 at $29.08M, but as I mentioned above, the college football postseason revenue starts kicking in during the 2014 season (FY 2015).
According to USA Today, the Big Ten could be getting approx. $90M in revenue from its deals with the Rose Bowl and the CFB playoff. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/
That could add perhaps $5-$6M per B1G program, which would put the conference distribution for FY 2015 at around $32M and FY 2016 at approx. $34M.
LikeLike
Any accountants on this board care to weigh in on the tax issues relating to athletic scholarships if athletes receive a salary-type stipend?
As I understand it now, the full cost of a scholarship (athletic or otherwise) is not considered to be imputed income on the recipient (this includes room and board), but that stipends for food, travel, and such are (in theory, anyways) considered income that must be reported. However, if athletes start receiving salaries, does that potentially mean that the scholarship, along with room and board, somehow become considered part of the overall compensation package for an athlete?
The difference, as I understand it, is between reporting $3,600 ($300/m stipend x12 months) vs. $60,000 or so at a private school.
I am not an accountant, and I am going off my memory of Fed Tax in law school, so if I am hilariously wrong or wildly off base, please correct me.
Assuming I am correct, one unintended consequence of this would be to hurt the private schools (USC, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, etc..) while greatly helping in state public universities (especially ones in talent-rich states).
LikeLike
As for agents, the NCAA isn’t afraid of their power. They are afraid of the cesspool that is AAU basketball spilling over into the rest of college athletics. And who pays the agents? They don’t work for free. That leads you into all kinds of problems. Its basically what Oregon is getting into trouble for. They are basically paying that guy in Texas to deliver athletes for them.
I think that is absolutely the worst idea of the 5. It may sound good on its face, but would be awful in practice.
LikeLike
The idea of letting the players hire agents is part & parcel of the idea of letting the players monetize their value, any way they see fit. If a student in the music or theater department hires an agent to manage their professional career, it is no business of the school (or of an external governing body) whether the agent is good or bad.
I do realize that because of the extraordinary sums of money these athletes have the potential to earn, the field attracts some unscrupulous agents. That’s a problem the music and theater students generally do not have. But you seem to believe that there’s practically no such thing as an honest agent. I don’t think that’s true either. If you make it legal and above-board, it becomes a lot harder for the dishonest ones to thrive.
Although the concerns you raised are legitimate, I am absolutely convinced that the NCAA does not want the players to receive even competent representation, because competent and honest agents will do a far better job of working on the players’ behalf than the players themselves have any chance of doing.
LikeLike
Music has lots of unscrupulous agents. Probably more than sports based on all the lawsuits.
Music and theater don’t have “amateur” status. They have music and theater outside the university.
LikeLike
Regarding the value an athlete brings to a school is there a parallel between schools ownership of research, discoveries, etc. staying primarily with the school and not the property of the individual student, grad student, professor, researcher, except in cases of joint school/commercial ventures? Isn’t this a long established relationship that has been court tested? Without the school what would the individual have achieved, been able to attempt, or ultimately was worth independent of the school?
LikeLike
And the reality is that 99+% of the athletes will have a career in something other than sports. That means that 99+% of them are getting value in excess of what they are giving. That % are fungible. They could be replaced by FCS players. There probably isn’t a scholarship FCS team that couldn’t beat the best teams in the 60s and 70s if they were transported back in time, so the slightly lesser quality wouldn’t have any difference as long as a team is competitive with its peers.
LikeLike
Fundamentally agree (except disagree with the common adoration of the current. Give ’60s/’70s players current drugs, or make current players play by the former rules, etc. remember, Eric Dickerson, Michael Carter, etc? They were ’70s HSers). I’d say the FBS/FCS equivalence wouldn’t be above 50%. The bottom of FBS still has superior depth of 1-3 star talent. That doesn’t alter your premise that less than 1% actually achieve significant marketable value.
I suggest that the school contributes greatly, basically creates much if not most of a FB player’s marketable value. Would Jerry Rice have benifited anything like a USC, UT, or Alabama star player?
LikeLike
I said “transport back in time.” I’m not “adoring” the present. Given current training methods, etc., 60s/70s players would be bigger, stronger and faster than they were. That unbeaten Texas 1969 team that was in one of the longest win streaks in modern times (30 games-4th longest in the last 50 years, 6th longest since first World War) had 1 lineman over 200 lbs. They would get killed today.
LikeLike
So I’m agreeing with you on the time differences. Great athletes would rise to the top in any era. But without current training, etc., few teams would be able to compete.
LikeLike
Agree they’d get killed today, but they were only a few years removed from predominantly both way players, 3 subs/play limit, etc. now coaches (Bielema, Sabin) bitch that they need to slow the game, need 15 secs/play to sub. That would change even further who, what type/size, and how conditioned a player will be desirable under that iteration of football. Lets go back to 11 man, one sub per half (in case of serious injury, unable to return that half) and see what type of player is desirable. 🙂
LikeLike
I saw that. Ridiculous that players “need” to be subbed in 8-10 plays. At 10 seconds a play, that’s 1:20-1:40 of action with 10-15 second intervals between plays. That’s not even 1 round in wrestling. Be good for them if they were smaller and had better stamina.
LikeLike
Even when Jim Walden was coach at WSU, long before kids got anywhere near as big as today, he recognized a problem that was being created. I saw an article written up where he stated his job was not done when eligibility expired. He said FB was responsible for creating body’s that were never intended by nature, and were tremendous health risks going forward. He felt it was his responsibility to get the non NFL bound students back to similar size to when they arrived. Today he’d need to aim young with the proliferation of excessive size HSers the last couple decades.
LikeLike
Regarding the value an athlete brings to a school is there a parallel between schools ownership of research, discoveries, etc. staying primarily with the school and not the property of the individual student, grad student, professor, researcher, except in cases of joint school/commercial ventures? Isn’t this a long established relationship that has been court tested?
The big difference is that each school can offer its professors and students whatever deal they find mutually beneficial. That creates an open market, in which schools can and do outbid each other for talent. As you’ve noted, there are joint ventures between schools and third parties, and many professors dramatically increase their income with outside consulting.
The premise of the O’Bannon suit is that the NCAA and the schools have conspired to restrain trade, by agreeing among themselves NOT to outbid each other for student-athletes, and furthermore, to limit the athlete’s ability to make whatever side deals s/he may be able to get.
LikeLike
This market (the universe of FB playing NCAA schools) has set that limit. It doesn’t prevent exploration/creation of alternatives outside their control, and doesn’t prevent that market from responding to changing realities. Do we have salary caps, rookie salary limits, contract structure based on luck of draft position and need of the team in that slot? Is there any limitation you would accept, and if there is how is it not just a matter of degree?
LikeLike
This market (the universe of FB playing NCAA schools) has set that limit. It doesn’t prevent exploration/creation of alternatives outside their control, and doesn’t prevent that market from responding to changing realities.
If that argument were valid, no one would ever win an anti-trust case. If a group has cornered a very substantial segment of the relevant market — which I think there is very little doubt the NCAA has done — it is no defense to say, “We’re not stopping anyone else from forming their own athletics association.”
If you read the NCAA’s submissions in the O’Bannon case, that is not an argument they are trying to make, because they know it wouldn’t work.
Do we have salary caps, rookie salary limits, contract structure based on luck of draft position and need of the team in that slot?
Those are limits that the owners and players’ unions have jointly agreed to. It’s no different than GM and the UAW agreeing that an entry-level assembly-line worker will make $X per hour and receive $Y in benefits.
Is there any limitation you would accept, and if there is how is it not just a matter of degree?
Honestly, I am undecided.
LikeLike
Good points. Referring back to researchers, schools are also able to bargain for long term employment, and even grant tenure-basically lifetime employment. None of that applies to athletes. If it did then I agree with your points, but would return to bullet’s assertion that professionalism belongs in the pros, not universities.
LikeLike
And once basketball players have value, they leave for the NBA. They make the decision whether to stay or not. Football is a little different. But a lot of that is that 19 year olds aren’t physically ready to play in the NFL.
LikeLike
People who think the Olympic model will work are either naiive or don’t mind professionalism of the players. The reality is that every school would get their hands dirty buying players in recruiting by having boosters offer endorsement contracts. It would be more open. But it would be every bit as sleazy and everyone would have to do it. And if you allow it to players but not recruits, it would all be set up during recruiting, just not formalized.
IMO if you get into full professionalism, there’s no point in it going through the university and they should just get out of the business.
LikeLike
This!
LikeLike
Agreed. The only thing I would accept is a stipend.
LikeLike
IMO if you get into full professionalism, there’s no point in it going through the university and they should just get out of the business.
I made a similar point about the universities getting out of the sports business in a post above.
LikeLike
If its full professionalism, then the football and bball should be operated as for-profit franchises, paying a hefty licensing fee for the use of the school name and athletic team IP, with employed athletes permitted (but not required) to attend the University, and the break-even and subsidy sports run by the University, no a scholarship basis or not in line with the University’s decision of what is appropriate.
LikeLike
College football already are a bussiness for the schools though. They bring in tremendous amounts of attention (how much advertising would it take to get a similar effect?). It brings in enough money to single handily fund a very large number of sports. It increases merchandise sales tremendously and gives you a good speaker for fundraisers (football coach often most well known university official).
Rules of constantly been alter to make more money for the schools. Given all that, the schools have already made the choice that it’s effectively a bussiness operate to fund other activities. The workers who bring in much of this value (how much is a Rose Bowl worth vs. a 8-3 season even?) don’t have a chance to compete in a free market system for their services though or even a pretty closed one.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like where this would lead the sport, but it’s not fair for the rules of ameutarism to apply only to one side.
LikeLike
College football already are is business for the schools though.
Of course it is! And therein lies the great irony. Most schools have extra-curricular music, theater, and art programs. Nobody cares if the participants in those programs hire agents or earn extra money on the side—because, of course, very few do.
I did extra-curricular theater at Michigan. The orchestra, consisting mainly of music students, was paid. Nobody cared, because theater at Michigan wasn’t a business. It really WAS what it claimed to be: an extra-curricular activity.
Sports started out that way. If they had remained that way, no one would have paid attention to how many kids were on scholarship or how they were recruited, whether they had outside benefactors, hired agents, worked on the side, or any of that.
Only as it started to become a business, did those things begin to matter.
LikeLike
Very good point. Hadn’t thought about it that way, but you’re right. If it was just an extra circular activity, no one would care about a lot of the stuff we care about football players taking.
LikeLike
They would if that extra curricular activity occurred within a structure that has been voluntarily joined by the schools offering it, and included prohibitions that some would like to ignore yet remain as a member of that structure.
LikeLike
But all of this monitoring and closely watching for any rule breaking of any item/money received would not occur (not to mention school attention to making sure athletes are passing with a lot of tutors and so forth). I suppose it’s more apt to say, the level of scrutiny players are under is only because college football programs at the top level are run as a business rather than an amateur event.
LikeLike
They would if that extra curricular activity occurred within a structure that has been voluntarily joined by the schools offering it, and included prohibitions that some would like to ignore yet remain as a member of that structure.
But they only created that structure because it’s a business. Had it remained a truly extra-curricular activity (as it originally was), the idea of creating the structure and all of those rules would never have occurred to them.
LikeLike
They created it because Teddy Rosevelt required it rather than having congress shut down the popular but ungoverned and dangerous competition colleges were holding. Had it remained unstructured college FB would not exist.
LikeLike
What would have occurred, had the NCAA not been formed when it was, could be debated endlessly, but it would be pointless. The original concern was the physical safety of the game of football. Most of the rules we are debating here aren’t specific to football, and came along later, for entirely different reasons.
LikeLike
Certainly. Name any organization that doesn’t/hasn’t formulated new, and reformulated old rules in changing circumstances. You said the NCAA was created as a business model. I disagreed.
LikeLike
You said the NCAA was created as a business model. I disagreed.
At the risk of seeming Clintonian, it depends on what the meaning of created is.
I didn’t mean that the NCAA was founded for that purpose, as I was certainly aware of its original mission, which is long since settled. I meant the regulatory regime currently under discussion.
LikeLike
Long before the advent of serious money in college athletics, but equally as long after the creation of the NCAA the PCC had broken up over the paying for athletes at Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW. A stricter set of rules came into being in the reformed conference, and soon those who objected most returned to become the P8. Business interests have imposed themselves on college athletics over time, but the base of the amateur rules were rooted in keeping student athletes amateur. This was during a time that the US Olympic Committee (Avery Brundage) considered you professional in a sport if you graduated in education and coaching was part of your teaching duties. As a result of being paid as an assistant coach in that sport (even at the middle school level) you were “professional” and intelligible for the Olympic team.
LikeLike
However, its a business that is structured to generate cost inflation, because as a not for profit activity, the only way that the athletic department can capture its revenues is be generating cost centers for the revenues. Restructuring of the business as a franchised operation removes the incentives to gold plate the bricks.
LikeLike
SIAP (I didn’t see them listed above).
SI published three really good articles on the O’Bannon case a couple of days back. Each highly recommended. Each has internal links to the other two.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130619/ncaa-ed-obannon-hearing-primer/
LikeLike
Frank,
In regards to Zola’s 5 points:
Have athletics scholarships cover the full cost of attendance and not be capped at tuition and fees, room and board, and required books. A stipend, in the neighborhood of $3,000 per student, according to a recent study, would help reduce the growing underground compensation system for elite athletes.
I have no problem with making a full ride truly a full ride. Academic full rides already pay this much.
Embrace the Olympic amateur model by lifting the restriction on college athletes’ commercial opportunities. This shift would offer any student the opportunity to secure endorsement deals or receive payment for the use of his or her name and image.
This sounds good, but it would become a mess. The top teams would become totally professional with a pretext of endorsements to justify paying the players lots of money. That isn’t college sports to me. If the Santa Monica Football Club wants to form and pay players, more power to them. No school should be affiliated with this, though.
I’d be sympathetic to the monopoly argument if the NFL actually tried to set up a minor league system and it failed. MLB and the NHL have shown it can work, though. There are lots of semipro leagues out there, too.
On the other hand, I’m fine with restricting the use of player images in video games and names on jerseys. They can sell OSU #0 jerseys with Buckeyes as the name instead of #5 Miller jerseys.
Create an education fund that provides continuing financial assistance to college athletes, allowing them to complete their degrees even after their athletics eligibility, and corresponding scholarship, has expired.
If you can’t earn a degree in 5 years with unlimited free tutoring, you don’t deserve a free degree. I’m fine with mandating 4 years assuming they don’t break rules and 5 if they redshirt. Being lazy shouldn’t be rewarded, though.
Provide full health insurance for all athletes and cover all deductibles for injuries related to participation in an intercollegiate sport. Offer full disability insurance to elite athletes, protecting them against catastrophic injuries that could derail their professional careers.
Health insurance and deductibles for sport-related injuries, yes. Disability insurance, no. They’re getting college degrees and most aren’t going to the NFL anyway. The degree is their insurance against a “career-ending” injury.
Allow athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions, negotiating commercial opportunities, and navigating the transition from college to professional sports.
The LOI isn’t mandatory and a parent has to sign it anyway. They can pay for legal advice on that specific contract. There are advisory panels athletes can use in terms of preparing for the NFL. I’d rather see schools paying a fund that pays approved agents to advise players for free than letting players hire agents. Agents are just another way to pay players.
LikeLike
As for the issue of splitting, I don’t see the power schools leaving the NCAA. It wouldn’t accomplish much as they’d basically have to form a new version of the NCAA. Much more likely is a new split of I-A. I’d set a new minimum average attendance standard of 40,000 for each conference (or individual school for independents) and not allow any school to move up without an invitation or meeting the requirement. The entire conference must be at the same level, too.
The Super I-A would be allowed to pay the COL stipend to all athletes (or the equivalent partial amount for a partial scholarship) and cover health insurance and such, but it wouldn’t be mandatory. That would let smaller schools afford to be in the top level. The attendance standard would be mandatory, though, to reduce the number of freeloaders. In addition, the Super I-A would not be allowed to play I-AA or lower teams, just I-A and Super I-A. I-A teams would still be bowl eligible and could play against Super I-A teams in bowls. I’d change the CFP so that a regular I-A team could also take the G5 spot.
I’d also have the same sort of split for non-FB schools, with a minimum average attendance requirement for the conference. If they can’t draw the fans, then they can’t pay the stipend.
LikeLike
I’d set a new minimum average attendance standard of 40,000 for each conference (or individual school for independents) and not allow any school to move up without an invitation or meeting the requirement. The entire conference must be at the same level, too.
Does that mean every member of the conference must meet the average attendance standard? If that’s the case, goodbye Wake and Duke…and the ACC as well.
LikeLike
At 40,000 average per school, a number of ACC schools would not have made the cut last year: Wake and Duke obviously, BC and Maryland due to their downward trajectory, and even incoming Syracuse. Fortunately, as a conference the average is well above 40,000.
LikeLike
If you look at the 4 year average, there are only 8 who don’t make it and only WSU isn’t private. Baylor and Syracuse just miss. BC is mid 30s, but is down from their norm. Vandy, Northwestern and Wake are low 30s. WSU and Duke are in the 20s.
Only BYU, ECU and USF of the rest exceed 40k. And there are only a dozen others who exceed Dukes 27k average.
LikeLike
To be fair to WSU, the entire surrounding county will about fit in their stadium. Spokane and Boise are the only population bases of even modest size within several hundred miles. There is a reason George Raveling said about Pullman “it isn’t the end of the world, but you can see it from here.” You could argue they pull one of the highest percentages of the reasonably available “customers” in the nation.
LikeLike
Iowa State is invariably used as a whipping dog in such discussions (as it does when there’s talk of who to kick out from FBS), but it draws reasonably well for a lower-tier Big 12 member, averaging comfortably above 40,000
LikeLike
Attendance minimums are usually a proxy for other issues. No one cares whether Duke draws 40,000 to a football game. What they care about, is whether those schools are standing in the way of progress—as the larger schools define it.
For a variety of reasons, the Pac-12 still wants Washington State to remain eligible, the ACC still wants Duke, the Big Ten still wants Northwestern, etc. The big leagues wouldn’t allow the rules to be written in such a way that those schools get kicked out.
LikeLike
Their argument would be that it hurts the other schools in a conference if one gets punished. Part of the reason they are shying away from TV bans as part of probation.
LikeLike
There are six things that matter: 1: Attendance. 2: TV Market. 3: Competitive Ability in Football and Men’s Basketball. 4: Competitive ability in “Olympic Sports.” (perhaps the least important (see U-Conn)). 5: Growth Potential. 6: Academics (perhaps the most important factor for obvious reasons (such as Research $$$ and image)). Schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor and Duke will never have to worry about being kicked out of a Conference, because of how superior their Academics are. Schools like Washington State, Wake Forest, Boston College & Syracuse, are not in their category, and have much weaker cases to remain with the “Big Boys.” SU is a perfect example of this: As a football program, there is a declining interest in it, they play in a declining market, and yes, Academically speaking it is on the decline as well (“Voluntarily” leaving the AAU comes to mind). I know they are great in Lacrosse, and Boeheim is around for Hoops, but it is interesting the B10 chose Rutgers over them (before they left the AAU), because SU generally had the superior program to RU (particularly in Men’s Basketball), and they would have jumped at the chance to go to the B10. I suspect reasons: 2 & 5 are the primary reasons why RU instead of SU was chosen for the B10.
LikeLike
@David
I think you are severely overestimating Baylor’s academics. It is a fine school, it ranks well behind BC, Syracuse and WF in virtually every academic rankings (for all the Fredo jokes BC is an excellent undergraduate school). Also, while they will never be kicked out anytime soon (mostly because in modern history the only school to actually be kicked out a conference was Temple by the Big East when it was only a partial member) Baylor is virtually certain to be left behind if the Big XII ever collapses. BC and ‘Cuse on the other hand are simply likely to be left behind if the ACC goes under (Wake on the other hand would be left out in the cold).
I also don’t understand how you can say that the Big Ten chose Rutgers over Syracuse. What happened is that the Big Ten chose Nebraska over both of them, and then ‘Cuse was almost immediately booted from the AAU eliminating them as a future candidate.
LikeLike
Schools like Washington State, Wake Forest, Boston College & Syracuse, are not in their category, and have much weaker cases to remain with the “Big Boys.”
It just doesn’t work that way. No one is agitating to kick these schools out. As long as they cooperate with the desired rule changes, their seat at the table is assured.
Besides, if the Pac-12 kicked out WSU, they’d lose the right to stage a conference championship game. The other three that you mentioned are very good schools. They’re non-AAU at present, but not weak by any means. Wake is regularly mentioned as a likely AAU member at some point in the future. BC’s large endowment is better than a number of AAU schools. Syracuse is one of the ACC’s newer members [technically, not yet a member]: I think it’s safe to say they fit the league’s current strategy.
More importantly, the ACC isn’t going to kick anybody out: they need the numbers, and as a basketball-first league, they don’t really care if a few of their schools are not great at football.
I know they are great in Lacrosse, and Boeheim is around for Hoops, but it is interesting the B10 chose Rutgers over them (before they left the AAU), because SU generally had the superior program to RU…
Well, the Big Ten didn’t pick Pittsburgh either. There are a lot of schools the Big Ten didn’t choose. The fact that Syracuse isn’t useful to the Big Ten, doesn’t mean they’re useless to the ACC.
LikeLike
@Marc
I agree no is getting kicked out of any conference anytime soon, but losing the chance to stage a CCG or not having enough warm bodies isn’t why. The PAC would make more by replacing WSU with any of New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada or Boise St. UConn and Cincy would both make more money for the ACC than WF.
LikeLike
*The PAC would make more money
LikeLike
frug,
“I also don’t understand how you can say that the Big Ten chose Rutgers over Syracuse. What happened is that the Big Ten chose Nebraska over both of them, and then ‘Cuse was almost immediately booted from the AAU eliminating them as a future candidate.”
The B10 chose RU over SU in (large) part because of AAU membership, but it was definitely a choice. You make it sound like some outside force prevented the B10 from choosing SU.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Does that mean every member of the conference must meet the average attendance standard? If that’s the case, goodbye Wake and Duke…and the ACC as well.”
No, just the conference. I did that intentionally so conferences could have hoops-oriented schools and private schools and not suffer too much. They just need a balance of schools. The ACC averaged 48,000+ last year, for example. This rule also allows a conference to add a new school that isn’t up to the average as long as the conference can make up for it.
LikeLike
There is no one who expects any school to get kicked out of a Major Conference, but theoretically speaking, if one would the first in line would be Washington State, followed by Wake. The only way I see it happening is O’Bannon goes in such a one sided way in his favor, that finances demand Schools decide to drop football (which was hinted at Fresno State). I could see a number of smaller schools like a San Jose State, New Mexico State or Idaho doing exactly that, then a bigger School like Wazzu could go down
LikeLike
I’m amazed Eastern Michigan is still trying to do it. They drew less than 4k on average last year and have been under 8k 5 of the last 8 years. And the trend appears to be going down. Their 4 year average is 7,273, which is nearly 5,000 behind Ball St. who is next to last.
LikeLike
I agree with most of Brian’s observations, though I have some doubts about the following:
The LOI isn’t mandatory and a parent has to sign it anyway. They can pay for legal advice on that specific contract. There are advisory panels athletes can use in terms of preparing for the NFL.
Although the parent signs the LOI, it doesn’t change the reality that the institution does ~25 of these per year (in football), but the parents are seeing it for probably the only time in their lives. The school has quite a bit more information than the parents do.
I am pretty sure that NCAA rules don’t allow a kid to hire a lawyer to advise on that specific contract, even if the parents pay the lawyer. You can’t get around the no-agents rule by calling him your lawyer: many agents, in fact, have law degrees.
I think that if a kid hires a lawyer/agent to advise on his athletic career, he is deemed ineligible, regardless of who paid whom.
I’d rather see schools paying a fund that pays approved agents to advise players for free than letting players hire agents.
That idea would be worth exploring.
LikeLike
There are multiple websites and groups that provide free legal advice on the LOI (translating it into English from legalese, etc). I doubt paying for the same information is a problem. Regardless, the info is readily available to them.
Getting athletic career advice is different from getting a document explained to you. And even then, the ban only exists to prevent players from getting the cash advances from agents that would inevitably come with signing.
LikeLike
I believe that when the article referred to “Allow[ing] athletes to hire agents to protect their rights, including providing assistance in evaluating scholarship offers from institutions,” it did not mean merely explaining the LOI document.
And even then, the ban only exists to prevent players from getting the cash advances from agents that would inevitably come with signing.
Doesn’t the ban exclude all agents, not just the kind that provide cash advances to the players?
LikeLike
Yes, but that’s because all agents would pay. It’s inevitable.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I’ll need to take a look at if there are rules against receiving legal advice. To me, that would be easily grounds for any court to invalidate the terms of anything that an athlete signs (especially if it contains wide-reaching terms such as using a person’s likeness in perpetuity). You won’t find a judge anywhere that’s going to be sympathetic to a system where you are actually prevented from seeking legal advice. While many agents are also lawyers, there’s a delineation between acting as a lawyer (reviewing and providing legal advice on contract terms) and acting as an agent (setting up meeting with teams and endorsers, fronting fees for training prior to the draft). Some of the roles are blurred (i.e. negotiating salaries), but I have a hard time seeing how legal advice purely on contract/LOI terms could be prevented.
LikeLike
The current 15,000 minimum requirement is not enforced. If the NCAA simply enforced that requirement, most of the MAC and some Sun Belt teams would have been demoted already.
If you bump the minimum requirement to 30,000 average attendance per home game, it would work well, IF enforced on the CONFERENCE level (or enforced against single schools if they participate as an independent). The average attendance for the five power conferences would easily exceed the 30,000 minimum, so they would ALL move up. BYU (60K+) and Notre Dame (80K+) would easily pass this test and move up as independents.
The American would be right on the bubble, with it’s future 2015 affiliations (including 33K average Navy) averaging 31K for 2011 and 2012.
The MWC would be under the 30,000 requirement, with its 2013 members averaging just under 25K for the last 2 years.
C-USA and Sun Belt average around 20K for the last 2 years. The MAC, AS AN ENTIRE CONFERENCE, barely meets the current 15,000 minimum requirement. Interestingly, most of the new schools moving up to FBS average about 20-25K per home game.
So, potentially San Diego St. (35K average) and Boise St. (35K average) would reconsider American Conference affiliation [and may be add Air Force (33K average) too]…and the AAC would survive the cut – or shed off some of the lower performers such as Tulane and Memphis – especially if they do not feel that they can afford athlete stipends.
The MWC leftovers, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt could remain in the FBS lower division (along with some FCS newcomers), without athlete stipends, and would actually be well-aligned in many respects.
The new FBS Super division would have roughly 80 members over 6 divisions. They would be well-aligned on many levels, including athlete stipends, budgets, and fan bases (with obvious power tiers within the FBS Super). You could keep the bowl system in place and allow the FBS Super to count one victory of FBS lower toward bowl eligibility – to enable the power schools to continue to have 7 home games. You could even continue to allow the FBS lower division champ to play in a CFB access bowl game. A 4-team playoff of the FBS lower champs would be an exceptional way to determine access.
Best of all, this would set the stage for an 8-team CFP with automatic bids to each of the six FBS Super conference champions and two at large bids. This would not only ensure the significance of the regular season, but enhance it. A conference championship would be the golden ticket to the CFP. Allowing the non-champ at large bids will still give the runners up and independents something to play for and enhance the late-season games that don’t necessarily have conference championship implications. Limiting it to only two at large participants would prevent numerous participants from the same conference – which can water down the regular season.
Before the doubts fly, consider that the American champ would likely often reach the playoff as the #8 seed, playing on the road at the #1 team in the nation. It’s actually a nice fit because all conference champs are included (improving , but the best team in the country is rewarded by getting a home game against a team that likely is overrated. Also, with the bowl system in place, teams that are out of the conference race would still have a bowl bid to play for.
LikeLike
The MWC leftovers, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt could remain in the FBS lower division (along with some FCS newcomers), without athlete stipends, and would actually be well-aligned in many respects.
I don’t really understand the emphasis on attendance as the dividing line. As long as they agree to the stipend, who cares? What’s more, your proposal would really screw a handful of western schools, who’d need to adopt grueling travel schedules just to avoid relegation.
Best of all, this would set the stage for an 8-team CFP with automatic bids to each of the six FBS Super conference champions and two at large bids. This would not only ensure the significance of the regular season, but enhance it.
Yuck. On so many levels, just yuck. First of all, I’m not sure you’ll ever see an 8-team playoff, but if you ever do, it’s many years away. I think the agreement for the 4-team playoff, which starts after the 2014 season, is a 12-year deal.
Moreover, why do you think that autobids enhance the regular season? It’s complete nonsense. With or without autobids, anyone who qualifies for an 8-team playoff must have had a very good season.
But autobids often reward unworthy candidates. Last year, for instance, Wisconsin got the Big Ten’s Rose Bowl bid, because: A) It finished 3rd in its division, and #1-2 were ineligible; and B) Nebraska pooped in the B1G championship game. Had there been a playoff, the Big Ten’s representative would have been an 8-5 team only barely in the top 25.
This phenomenon isn’t isolated to the Big Ten: the last two years, the Big East’s representative has not been in the top 20; three years ago, their champion (Cincinnati) was unranked. In 2011, an unranked 6-6 UCLA team could have won the Pac-12, if it had pulled off an upset in the CCG.
As far as I’m concerned, if a particular league has three teams in the top 8, then those three teams should make the playoff. Far from watering down the regular season, you enhance it, by demonstrating a commitment to rewarding excellence.
LikeLike
Part of the problem with a very large number of at-large bids is you incentivize rankings gamesmanship. For a good example of this, see the Mountain West and the basketball RPI ( http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?showtopic=46932 is one example of the discussion).
So there is a material advantage to having fixed auto-bids for league that regularly churn out respectable contenders, though obviously the disadvantage is that sometimes unworthy teams flow through instead. And of course, the second disadvantage is that the mid-majors would keep whining about being left out (which is one of the reasons that people assume a 1-A split is likely in the near future, since that solves the mid-major problem by simply getting rid of them).
LikeLike
Part of the problem with a very large number of at-large bids is you incentivize rankings gamesmanship. . . . So there is a material advantage to having fixed auto-bids for league that regularly churn out respectable contenders, though obviously the disadvantage is that sometimes unworthy teams flow through instead.
I’m not persuaded that it would work that way in football. The basketball tournament accepts 68 teams — far more than have any plausible chance of winning the tournament. An 8th seed is the lowest that has ever won and that only happened once. So the bottom 36 teams are basically all cannon-fodder. The gamesmanship is mainly around teams that fill out that bottom half. No one has ever suggested that, as a result of manipulation, a team that should have won it all was excluded altogether.
Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting, as basketball can. It therefore becomes a lot more important to make sure that the teams selected actually belong there. The whole reason they’ve decided to select the football playoff teams by committee is because they realize that mathematical rankings could easily produce a perverse outcome. The option of granting autobids was expressly considered and soundly rejected.
Of course, no committee will produce an outcome that everyone agrees is perfect — this being sports, after all, where passionate disagreement over even the most basic things is expected. But I do think they can do better than polluting the field with a lot of autobids. In the basketball tourney, usually the weakest teams in the field are autobids, and that would happen in football too.
And of course, the second disadvantage is that the mid-majors would keep whining about being left out (which is one of the reasons that people assume a 1-A split is likely in the near future, since that solves the mid-major problem by simply getting rid of them).
Actually, the new system (after the 2014 regular season) gives the mid-majors more access than they’ve ever had, and I think they know it. They realize full well that the only direction it can go, if they complain too much, is to get worse.
LikeLike
“In the basketball tourney, usually the weakest teams in the field are autobids…”
Possibly true, but usually when the auto bid is designated to the conf tourney champ and not the reg season champ. Easy to have a couple upsets there disrupt things. Hardly a reason to dismiss auto bids out of hand. It is a reason to not allow for those kind of occurrences. Auto bids to conf reg season champs only. Conference tourneys can bolster at large hopefulls resume’s.
“The option of granting autobids was expressly considered and soundly rejected.”
I recall considerable discussion. Not being adopted does not equal “soundly rejected”, in fact something with that probable income wouldn’t likely be broached, except perhaps as a PR obligation.
“Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting…”
I suggest it has already happened with a non conference champ and non division champ getting an inter conference “do over” in a selection of only two.
LikeLike
The regular season champs ARE often the worst of the teams in the tournament. There are about 10 conferences that really have no business in Division I.
LikeLike
Not when those conferences reg reason champs get upset in conf tourney.
Sheesh. We have 68 teams included, and you’re begrudging a spot or two that, at worst, might displace another team with no probability of doing much either because of “lineage”? What could be less fair and pre judgmental? I’d much prefer a limitation requiring at least being in top 1/4 of your conference (9 Big East schools? Really?). That wouldn’t exclude anyone deserving, yet be inclusive of a possibly under appreciated winner.
LikeLike
I don’t have an issue with the basketball tourney selection rules. Everyone with even the remotest chance of winning it, gets a bid. More than half of the field are practically certain to lose at some point. Replacing an autobid with another sure loser doesn’t really matter to me.
Auto bids to conf reg season champs only. Conference tourneys can bolster at large hopefuls’ resumes.
I don’t care what method a league uses to choose its autobid team. The ACC has a long history of designating the league tournament winner as its champion, and I’m not about to suggest that they may no longer do so.
I’d much prefer a limitation requiring at least being in top 1/4 of your conference (9 Big East schools? Really?). That wouldn’t exclude anyone deserving, yet be inclusive of a possibly under appreciated winner.
I think every D1 league has an autobid, so your rule would simply exclude one class of non-champs and replace them with worse teams. No thanks.
“Football will never have the option of grossly over-selecting…”
I suggest it has already happened with a non conference champ and non division champ getting an inter conference “do over” in a selection of only two.
By over-selecting, I meant selecting a large field, most of which has no chance of winning, as is the case in basketball, but not in football, where only two (starting next year, four) are selected. Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.
LikeLike
The 16 seeds get destroyed. Its a waste of time. Those conferences have no business being in there.
I don’t think a 9th place team in a conference that couldn’t win in the regular season and couldn’t win in the conference tourney has any business in the tourney either. Just makes it a longer, more difficult road for the best teams.
The tournament is too big. When USC was probably the 2nd best team in the nation behind UCLA and couldn’t get in, the tourney was too restrictive. But at 68, there are way too many teams. I’d rather see a smaller NCAA tourney and a more meaningful NIT. And there’s still the CIT and CBA. About 150 schools get into postseason. They don’t need a huge NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
“The ACC has a long history of designating the league tournament winner as its champion, and I’m not about to suggest that they may no longer do so.”
I will. The point is that for the ACC it would have no impact unless a truly undeserving team rose up in the conf tourney. 99% of the time the same ACC teams will be included regardless of tourney results. In the lesser conferences it certainly does make a difference. Remember a few years ago the 28-1 team excluded because they lost in the conf tourney?
LikeLike
“I think every D1 league has an autobid, so your rule would simply exclude one class of non-champs and replace them with worse teams. No thanks.”
I don’t understand. Are you saying a one weekend tourney is definitive and a full season of results is deceptive? Why do we keep score if its all practice for the season ending weekend? Cancel my season tickets, they are worthless…
“Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.”
Key point: they were given a SECOND chance. They lost in their first chance at LSU. How many chances was OkST afforded? Or any of the other top five or six who hadn’t lost to LSU? Even Oregon’s loss was a non conference season opener and to me is far less defining than an in conference, in division, much later in the season loss. That selection was the definition of over selection from a single conference.
LikeLike
The 16 seeds get destroyed. Its a waste of time. Those conferences have no business being in there.
I agree that the tourney is too large; I didn’t support the expansion to 68, nor to 64. Obviously, they did it because the games have proved popular. In fact, 68 was a compromise: they had considered going even higher than that. If it’s going to be 68, I really don’t care which guaranteed losers are selected. It’s dumb any way you slice it.
I don’t understand. Are you saying a one weekend tourney is definitive and a full season of results is deceptive? Why do we keep score if its all practice for the season ending weekend? Cancel my season tickets, they are worthless.
I agree that your proposed rule is better. However, it’s also something that I don’t care to fix with legislation. If a league chooses a dumb rule, and thereby wastes its autobid on a less deserving team, then they deserve what they get. Maybe they’ll learn their lesson next time.
“Obviously, the non-division champ you’re referring to “had a chance of winning,” given that they in fact won.”
Key point: they were given a SECOND chance. They lost in their first chance at LSU. How many chances was OkST afforded?
Had a committee been deciding, instead of a formula, I think they would’ve picked OkSt for the valid reasons you cite. You probably recall that in the early years of the BCS, they changed the formula every few years, because it kept “selecting” the wrong teams. If the BCS weren’t headed to the glue factory, I suspect they’d change it again. And later on, it would surely fail again.
That selection was the definition of over selection from a single conference.
Remember, the original poster had suggested an 8-team playoff with a bunch of autobids. I was responding to that suggestion. In the current system where there’s only two, there’s bound to be under-selection in most years. If there can only be two, I would have selected Oklahoma State, rather than the Alabama-LSU rematch.
But if there were 8 team playoff, I wouldn’t have loaded up the field with autobids, where an unranked AAC champ could get a bid while an 11-1 Alabama did not.
LikeLike
Marc:
I guess we are almost in full agreement.. I just don’t envision a scenario in which five conference champion auto bids, plus three at larges, would ever cost a top five team a spot. Again, to truely be deserving – win your conference (and I really don’t want a conference do over NCG ever again).
LikeLike
Had a committee been deciding, instead of a formula, I think they would’ve picked OkSt for the valid reasons you cite.
Actually, the computers favored Oklahoma St. It wast he humans that put Alabama in the NCG.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is stupid for letting Wisconsin play in the Conference Championship game to begin with. If #1 and #2 are ineligible, Nebraska should have been given the Big Ten title…the contenders were ineligible. That was stupid, from a competition stand point. Perhaps Nebraska pooped in the CC because it had already beaten Wisconsin and knew it was a farce. The Big Ten felt it had to stage a conference championship and still has egg on its face for having its top two contenders facing sanctions and postseason ineligibility.
But even ignoring the eligibility issues, with auto bids, there are at least 2 teams from every conference that will have a legitimate chance to make the 8-team CFP at the end of the regular season. Thus, the games become more important for more teams. This enhances the regular season. The 2 at large spots still allow for the top two contenders a hope for the CFP, again making games important for more teams. The conference championship become HUGE. The winner gets a spot in the CFP. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Also, if a particular league has three teams in the top 8, then it devalues the regular season tremendously, much like the NFL, and even the conference championship. If Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are all in the top 5, the Florida-Georgia game and the SEC championship game lose tons of significance.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is stupid for letting Wisconsin play in the Conference Championship game to begin with. If #1 and #2 are ineligible, Nebraska should have been given the Big Ten title…the contenders were ineligible.
Sorry, but that’s just impossible. The Big Ten had signed contracts with multiple parties to play the game (the stadium, the network). People had bought tickets. You can’t wait till a few weeks before the game, and then say, “Ooops! It looks like one of the teams is going to suck; therefore, we’re canceling.”
But even ignoring the eligibility issues, with auto bids, there are at least 2 teams from every conference that will have a legitimate chance to make the 8-team CFP at the end of the regular season. Thus, the games become more important for more teams. This enhances the regular season.
I don’t believe it. Remember when the geniuses who run college football said they opposed a playoff because it would devalue the regular season? Now we have a playoff—without autobids, I might add. It seems that wasn’t such a fundamental objection, after all.
No matter what your system, you can always dream up situations where particular games are technically meaningless, e.g., the final game of the regular season, where a team has a 2-game lead in its division. But the teams seldom actually treat it that way: Michigan and Ohio State, for example, always give everything in their game, even if one of the teams (or both) has nothing left to play for.
Since you can have meaningless games and teams with nothing to play for in any system, the best system is to choose the 8 best teams. How is that so difficult to understand? Out of ~120 FBS teams, you have to be one of the best 8, and the regular season is your audition. If that doesn’t make the regular season relevant, I don’t know what does.
LikeLike
Athletic expenditures vs. Academic Rankings
http://www.buzzfeed.com/arunmikkilineni/the-most-academically-and-athletically-dominant-colleges-in
LikeLike
Important notes:
1. It’s only some of the state schools in I-A.
2. It uses Forbes’ academic rankings.
3. Remember, it’s athletic expenditures, not athletic success.
Worst quadrant:
MS St, MS
NCSU, Clemson
ASU
TT
WY
Best quadrant:
MI, OSU, WI, PSU, IL, UMD
UF, UGA, TAMU
FSU, UNC, UVA
OR, UW, UCLA
UT
UL
For their top 10 list, though, they equally weighted athletic and academic rankings. The problem is that their academic list includes many schools not on the athletics list. Thus, elite academics carry more weight than athletics. That’s why a school not in the best quadrant made their top 10 list.
1. MI
2. UF
3. UT
4. UNC
5. UVA
6. UCLA
7. Cal – not in top quadrant
8. IL
9. UGA
10. WI
Based on their plot, the list should be more like this:
1. MI
2. UT
3. UF
4. OSU
5. UVA
6. PSU
7. WI
8. UNC
9. UCLA
10. UGA*
Cal would be ahead of them except they are below the origin on the chart in athletic expenditures.
LikeLike
It’s good to see Iowa putting forth the effort to fund their program at an elite level. Hopefully their on field results trend upwards to reflect that.
I also thought Minnesota was ranked too low academically. And WTF is Louisville doing so far to the right on the academic scale?
LikeLike
Blapples,
They must have screwed up when making the plot. UL was #541 out of 650 in the Forbes rankings.
LikeLike
Totally off topic, but since I mentioned my addiction to the BBC show “Orphan Black” a few weeks ago here, I’m sharing this article pushing the lead character for an Emmy:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/tatiana-maslany-ophan-black-emmys-patton-oswalt
LikeLike
corrected link:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/tatiana-maslany-orphan-black-emmys-patton-oswalt
LikeLike
Some are looking to switch to a livelier ball in college baseball since offense is down so much since the most recent changes in 2010.
Since the height of the so-called Gorilla Ball era in 1998, when Louisiana State crushed eight home runs in its C.W.S. opener and Southern California and Arizona State combined for eight in the final (won by the Trojans, 21-14), the N.C.A.A. placed multiple restrictions on aluminum bats.
It reduced barrel size, banned composite bats and adopted a new standard to address concerns about pitcher safety, out-of-control scoring and lengthy game times. The standard is known as B.B.C.O.R, for Batted Ball Coefficient of Resolution, a formula measuring the speed of a ball off the bat.
College teams averaged 6.98 runs and .94 home runs a game in 2010 before the new standard was adopted, according to the N.C.A.A. Figures as of March 31 this season (the most recent available), showed a drop to 5.25 runs and .37 homers. Teams are averaging twice as many sacrifices (.74) as home runs. And team batting fell to .270, which, if it stands, will be the lowest since 1973, the last year collegians swung wooden bats.
That has turned this year’s C.W.S. into a bunting contest. Twelve games through Friday night featured 21 sacrifices and 3 home runs. Teams hit 10 homers last year and 9 in 2011, compared with 32 in 2010, pre-B.B.C.O.R. Not since 1974 — when only eight home runs were hit in the first year of aluminum — have there been so few. And in three years at TD Ameritrade, no one has homered to center field.
On the other hand, there are proponents of the status quo.
Indiana Coach Tracy Smith said the change gave fundamentally sound teams from cold-weather states a better chance against traditional Sun Belt powers. Last season, the Northern teams Kent State and Stony Brook reached the C.W.S. for the first time. This year, the Hoosiers became the first Big Ten team to qualify since 1984. Smith said he saw plenty of well-hit balls — his team slugged 53 home runs this season, though none in Omaha — and loved the renewed emphasis on pitching, defense and situational hitting.
“When I heard the coaches talk about changing the ball and doing all these things, I was like, what are they trying to do now?” he said. “Are certain groups not succeeding because they’re not having success playing real baseball? I don’t get it. The game has been more like baseball than it has been for a long, long time. Those 20-18 games, they’re not healthy.”
LikeLike
HR’s were low in Omaha, the primary face of college baseball in mainstream media. If appeasing ESPN and their announcers junkie like need to announce home runs, rather than learn how to appreciate, understand, and explain all the other exciting aspects of the game, bring the fences in a bit at TD Ameritrade. Don’t screw up the game in every other ball park. I still miss the crack of wood, but at least these bbcore bats don’t sound as tin like as before.
LikeLike
And doesn’t a livelier ball defeat the safety purpose of controlling the bats?
LikeLike
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9341896/why-bret-bielema-chose-leave-wisconsin-program-made-three-straight-rose-bowls-coach-arkansas-middle-pack-sec-team
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130623/big-ten-pac-12-bowls.ap/?sct=uk_t2_a3
As expected, The B10 and P12 have agreed to play in the Holiday and SF bowls.
A person familiar with the decision told The Associated Press that the Fight Hunger Bowl is moving up in the Pac-12’s selection order. It will have the fourth selection from the conference after the College Football Playoff, of which the Rose Bowl is a part, the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas, and the Holiday Bowl. The Fight Hunger Bowl currently has the sixth selection from the Pac-12.
I really hope the SF bowl flops miserably so the B10 doesn’t renew it. I know the B10 doesn’t have complete control over which bowls they get, but they seemed to want this setup.
My main issues:
1. It’s too many P12 games.
I prefer diversity (2 each for ACC, B12, P12 and SEC would be ideal, plus 1 MAC for 9 bowls). Also, the P12 isn’t the best choice for drawing fans nationally (Roes Bowl yes, but interest drops off fast after their top 2 or 3 usually).
2. It’s too many CA games, especially compared to the number of B10 alumni there.
For all their complaints about too many FL and TX games before, they’ve just set up the same issue in CA.
We have yet to learn when all these games will be played, but it sounds like several will be in December. That beats playing 4 at once, obviously, but it also means a loss of prestige. There’s not much you can do about that with the CFP dominating 12/31 and 1/1. I’m hoping there are fewer post-1/1 games (preferably none except the NCG).
LikeLike
I’m interested to see the details of how this tiered system is going to work.
LikeLike
Let’s see:
The easy part:
1. CFP
2. Rose
3. Orange/Cap 1 (ACC gets Cap 1 when B10 gets Orange)
The mess:
4. Outback/Holiday/KFH/Gator/Music CIty/Armed Forces/Heart of Dallas/Pinstripe/Detroit/Other
And every bowl in the mess has agreed to the 5 teams in 6 years rule.
LikeLike
I’d guess the mess splits about like this:
4. Outback/Holiday/KFH/Gator/Music City
5. AF/HoD/Pinstripe/Detroit/Other
Also, while the SEC and ACC will also use tiers, the P12 won’t. The Holiday gets P12 #3 and the KFH gets P12 #4.
LikeLike
It looks like a 3 tier process beyond the Rose/Orange
“Top tier: Capital One, Outback, Holiday
Middle tier: Gator/Music City (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), Kraft Fight Hunger, Pinstripe
Lower tier: Heart of Dallas/Armed Forces (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), new Detroit bowl (managed by Detroit Lions) ”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/78767/b1g-to-adopt-tiered-bowl-selection-process
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/78767/b1g-to-adopt-tiered-bowl-selection-process
Here’s the official word so far.
Delany said the Holiday Bowl in San Diego will be in the top tier of Big Ten bowls. Although the league hasn’t officially announced it will continue agreements with the Capital One and Outback bowls, those games also will be in the top tier.
The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl in the San Francisco area and the Pinstripe Bowl in New York will be in the middle tier, Delany said.
No other Big Ten bowl agreements have been officially announced, but here’s what the tiers likely will look like, based on conversations with league sources.
Top tier: Capital One, Outback, Holiday
Middle tier: Gator/Music City (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), Kraft Fight Hunger, Pinstripe
Lower tier: Heart of Dallas/Armed Forces (sharing a tie-in during six-year agreement), new Detroit bowl (managed by Detroit Lions)
The Big Ten could add another lower-tier bowl on the East Coast, and the Military Bowl in the Washington D.C. area is a possibility. Dropping out of the Big Ten’s lineup are the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Meineke Care Care Bowl of Texas and the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl.
LikeLike
@Brian – Those reported tiers make sense. The Holiday Bowl historically has been an upper tier bowl – it was only in the last bowl cycle where it got trumped in its payout (and I think that they’ve responded by increasing it to be more competitive).
By the way, I’m not bothered by the new slate of California bowls at all. No one is going to get Rose Bowl fatigue (and if they do, then that’s the ultimate first world college football problem), the Big Ten loses the automatic Rose tie-in every 3 years to the playoff system, and the non-power programs of the conference that haven’t realistically competed for the Rose Bowl slot now get a chance to go to California. Plus, the Florida fatigue is based on the fact that even though the Capital One, Outback and Gator Bowls were in different cities, a lot (most?) travelers would make Orlando/Disney World/Universal Studios into a primary part of those trips, so it felt like going to the same place over and over again. Northern California and Southern California are completely different experiences culturally and geographically along with being far enough apart physically that they could be two different states. Las Vegas and Phoenix are closer to LA and San Diego than San Francisco is. Side trips to Orlando are common to those going to Tampa and Jacksonville, but San Francisco isn’t a side trip from San Diego or LA.
Maybe it’s my older age thinking, but for anything other than a CFP bowl, distance isn’t anywhere near as important in attractiveness for a bowl destination as whether the location is a place that I’d want to visit whether there’s a bowl there or not. That’s what I like about the California-based bowls – Texas-based bowls sound good in theory, but Midwesterners have never thought of Texas as a natural winter vacation destination in the way that they look at Florida or California (notwithstanding the fun setting of the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio). I’m very certain that this was part of the thinking of the Big Ten in shifting a lot more from Texas to California in its new bowl lineup (but still retaining the Florida tie-ins). It’s smart of the Big Ten to still have at least one game per year in Texas for recruiting purposes, but it’s just not the same draw for winter tourists.
The only bowl loss that is an overall negative is the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl since Phoenix is such a strong home for Big Ten alums. Looking at the projected bowl lineup, though, it would have been hard to fit that game in with the new Holiday, Kraft Fight Hunger and Pinstripe tie-ins.
LikeLike
I think they wanted the Holiday and had to give up the Texas Bowls since they didn’t offer good enough teams. But you are right about the vacation destination. Midwesterners overwhelmingly think of I-75 and Florida and don’t think of Texas. I remember a lot of comments about how pleasantly surprised the Big 10 fans/team were in San Antonio and Houston. A few bowl trips don’t change that perception.
LikeLike
Frank,
In all my years in the midwest, I basically never knew anyone who went to CA in winter without having family there to visit. Everyone went south, not west. Maybe Chicagoans are different, or maybe that was just the luck of the draw in terms of where I lived and who I knew. I knew a few people that went to TX, but most chose FL. Having been to both, I personally would take FL over CA for a winter vacation every time. I’d choose CA in spring to fall, though.
My issue is that the B10 is over-addressing the supposed problem. The 5 teams in 6 years rule plus using tiers already eliminates the bowl fatigue issue. They didn’t need to also change bowls for that. They also made a big deal about having too many bowls in one state, then did it again in a state with many fewer fans and alumni.
LikeLike
I live in Minnesota, and plenty of people go to California throughout the winter here, plenty – family or not. Minnesotans go west and south, but west more often than other Midwesterners. But there is some truth that the snow bird and tourist numbers to Cali have dipped in part because Arizona replaced the Inland Empire for many Minnesota snow birds. Once upon a time, Midwesterners went West, esp Calif, in huge waves, but mainly to resettle. Ca hit its intra-migration plateau long ago & it won’t be long before Florida encounters the same. If I’m not mistaken, Cali immigration is predominantly international at this point. Florida and Tx, of course deal with international immigration as well, but man, I know a lot of Minnesotans who’ve gone to Austin – but not necessarily for good – swing both places.
AZ became the cheaper alternative for Minnesota snow birds, and now Colorado (half backing) and south Texas. Florida has been there throughout much of this period, esp St. Pete & Tampa, but the peak has passed. If tickets were cheaper to California, things might change. I personally find Florida, most of it, duller than normal, each time I visit. Flordia certainly doesn’t have California’s spectacular geography & history.
LikeLike
Pretty sure the Outback & Capital One are set, just not official.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“I’m interested to see the details of how this tiered system is going to work.”
The biggest issue to me is how they work the 5 teams in 6 years rule with the tiers. Obviously the Rose and Orange aren’t getting tiered teams. How low of a team can be bumped out how high to meet the diversity requirement? Will B10 #7 play in the Cap1 because #1 and 2 are in the CFP and #3-6 already played in the Cap1 or FL in general?
LikeLike
@Brian- I see your arguments, but I think you miss the B1G’s larger strategic thinking.
There is a general Florida fatigue within the B1G for some of the bowl games. Fans, especially ones who travel, take a “been there, done that” attitude to games in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. By adding destinations on the west coast, fans now have new travel destinations, San Diego and the Bay Area (which is pretty year round, even if not all that warm) added to the bowl rotation.
Moreover, while January 1 is unquestionably a more prestigious date for bowl games, its far less convenient for travelling fans because everybody has to be back at work on January 2 (assuming its not a weekend). Games in late December, in between Christmas and New Years, are far more vacation friendly.
Combining vacation-friendly scheduling and new destinations, I think the B1G did well this time around. It still has multiple games in FL and TX (important for alumni and recruiting) and it presents travelling alumni with new destinations and coaches with new recruiting opportunities.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“@Brian- I see your arguments, but I think you miss the B1G’s larger strategic thinking.”
I think I disagree with it more than I miss it.
“There is a general Florida fatigue within the B1G for some of the bowl games.”
Then drop the craptastic Gator Bowl. But no, they kept it.
“Fans, especially ones who travel, take a “been there, done that” attitude to games in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. By adding destinations on the west coast, fans now have new travel destinations, San Diego and the Bay Area (which is pretty year round, even if not all that warm) added to the bowl rotation.”
The B10 is also implementing the 5 teams in 6 years rule. They could have done that with the current lineup and alleviated the fatigue issue.
“Moreover, while January 1 is unquestionably a more prestigious date for bowl games, its far less convenient for travelling fans because everybody has to be back at work on January 2 (assuming its not a weekend). Games in late December, in between Christmas and New Years, are far more vacation friendly.”
That really depends on the person. After 1/1 is inconvenient, certainly. Traveling near Christmas is a huge problem for many people.
“It still has multiple games in FL”
Too many, since it kept the Gator and added the Orange.
“and TX”
2 part-time tie-ins (according to rumors) from 2 full time tie-ins, plus they lost AZ.
LikeLike
Other bowl news:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9416791/acc-pinstripe-bowl-6-years-sources-say
The ACC will face the B10 in the Pinstripe, but they only get a 6 year deal while the B10 got 8 years.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC wonders which conference school will follow the path of Oregon and Central Florida and set up an unorthodox basketball court design. (Attention Andy: He predicts it will be either Mizzou or Miss State.) See some of the designs — including one proposed for Louisiana State — at http://mrsec.com/2013/06/which-sec-school-will-be-the-first-to-go-nuts-with-its-hoops-court-design/.
LikeLike
Vincent – I seriously doubt we’ll ever see that design on the floor of the Pete Maravich Assembly Center.
LikeLike
I don’t think Mizzou would do this. We already have one of the nicest basketball arenas in the country, a pretty good basketball program that routinely brings in 4 and 5 star recruits, and fairly high attendance. I don’t think there’s any need to do something like this.
LikeLike
Just not used to Oregon making themselves look foolish with creative designs.
Maryland has to be the next to uglify their basketball court, right?
LikeLike
Maryland’s court design traditionally has been relatively sedate — the most recent change was the addition of the “MARYLAND” logo (with the horizontal state flag motif serving as an underline of sorts). I would hope Mark Turgeon and Brenda Frese would keep any changes minimal (perhaps make the foul lanes black outlined in gold to make all four school colors more visible and complement the red and white elsewhere on the floor). But heavens no, we don’t want an outline of the state flag covering the entire court at Comcast.
LikeLike
I think that they should take the Maryland state flag… and “tile” it like a Computer background all the way across the court. Very colorful. Might cause seizures though.
LikeLike
Like when Syracuse University wore alternate all-orange football uniforms — helmets, jerseys, pants. Optometrists in central New York did record business in ensuing weeks.
LikeLike
Those were top 5 worst uniforms in the history of people donning uniforms. But at least G-Rob made the team look good on the field. 😦
LikeLike
Crazy court designs: http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2013/06/25/crazy-court-designs/
LikeLike
The Pinstripe Bowl and the ACC have agreed to a six-year deal in which the ACC will annually play the Big Ten starting in 2014, sources said Monday.
Last month, the bowl announced an eight-year partnership with the Big Ten for the game played at Yankee Stadium.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9416791/acc-pinstripe-bowl-6-years-sources-say
I’m thinking the shorter term for the ACC is because they want a higher payout than the Yankees would agree to.
LikeLike
What the hell just happened, Bruins?
LikeLike
BLACKHAWKS!!!!!
Championship beer time!
LikeLike
Amazing finish.
LikeLike
@gfunk – It really was amazing. I was mentally preparing myself for Game 7 when the tying goal was scored and then the 2nd one went in before I could catch my breath. Boston pretty clearly outplayed the Hawks tonight up until the last 80 seconds, so that was an epic Buckner/David Tyree helmet catch-type collapse by the Bruins there.
LikeLike
Bhawks will always be my second favorite NHL team. I can’t tell you how many Bh & Northstar games I attended as a kid in the 80s: Secord vs Plett, Secord vs Jack Carlson (though I never saw them fight, Carlson was just too tough for anyone), Savard’s stickhandling magic, bench brawls, etc. I love seeing Toews succeed at this level, he gave my Gophers hell in college & Kane, an American, winning the MVP = awesome.
At least future alignment reunites us (Chicago & Minny) with St. Louis & Winnipeg. Nothing like some old-school-Norris Division hate, post Canadiens. Sure, I’ll miss the days of Detroit and Toronto, but maybe we’ll see them in the Cup finals. I think Winnipeg was only in the Norris for a couple of years. But the 1982-1992 Norris = unforgettable rivalries: Hawks, Leafs, Red Wings, Stars and Blues seemed inseparable. Unfortunately, none of us ever won a Cup during that alignment.
LikeLike
Someone call Mr. White (Breaking Bad) to figure the odds of the Blackhawks winning in this fashion, coupled with the 3 straight against Detroit, etc. etc.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – “I’m not in the hockey business. I’m in the empire business.”
LikeLike
Does the Cup first visit the Cell or go to the North Side?
LikeLike
@vp19 – White Sox are in town this week, so it might be visiting the Cell. The pictures of crowds in the streets in what NBCSN is calling “Downtown Chicago” right now is actually Wrigleyville, though.
LikeLike
ESPN and Kansas sign ESPN3 deal: http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/06/kansas-athletics-and-espn-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/
Surprised, but I’ve always believed Frank’s theory that Kansas has more value than most people realize.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Kansas is definitely valuable. They’re one of the few blue bloods where basketball legitimately matters in terms of TV value (the others being Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, Duke and UCLA) and the fan base is large and deep.
LikeLike
@Frank: Completely agree, and I think Delany & Co. have far more interest in Kansas than most would believe. Kansas is a definite possibility if/when the B1G gears up for expansion again in 12 years or so.
However, what’s surprising is that the focus of this agreement is on Kansas athletics as a whole, not just basketball: “ESPN3 will also deliver the Kansas Relays and multiple volleyball, baseball, softball and women’s soccer games.”
Maybe the Google Fiber buildout in KC has led to a drastic rise in internet-based TV programs there? Is ESPN positioning the Tres to be a 24 hour programming destination?
LikeLike
One thing that hasn’t come up is how much they got in the two deals. That’s not clear at all.
LikeLike
KU had an $86 million 12 year deal with IMG signed in April 2010. They had a $65 million 10 year deal with ESPN signed in April 2007. Not clear if they get any extra or just more exposure for other sports.
2007 ESPN deal:
http://www.kuathletics.com/genrel/041607aaa.html
LikeLike
This is the other deal, signed just before the ESPN with Time Warner:
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2013/jun/18/new-tv-deal-expands-ku-athletics-coverage-access/?mens_basketball.
LikeLike
And this is the 2010 IMG deal:
http://cjonline.com/sports/basketball/2010-04-08/ku_inks_86m_deal_with_img
LikeLike
The Big 12 tier 3 is nearly complete:
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor and Kansas St. signed media rights deals with Fox. Their games will be on Fox Sports Southwest.
Texas has the ESPN LHN deal.
Iowa St. has an Iowa St. network.
KU has the ESPN deal along with the Time Warner deal.
WVU signed an all-inclusive deal with IMG (each school has their separate contracts with IMG or Learfield for advertising, etc.), but it had to be re-bid due to a lawsuit by the previous holder of rights. IMG was going to distribute their games.
Interesting that Fox got OU, ESPN got Texas and ESPN and Time Warner split Kansas.
LikeLike
Fox has the BTN. ESPN has the SECN and will have an ACC Network if it happens. Time Warner and Comcast don’t own the Pac 12 network-the Pac 12 does, but they worked very closely with them.
LikeLike
“Time Warner and Comcast don’t own the Pac 12 network-the Pac 12 does, but they worked very closely with them.”
In what way, other than having carriage agreements, as they do with all channels they choose to carry?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6809599/pac-12-launch-national-regional-networks
Note the terminology, “The Pac-12 partnered with cable companies Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and Bright House to distribute the networks but wholly owns them.” Larry Scott used similar language when talking about it. I can’t give you specifics from the contract, but the terminology and quick acceptance indicates there are arrangements different from the typical adversarial carriage agreement.
LikeLike
That’s reaching. It’s common to refer an agreement necessary to the distribution as a partnership. They both see an opportunity to achieve their goals through a mutually benificial agreement that both are active parties to.
It would be odd to refer to your broadcast partner (I’m not sure how to otherwise label them) as your hired advisarial broadcast purveyor. That probably is often a more accurate discription, but one the principles don’t express in public.
LikeLike
Staples take on the KU deal; SI article. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130625/kansas-espn-media-deal/
Quote: “When those college rights deals expire, some interesting new bidders will likely have entered the marketplace opposite ESPN, Fox and CBS. Google sniffed around the Pac-12 in 2010, but the league wound up selling premium football and basketball to ESPN and Fox and placed the rest of its inventory on its own network. Maybe next time, Google will buy the rights of the Pac-12 or the SEC and stream games on a subscription-based YouTube channel. Or maybe Google Fiber will have expanded beyond Kansas City, Provo, Utah, and Austin, Texas. Maybe Google buys the Big 12’s rights and makes games available only to Google Fiber customers. Or maybe Netflix, which has begun to mix in original programming such as House of Cards and the new Arrested Development season, will try to multiply its subscriber base by streaming sports.”
LikeLike
One overlooked reason that the Big Ten is no longer playing in Arizona or multiple games in Texas is that other conferences (ACC and SEC) have lost bowltie-ins to the College Football Playoff. The ACC no longer has its #2 tie-in, the Chick-fil-a, and it now has Notre Dame eligible as an option in its lineup. The SEC, meanwhile, lost the Cotton AND the Chick-fil-a. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 lost no tie-ins to the CFP.
As a result, some of the Big Ten’s previous tie-ins were bound to be transferred.
But I would say the Big Ten came out well. The Cap One tie-in is now essentially Cap One/Orange, which qualifies as an upgrade. The Gator tie-in is now Gator/Music City, also an upgrade, IMO, because it adds variety and Nashville is a very fun city to visit (went to a fantastic Bachelor’s weekend there four years ago). The bowl in Houston will almost certainly go to the SEC, which needs a spot in Texas now that the Cotton is out if their rotation.
LikeLike
In other words, maybe it’s not as simple as the Big Ten not wanting to play as many games in Texas and more in California/New York. Maybe that’s what the Big Ten wants, but it was unlikely to continue playing games in Texas, anyway, because the SEC was going to squeeze them out of the Houston bowl, and the other Texas bowl games (Armed Forces @ TCU’s stadium, Alamo, Sun) were either unavailable or much lower-paying than the Holiday, KFH, or Pinstripe.
LikeLike
Other than the Alamo (B12-P12), the B1G could have had its pick of P12 matchups. It appears that the FHB in SF will be paying more than BWW in AZ or Sun in El Paso. Given the geography, both of those bowls have the P12 as their prime tie-in. I think most agree that 3 B1G-P12 bowls is enough.
The Armed Forces rotation is good for a lower tier bowl. New stadium and same airport as Dallas bowl.
LikeLike
Michael Burt,
“One overlooked reason that the Big Ten is no longer playing in Arizona or multiple games in Texas is that other conferences (ACC and SEC) have lost bowltie-ins to the College Football Playoff.”
I don’t think it’s overlooked as much as just taken as a given and not mentioned. Still, those bowls in AZ and TX didn’t have to change their tie-ins. It comes down to two things:
1. Who the bowls want
2. Which bowls the conferences want
A lot of factors go into those two things (payouts, locations, opponents, teams available, etc).
“The ACC no longer has its #2 tie-in, the Chick-fil-a, and it now has Notre Dame eligible as an option in its lineup.”
But it also added Cap1 access, replacing the B10 at least 3 times in 12 years. In addition, adding ND probably helped their desirability to various bowls a little bit.
“The SEC, meanwhile, lost the Cotton AND the Chick-fil-a.”
They probably view it as gaining yet more home-field advantage in the playoffs. The SEC has the Orange, Peach and Sugar Bowls all in their footprint with the Cotton Bowl right next door. It’s a big advantage for them.
“The Big Ten and the Pac-12 lost no tie-ins to the CFP.”
Because we had less desirable bowls and locations for the CFP in the first place. History meant the Rose, Sugar and Orange were in with the Fiesta and Cotton right behind. The only choice was for the sixth bowl, and the Peach had little realistic competition.
“As a result, some of the Big Ten’s previous tie-ins were bound to be transferred.”
But which ones and how hard did the B10 fight for them? It sounds like the B10 wanted the 3 CA games, which means they were happy to lose Phoenix (no use for 4 games out west). How hard has the B10 fought to have 2 TX bowls (they may still end up with 2)? Why is the B10 suddenly so fascinated with playing the ACC (from 0 to 2.3 bowls annually) at the cost of playing the B12 and MAC?
Also, you need to consider expansion. The B10 added NE, UMD and RU after negotiating the last round of bowls. The ACC added 3.5 and lost 1, the SEC added 2, the B12 lost 4 and added 2 and the BE crumbled. Of course some bowl tie-ins would change. But which ones and between which conferences was the question.
“The Cap One tie-in is now essentially Cap One/Orange, which qualifies as an upgrade.”
Except the SEC didn’t have to blur the two, so it moves the B10 down the prestige ladder. And that’s with the bowls knowing the SEC will often have 1 more CFP team than the B10.
“The Gator tie-in is now Gator/Music City, also an upgrade, IMO, because it adds variety and Nashville is a very fun city to visit (went to a fantastic Bachelor’s weekend there four years ago).”
Unfortunately the Gator, while a crappy bowl in a terrible location, pays roughly $900k more per team than the Music City lately though that may change in the future. The weather is also a little better in Jacksonville. I also prefer the Music City for the variety and the location, though. The money difference isn’t important to me, but it is to some others.
LikeLike
Go Blue.
LikeLike
Maryland hopes its Big Ten membership will foster new rivalries and elevate the profile of all of its 20 varsity teams. Football is a priority because it is the big-money sport in college, and there is so much room for attendance to grow at Maryland. Football accounted for nearly one-third of the revenue from all of the school’s varsity sports in the most recent data compiled by the U.S. Education Department.
And unlike the ACC, of which Maryland was a founding member, the Big Ten has its own television network, which pays big dividends to members.
For now, Maryland’s football program has not grown big enough to fill the stadium’s Tyser Tower, a $50.8 million modernization project that opened amid a recession in 2009 and included an expansion featuring luxury suites with bars and flat-screen TVs. As of early June, 48 of the tower’s 63 suites were committed. The rest wait for the better days that Maryland officials believe will come when Big Ten teams begin arriving, if not before.
As of June 4, Maryland had sold 15,046 football season tickets, according to the athletic department. That was 1,815 more than at the same time last year, but down from about 20,000 before the 2011 season. Maryland has won six of 24 games over the past two seasons.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-university-maryland-marketing-20130623,0,6966556.story
LikeLike
Capital One Cup Update:
This was actually a dramatic year on the men’s side. UCLA, UNC, Louisville and IU all made the CWS, thus each had a shot at winning the CUP with a NC. Due to point standings, pre-CWS, IU had the best odds of winning the Cup without securing a NC.
If the UCLA-MissSt score holds – the Bruins will edge IU by 1 point for the Cup high drama indeed. I don’t see UCLA losing. I was rooting for IU to win the Cup, but then again I have a hard time rooting for this Miss St. team. Their swagger was too much and now the superegos are about to deflate.
LikeLike
The C1C is still crap, no matter how often you try to sell it.
But regardless, how surprising is it that UCLA just won their first baseball title with 109 total NCAA titles?
LikeLike
Brian, it may be in your opinion but it it’s short life it has already been won by 2 different teams from 2 different conferences. Getting a check for 250K is not bad either for the winning school. At least it is not another decade of Stanford winning because they sponsor the most sports. If Mississippi State had won then Indiana would have won the Cup this year which would have been a win for the B1G. They do need to make some adjustments to scoring so sports few schools play are not overweighted.
LikeLike
The Cap One Cup is nothing more than Espn and Cap One Bank’s own little propaganda award…
Who cares…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
I’d be rather happy if Minnesota won a Capital One Cup, men or women. You’re making an excessive generalization.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Brian, it may be in your opinion but it it’s short life it has already been won by 2 different teams from 2 different conferences.”
So was the Director’s Cup in its first two years.
“At least it is not another decade of Stanford winning because they sponsor the most sports.”
Which is completely false. OSU has the most sports and has never won it. Stanford routinely scores points in the most different, though. No school can score points in more than 10 sports for each gender.
And for sports with fewer schools participating, the points drop off really quickly (all NC have the same value). Say a team finishes 10th. They might earn anywhere from 67.5 to 0 points.
Stanford’s points this year came from:
Cross Country (M&W)
Football
Field Hockey
W Soccer
WVB
WBB
W Fencing
Gymnastics (M&W)
Swimming (M&W)
Wrestling
Golf (M&W)
Tennis (M&W)
W Track
W Water polo
Points not counted:
W Lax, W Rowing, Softball
How many of those shouldn’t count?
And BTW, this year’s Director’s Cup was the closest race in a long time with 3 schools within about 30 points of each other (often Stanford has won by 200+).
LikeLike
Also, IN potentially winning the C1C doesn’t make it any more valid. I’d dismiss it if OSU won it.
LikeLike
Brian, My biggest pet peeve is Water Polo which is pretty exclusive to the PAC. Buckeyes may have more sports but I am willing to bet the sports they participate in are more across most of the major conferences. As for this years Directors Cup I believe it was Water Polo points that allowed Stanford to beat Florida this year. I do agree with the differential between crowded sports and ones that are not crowded tho and the disparity of points. I suggest awhile back that the point should be distributed by participation.
Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)
100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
60 points for 3 of 5
40 points for 2 of 5
20 points for 1 of 5
LikeLike
Brian,
Cut the quotations & then your spin, you do this all the time – your deconstruction skills need work. Your first quotes-capture then rebuttal of Duffman is absurd because hindsight proves that Stanford has pretty much won nearly every Director’s Cup at this point. The Capital One Cup’s system, flawed or not, will never allow for such dominance – it’s split amongst the sexes, foremost, and yes they weigh sports, albeit with some major flaws. As for high drama in this year’s Director’s Cup, it was over before the CWS was determined. Stanford won it by June 14, 2013. As for the Capital One Cup, it truly came down to the CWS and four teams, as mentioned, had a shot at winning it all.
The 100 points per sport system by the Director’s Cup, regardless of the sport’s participation, needs to get axed. Just as Capital One’s 60 points for lacrosse over say 30 points for Men’s & Women’s Swimming needs to get re-evaluated.
There’s a better system than the above two. Who’s going to start it? Is the better question. Or can Capital One and the Director’s Cup adjust for a fairer system. Your endless rants & justification for the Director’s Cup hit a wall every time you respond to me or someone else. No way should Water Polo earn 100 points. No! No! No! I feel the same way about fencing, among other sports.
As for your “fewer schools participating” argument, just sit back and really think about what you’re saying here. There’s just no justification for it other than the Director’s Cup – their continuous, illogical use of such a formula.
I do have a problem with Stanford winning the Director’s Cup nearly every year, partly because money plays a huge factor in Stanford’s success with athletics. They’re an incredibly rich school & with this money they clearly play the system each year. Finally, I think it’s quite interesting & frankly more fair that the Capital One crowns champs by sex.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Brian, My biggest pet peeve is Water Polo which is pretty exclusive to the PAC.”
No, it isn’t. There are 34 women’s water polo teams in D-I.
P12 – 5
B10 – 2 (about to be 3)
BE – 1
ACC – 1 (about to be 0)
http://www.collegewaterpolocoach.org/womens-division-i-water-polo-programs.html
Arizona State University
Brown University
Bucknell University
California State University, Bakersfield
California State University, Northridge
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Santa Barbara
Colorado State University
George Washington University
Hartwick College
Harvard University
University of Hawaii, Manoa
Indiana University, Bloomington
Iona College
Long Beach State University
Loyola Marymount University
Marist College
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Michigan
University of the Pacific
Princeton University
San Diego State University
San Jose State University
Santa Clara University
Siena College
University of Southern California
St. Francis College
Stanford University
Villanova
Wagner College
“Buckeyes may have more sports but I am willing to bet the sports they participate in are more across most of the major conferences.”
OSU – 39 teams
Stanford – 36 teams
OSU sports with less than 100 D-I teams:
Men’s gymnastics – 16 teams
Rifle – 21 teams
M VB – 23 teams
Fencing – 24 teams
Women’s hockey – 34 teams
Hockey – 58 teams
M LAX – 61 teams
Women’s gymnastics – 62 teams
Wrestling – 77 teams
Field hockey – 79 teams
Rowing – 87 teams
W LAX – 91 teams
Plus synchronized swimming.
“As for this years Directors Cup I believe it was Water Polo points that allowed Stanford to beat Florida this year.”
They are included in their total, yes, but any of the sports that got them more points than the gap to UF could be said to have allowed them to beat UF. Why shouldn’t they get to count WWP? If you don’t count Women’s Gymnastics either then Stanford would’ve won. Besides, what stops UF from being good at some of these small sports, too?
“Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)”
What makes those conferences special outside of the major sports? Plenty of small schools do well in the other sports (hoops, hockey, lax, etc).
“100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
60 points for 3 of 5
40 points for 2 of 5
20 points for 1 of 5”
All this does is favor SEC schools because they sponsor fewer sports, devaluing everyone else’s wins. One team adding or dropping a sport shouldn’t change it’s value by up to 100%.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Your first quotes-capture then rebuttal of Duffman is absurd because hindsight proves that Stanford has pretty much won nearly every Director’s Cup at this point.”
But was I factually correct? We have no idea what hindsight will have to say about the C1C, so I compared apples to apples.
“The Capital One Cup’s system, flawed or not,”
It’s definitely flawed. Even most of its supporters admit that.
“will never allow for such dominance”
And you know this how? There’s nothing inherent in the DC that should make Stanford a perennial champ, yet they are.
” – it’s split amongst the sexes, foremost,”
So it’s impossible for one school to be dominant in women’s sports? Or in men’s sports? But magically when combined it’s easy to dominate?
“As for high drama in this year’s Director’s Cup, it was over before the CWS was determined. Stanford won it by June 14, 2013. As for the Capital One Cup, it truly came down to the CWS and four teams, as mentioned, had a shot at winning it all.”
And literally tens of people probably follow either “race” closely.
“Your endless rants & justification for the Director’s Cup”
I’ve never justified the DC. I’ve explained how it works and explained how it is incompatible with the C1C since they measure different things. You keep trying to sell the value of something created by ESPN and a sponsor versus something created by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics. Guess which one the ADs are more likely to care about? I’ve never cared whether you like the DC or not and have said so repeatedly. I’m not trying to convert anyone.
“No way should Water Polo earn 100 points. No! No! No! I feel the same way about fencing, among other sports.”
The C1C is at least as bad in valuing sports, plus it has an agenda.
“As for your “fewer schools participating” argument,”
It’s not an argument, it’s a statement of fact. The points drop off faster the fewer teams compete for the championship.
“There’s just no justification for it other than the Director’s Cup – their continuous, illogical use of such a formula.”
So finishing #10 in a 64 team bracket should be valued the same as #10 in a 16 team bracket? That’s what you’re arguing for, which seems stupid to me.
“I do have a problem with Stanford winning the Director’s Cup nearly every year, partly because money plays a huge factor in Stanford’s success with athletics.”
Yes, that surely explains why OSU with more revenue and more sports can’t touch them. Neither can UT, the clear leader in annual revenue. Nor can other rich private schools like ND or the Ivies. It’s a conspiracy to reward Stanford.
“They’re an incredibly rich school & with this money they clearly play the system each year.”
Yes, by being good in a lot of sports. That’s the whole point, though. UF scored points in almost all of the same sports as Stanford
Fall – The only difference was Stanford scoring in women’s field hockey. They both scored in the same 5 other sports.
Winter – Stanford scored in WBB while UF scored in MBB. Stanford scored in fencing and men’s gymnastics and wrestling. UF scored in women’s indoor track. Both scored in 4 others.
Spring – UF scored in W LAX and softball (Stanford couldn’t count those teams or rowing) and men’s track. Stanford scored in W water polo. They both scored in 5 others.
That’s 14 sports in common out of a possible 20 that can count, plus they both play some more sports in common (MBB and WBB, for example). Yeah, Stanford really games the system. How dare they offer more sports rather than focusing on CFB like an SEC school?
“Finally, I think it’s quite interesting & frankly more fair that the Capital One crowns champs by sex.”
Good for you. Again, that’s the C1C measuring something different.
LikeLike
I’d credit Stanford’s 12 seeded tennis team winning the title as the most significant unexpected points. But as Brian said, every point scored is the same value. The first point of the total is the same as the last.
LikeLike
The problem with these things is that people don’t agree on what they want to reward or how to reward it.
1. I think the general idea is to reward the best overall athletic department. The problem is in how you define “best.” Some want to stress breadth and diversity, others revenue sports.
2. Even if people could agree on a definition of best, they’re all over the place in deciding how to reward the teams.
How much should a title be worth in each sport? All the same (DC)? Arbitrarily assigned (C1C)? Based on how many major conferences play (Duffman)? Based on how many teams play (many)?
How should the points be distributed below #1? Linear decay or not? Does everyone get a point, or is there a cutoff? Where is the cutoff and why? For an easy example, compare NASCAR scoring (#1 = 43, #2 = 42, … #43 of 43 = 1) to F1 scoring (#1 = 25, #2 = 18, #3 = 15, … #10 of 22 = 1).
There is no formula that will please everyone, but I think you could find a decent compromise.
Basic rules:
1. More competition means more points, but with a reducing factor since winning any title is hard. This tries to reach a compromise between the DC’s ideal of treating all sports equally and the desire of others to weight sports by the amount of competition.
P = 10 * square root (# of teams)
P(MBB) = 185 (343 teams)
P(FB) = 112 (124 teams)
P(WWP) = 58 (34 teams)
If you go straight by the number of teams, a sport like football loses a lot of value compared to hoops and that’s wrong. I went with an easy choice, but you could come up with other ways to achieve a similar effect. You could reduce the spread or increase it.
2. Only the top 20% get points.
No participation ribbons here. The top 20% is the same as the top 25 in CFB, which seems like a reasonable definition of the best teams. Obviously you have to adjust the points for bracketed sports versus unbracketed sports.
#(MBB) = 69 – adjust to 68 and reward all tournament teams
#(FB) = 25 – use AP poll except the 4 CFP teams must be #1-4
#(WWP) = 7 – adjust to 8 and reward all tournament teams
3. Points should decrease faster than linearly at the top.
I’d roughly use a geometric progression for points, adjusted so the last team gets 1 point and teams on the same bracket level get an equal share of the pool of points for their places.
WWP – 58, 33, 19, 11, 6, 4, 2, 1, 0 (8 team bracket with games to determine each place)
FB – 112, 93, 70, 70, 55, 45, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 14, 13, …, 1, 0 (CFP + poll)
MBB – 185, 171, 153, 153, 4 x 122, 8 x 78, 16 x 32, 32 x 6, 4 x 1 (68 team single-elim. bracket)
4. All sports should count.
The DC limits you to 20 (10 for each gender), but I don’t think that’s necessary. I think the previous 3 rules would eliminate any issues with schools with more teams benefiting unduly. All those extra sports are generally small ones, so they have less value anyway. Besides, I think a school should be rewarded for having a broad AD. But the best way to tell is to back apply rules 1-3 to the past and see what happens. If there is an issue, then you apply a formula for diminishing returns.
5. Just to make gfunk happy, you can have 3 winners – Overall, Men’s and Women’s.
There’s no reason not to have an overall AD winner, but some schools may have no reasonable chance in one gender due to their student body demographics (GT, Army, etc). Besides, a few schools actually run their ADs sort of separately (UT, for example). As long as the overall winner is treated as more important, I see no harm in rewarding the gender specific winners.
LikeLike
I do agree with the differential between crowded sports and ones that are not crowded tho and the disparity of points. I suggest awhile back that the point should be distributed by participation.
Say something like this (5 conferences being ACC, B1G, B12, PAC, and SEC)
100 points for winner where all 5 conferences have participants
80 points when you just have 4 of 5 conference represented
60 points for 3 of 5
40 points for 2 of 5
20 points for 1 of 5
If it was weighted by the number of schools participating in a sport, rather than by conference, how would this year’s final C1C totals have differed? Let’s assume we limit it to the five conferences named above, and let’s add Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville to the equation since all will be in the ACC by fall 2014. (I wish we could add Brigham Young to the mix, but since all its other sports are in the WCAC, that makes it difficult.) That’s a total of 65 schools; we could weigh it per sport as
100 points, 53 to 65 schools field teams
80 points, 40 to 52
60 points, 27 to 39
40 points, 14 to 26
20 points, 13 or fewer
LikeLike
Brian,
You have WWP but I was more thinking about MWP and the Big 5
Top 20 this year :
1 USC = PAC
2 UCLA = PAC
3 Cal = PAC
4 Stanford = PAC
5 Long Beach State = OTR
6 Pacific = OTR
7 UCSB = OTR
8 Pepperdine = OTR
9 St. Francis = OTR
10 UC-Irvine = OTR
T11 Air Force = OTR
T11 UCSD = OTR
13 Loyola Marymount = OTR
14 Bucknell = OTR
15 Princeton = OTR
16 Brown = OTR
17 Mercyhurst = OTR
18 UC-Davis = OTR
19 Navy = OTR
T20 Johns Hopkins = OTR
T20 Pomona-Pitzer = OTR
T20 Santa Clara = OTR
ACC = 0
B1G = 0
B12 = 0
PAC = 4
SEC = 0
This means UCLA’s 12 points from finishing second in Men’s Water Polo will allow them to vault past Indiana after the 60 points are added for UCLA’s CWS win. Unless Ohio State + Florida + Oklahoma + UNC (random top schools in the remaining 4 conferences) all start Mens Water Polo, how is that fair?
LikeLike
vincent,
I was not trying to limit it to just the 5 big conferences but using them as a measuring device for all the conferences as they will include the smaller ones by default. Say for example, several B1G schools play a sport it is probable the MAC schools inside that footprint also play that sport.
LikeLike
You’ve had a discussion for months about how Johns Hopkins has the premier lacrosse team and now are trying to discredit any sport that doesn’t have a lot of teams from the Big 5 conferences? Of those 8 schools who have dominated baseball, Arizona and Arizona St. did it almost all from the WAC, Cal State Fullerton from the Big West, and Miami as an independent. Minnesota did it from a conference that is mostly irrelevant in baseball. Only USC, Texas and LSU did it from major conferences.
The Cap One is a lousy system designed by ESPN for their purposes, not to truly measure anything. The Directors Cup is at least rational.
LikeLike
duffman,
“You have WWP but I was more thinking about MWP and the Big 5”
OK. I did WWP because that’s the only one Stanford scored in.
“Top 20 this year :
…
ACC = 0
B1G = 0
B12 = 0
PAC = 4
SEC = 0”
Yeah, but there were a while lot of others. Nothing prevents a smaller school from being competitive in a niche sport like WP.
“This means UCLA’s 12 points from finishing second in Men’s Water Polo will allow them to vault past Indiana after the 60 points are added for UCLA’s CWS win. Unless Ohio State + Florida + Oklahoma + UNC (random top schools in the remaining 4 conferences) all start Mens Water Polo, how is that fair?”
Who’s stopping IN from playing MWP? B10 schools regularly score points in niche sports. What’s unfair about giving hardworking athletes credit for winning?
LikeLike
Brian,
I have no problem giving winners their due but when only 1 conference dominates a sport nobody else plays like MWP it seems out of touch. As you posted in your earlier post a better system is out there to be constructed. As it stands now it feels like stuffing a ballot box in a political election.
LikeLike
“5 Long Beach State = OTR
6 Pacific = OTR
7 UCSB = OTR
8 Pepperdine = OTR
9 St. Francis = OTR
10 UC-Irvine = OTR
T11 Air Force = OTR
T11 UCSD = OTR
13 Loyola Marymount = OTR
14 Bucknell = OTR
15 Princeton = OTR
16 Brown = OTR
17 Mercyhurst = OTR
18 UC-Davis = OTR
19 Navy = OTR
T20 Johns Hopkins = OTR”
Pretty nice set of “nobody” schools.
LikeLike
They are both unfair. Justifying the DC as “rational” is absurd. As I’ve stated in previous posts, I’d pick DC over CO at the end of the day, but that does not mean I endorse it – not even close.
As for the ESPN conspiracy, I’m in part agreement. But the CO winners have reflected 3 different conferences thus far: ACC (UNC), Pac12 (UCLA & Stanford) and SEC (Florida). And this year, a number of BIG teams cracked the top 20, male and female: IU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and OSU. Md, still in the ACC, made the top 20, women’s side.
LikeLike
Also, $200,000 in scholarships for both sexes, the winners, that’s a pretty noble action by ESPN-Cap One.
LikeLike
“$200,000 in scholarships for both sexes, the winners, that’s a pretty noble action…”
Rounding error for ESPN LHN monthly payroll.
Perhaps DC is reflecting what it was intended? Honoring those succeeding in a broad based department? It is an athletic directors award, not the director of the most successful department defined by a certain chosen few sports award.
LikeLike
As cc points out, the Director’s Cup is quite rational. The only thing absurd is your failure to recognize that. It may not measure things the way you prefer, but it is direct and rational.
LikeLike
As for the ESPN conspiracy, I’m in part agreement. But the CO winners have reflected 3 different conferences thus far: ACC (UNC), Pac12 (UCLA & Stanford) and SEC (Florida). And this year, a number of BIG teams cracked the top 20, male and female: IU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and OSU. Md, still in the ACC, made the top 20, women’s side.
I am not sure it is a ESPN conspiracy as much as one for the ACC based on which sports were slated for 60 point scores. Granted the Capitol One was set up before realignment but the ACC will now get Notre Dame and lose Maryland in addition to Louisville, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh.
On the Men’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :
Soccer : UVA (34) / MD (30) / CU (26) / Duke (25) / UNC (20) / WF (16)
Lacrosse : SU (16) / MD (11) / UVA (9) / UNC (5) / Duke (4)
Basketball : UNC (18) / Duke (15) / UL (10) / SU (5)
Baseball : Miami (23) / FSU (21) / CU (12) / UNC (10)
Football : split among Big 5
Track & Field : Historically a PAC and SEC sport / FSU best ACC
On the Women’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :
Soccer : UNC (31/21) / UVA (24) / ND (19/3) Duke (18) / WF (16) FSU (13)
Lacrosse : MD 10-7 / UVA 3-6 / UNC 1-1 / SU 0-1
Basketball : ND (5) / Duke (4) / MD (3) / UNC (3) / UVA (3) / UL (2) / NCST (1)
Volleyball : Historically a PAC sport
Softball : Historically a PAC sport
Track & Field : Historically a PAC and SEC sport / FSU best ACC
As for the NCAA as a whole it seems to favor PAC schools
Big 3 = Football, M Basketball, and Baseball
UCLA : 109 = 72M + 37W (~14% = Water Polo / ~12% from Big 3 combined)
Water Sports = WP 15 / S&D 1 / SS 0 / Sail 0 / Row 3 (~ 17% of total)
Bruins are a Basketball school
USC : 97 = 82M + 15W (~12 % = Water Polo / ~19% from Big 3 combined)
Water Sports = WP 12 / S&D 10 / SS 0 / Sail 0 / Row 0 (~ 23% of total)
Trojans are a Football and Baseball school
Stanford : 104 = 61M + 43W (~13 % = Water Polo / ~5% from Big 3 combined)
Water Sports = WP 14 / S&D 16 / SS 7 / Sail 1 / Row 1 (~ 38% of total)
LikeLike
duffman,
“On the Women’s side with schools most prone to get points from Cap One Cup :
…
Volleyball : Historically a PAC sport”
That’s not really true. They are good at it, but so are other western schools plus the B10.
NC in WVB:
Stanford (6) – 1992, 1994, 1996-1997, 2001, 2004
UCLA (4) – 1984, 1990-1991, 2011
USC (3) – 1981, 2002-2003
UW (1) – 2005
PSU (5) – 1999, 2007-2010
NE (3) – 1995, 2000, 2006
HI – 3
Long Beach St – 3
Pacific – 2
TX – 2
B10 Runners Up:
NE – 3
PSU – 3
MN – 1
IL – 1
B10 Semifinalists:
NE – 5
PSU – 2
OSU – 2
MN – 2
IL – 2
MI – 1
MSU – 1
“Softball : Historically a PAC sport”
UCLA and AZ dominated the 80s and 90s, true. But beyond those two schools, it’s been balanced nationally with B12, SEC and B10 schools also winning titles. There is more parity now.
11 – UCLA
8 – AZ
2 – ASU, OU, TAMU
1 – AL, MI, UW, Cal, CSF, Fresno
LikeLike
Brian,
More like no historical B1G volleyball schools as their weight has been pulled by just 2 schools and both (Penn State and Nebraska) are new to the B1G. Especially Nebraska as their big wins were as members of the B12. The B1G is still not anywhere near the PAC in volleyball (nor is most any other Big 5 conference not named PAC). As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.
LikeLike
duffman,
“More like no historical B1G volleyball schools as their weight has been pulled by just 2 schools and both (Penn State and Nebraska) are new to the B1G.”
Just because the B10 isn’t elite at something doesn’t make it unfair. The other B10 teams lack titles but have added 2 finals losses and 8 final fours. Besides, you completely ignored all the other western teams that are good. You don’t get to ignore them just because they aren’t AQ schools. It’s also OK to have regional sports. West coast teams are good at volleyball and water sports, the north rules hockey, the midwest owns wrestling, the east owns lacrosse and the south has baseball and track. It’s almost like local interests and weather impact the success of teams.
“Especially Nebraska as their big wins were as members of the B12.”
But they weren’t P12 which is all that really matters for refuting your argument.
“The B1G is still not anywhere near the PAC in volleyball”
No, it isn’t. So what?
“(nor is most any other Big 5 conference not named PAC).”
But a lot of other western schools do challenge the P12 in it. Not being AQ means nothing to smaller sports like this.
“As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.”
Why does parity always mean comparing the B10 to the best conference to you? The SEC does quite well in softball, and so do other conferences. As for your stats, they’re impossible. Only 8 teams make the WCWS, so the P12 couldn’t have 8 teams in it plus NE and MI going.
National seeds:
SEC – 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16
P12 – 3, 5, 11
B12 – 1, 4
B10 – 8, 14
Other – 13, 15
WCWS:
B12 – 2
B10 – 2
P12 – 2
SEC – 2
That looks a lot more like parity than P12 dominance to me.
LikeLike
Brian says:
Just because the B10 isn’t elite at something doesn’t make it unfair. The other B10 teams lack titles but have added 2 finals losses and 8 final fours. Besides, you completely ignored all the other western teams that are good. You don’t get to ignore them just because they aren’t AQ schools. It’s also OK to have regional sports. West coast teams are good at volleyball and water sports, the north rules hockey, the midwest owns wrestling, the east owns lacrosse and the south has baseball and track. It’s almost like local interests and weather impact the success of teams.
You are correct in that certain regions excel at certain sports at least wrestling, lacrosse, baseball, and track you have overlap in the Big 5 + old Big East + Notre Dame.
wrestling = B1G and B12
lacrosse = ACC and Big East and Notre Dame and B1G (MD included)
baseball = ACC and SEC and PAC
track = PAC + B12 + SEC
Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.
.
…
.
“As for softball there is more parity than the early years but the PAC still put 2/3 of their conference in the CWS while the B1G got 2/12 in with Michigan and Nebraska. That does not sound like true parity to me.”
Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.
As for your stats, they’re impossible.
PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS
Arizona – 8 championships
Arizona State – 2 championships
California – 1 championship
Stanford
UCLA – 11 championships (12 but 1 vacated)
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington – 1 championship
B1G teams in the post season for the WCWS
Michigan – 1 championship
Nebraska
That is 8 PAC teams invited out of 12 PAC teams possible and 2 B1G teams out of 12 B1G teams. I stand by my original comment as correct and the data is correct. That does not look like parity to me. As for the actual 8 teams that advance all the final games in Oklahoma City the PAC averages 3 of 8 teams every year for the past decade and have 7 of the last 10 WCWS champions. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Alabama represent the other 30%. So the math over the past decade :
PAC = 70%
Everybody else combined = 30%
70% > 30%
Tell me more about this parity that you keep talking about! 🙂
LikeLike
You don’t think a diverse offering should be rewarded? Is there anything preventing water polo being played in other B5 conferences? Seems like a fair number of have not’s manage to.
I may be a bit older but I remember when nearly every SEC and PAC school wrestled. A few more drops and it could be called strictly regional (at D1). Should we reward those “exceptional” athletic departments by dropping its DC value, because those departments choose not to offer it any longer? The award is for the department measured by 10M and 10W among all those the NCAA sponsors, not for specific, selective sports. All NCAA sports count.
LikeLike
duffman,
“You are correct in that certain regions excel at certain sports at least wrestling, lacrosse, baseball, and track you have overlap in the Big 5 + old Big East + Notre Dame.”
So what? You have never explained why that makes things better. Why is having 1 team from each AQ conference be good better than having 10 good schools from the same AQ conference? And why on earth should I care about whether the conference is AQ or not if the sport isn’t football?
“Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.”
No, it isn’t just P12. You just ignore everyone else and claim it’s just the P12.
“Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.”
No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.
“PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS”
Making the postseason and making the WCWS aren’t the same thing. Which are you talking about? It looks like you’re doing some weird blend of 2013 and history plus the postseason and WCWS with no explanation.
“B1G teams in the post season for the WCWS
Michigan – 1 championship
Nebraska”
The B10 has 22 WCWS visits, roughly on par with the B12, SEC and Big West. The P12 has 79. Nobody said the P12 didn’t dominate in the past, but the present is not the past.
“That is 8 PAC teams invited out of 12 PAC teams possible and 2 B1G teams out of 12 B1G teams. I stand by my original comment as correct and the data is correct.”
No, it isn’t correct. You said 8 P12 teams made the WCWS, plus MI and NE. 10 teams can’t make an 8 team tournament.
“That does not look like parity to me. As for the actual 8 teams that advance all the final games in Oklahoma City the PAC averages 3 of 8 teams every year for the past decade and have 7 of the last 10 WCWS champions. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Alabama represent the other 30%. So the math over the past decade :
PAC = 70%
Everybody else combined = 30%
70% > 30%”
By your logic, only the SEC is good at football. They have 8 of the last 10 titles and average at least 3 teams in the top 10 every year.
SEC = 80%
Everybody else combined = 20%
80% > 20%
I’d say that’s crap, but math is math.
LikeLike
As for softball, the SEC had 7 of the top 17 in the final rankings while the Pac 12 had 3. Of course the Big 12 had the top 2-#1 Oklahoma and #2 Texas.
LikeLike
So what? You have never explained why that makes things better. Why is having 1 team from each AQ conference be good better than having 10 good schools from the same AQ conference? And why on earth should I care about whether the conference is AQ or not if the sport isn’t football?
Like it or not popularity drives sport. Football is popular so it produces revenues which in turns drives athletic departments to derive as much revenue as possible. While you keep questioning the use of the Big 5 you never acknowledge the market share they represent. As stated in several previous posts using the Big 5 is using a proven sample size that drives the popularity / revenue of the college sports market as a whole. The rivalry between Ohio State and Michigan is well known so if both schools started competing in tiddlywinks there would be be demand yet neither school does so. Could it then be possible the reason neither school does so is that tiddlywinks (as a sport) just does not move enough fan interest?
By having a Top 25 each year that has at least 1 school from each of the Big 5 shows the popularity is not exclusive to a single Big 5 conference but that it actually follows multiple conferences who are engaged in the sport. I respect that you have enough of a brain to know that sports at the college level are fed by high school sports which are fed by grade school sports. If only the PAC schools are represented in the Top 25 and no other schools in the Big 5 are then it suggests there is a reason. My primary guess is Men’s Water Polo is not popular in the ACC, B1G, B12, and SEC at the high school level so it is not played at the college level.
Following that process why should the sports points go to what is a monopoly of only 1 of the Big 5 when no other schools are represented? You point of the SEC dominating football is different in that at least all Big 5 conferences (and EVERY school inside each one of these conferences) participate in the sport. This is not the case with MWP. It seems only to exist to allow the PAC monopolistic points where the barrier to entry by the other big 5 is prohibitive due to resources or in state high school support.
.
…
.
Duff : “Mens water polo is just the PAC which is my point.”
Brian : No, it isn’t just P12. You just ignore everyone else and claim it’s just the P12.
Brian, here is the Top 20 for Men’s Water Polo straight from the NCAA
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/waterpolo-men/d1
#1 – #4 are all PAC schools
Show me 1 school in the rest of the Top 20 that are in….
The ACC?
The Big 12?
The B1G?
The SEC?
It is not me claiming this, it is the NCAA themselves.
Now look at another sport with low participation by schools
NCAA Rifle Top 20
#1 West Virginia = Big 12
#2 Kentucky = SEC
#3 TCU = Big 12
#7 Nebraska = B1G
#9 Mississippi = SEC
#12 Ohio State = B1G
#13 NC State = ACC
So you have MWP with the following Big 5 breakdown :
PAC = 4 schools
ACC = 0 schools
B12 = 0 schools
B1G = 0 schools
SEC = 0 schools
And you have Rifle with the following Big 5 breakdown :
PAC = 0 schools
ACC = 1 school
B12 = 2 schools
B1G = 2 schools
SEC = 2 schools
Can you seriously not see this or are you just trolling?
.
…
.
Duffman : “Yes the SEC has made gains but the PAC still dominates.”
Brian : No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.
Brian here is the WCWS for the past 10 years : Winner in BOLD
2013 : PAC 25.0% / B12 25.0% / B1G 25.0% / SEC 25.0%
2012 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
2011 : B12 50.0% / PAC 25.0% / SEC 25.0%
2010 :PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
2009 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 37.5% / B12 12.5% / B1G 12.5%
2008 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 25.0% / B12 12.5% / ACC 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
2007 : PAC 37.5% / B12 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / SEC 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
2006 : PAC 50.0% / SEC 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5%
2005 : PAC 37.5% / SEC 25.0% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5% / OTR 12.5%
2004 : PAC 50.0% / SEC 12.5% / B1G 12.5% / B12 12.5% / ACC 12.5%
That does not look like SEC dominance to me. Why you are in denial about PAC dominance is beyond me but these are the facts and are not in dispute. Look at the NCAA records and please show me this SEC dominance that you speak of over the past decade? You can deflect all you want but it does not change the reality.
.
…
.
Making the postseason and making the WCWS aren’t the same thing. Which are you talking about? It looks like you’re doing some weird blend of 2013 and history plus the postseason and WCWS with no explanation.
Do you not understand how the softball tournament works? It starts with 64 teams just like basketball. To get to either championship game you have to be one of the invited teams in the field of 64.
This years W NCAA basketball invitations for PAC and B1G :
B1G = 6 teams
Purdue
Iowa
Nebraska
Michigan
Penn State
Michigan State
PAC = 4 teams
UCLA
Colorado
Stanford
California
This years W NCAA softball invitations for PAC and B1G :
B1G = 2 teams
Nebraska
Michigan
PAC = 8 teams
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Stanford
UCLA
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
How hard is this to understand? If you are not one of the 64 teams invited to either basketball or softball post season play in the NCAA you can not win the championship.
Again, this is really simple math
PAC = 8 invites
B1G = 2 invites
8 > 2
When the PAC is invited 4 to 1 on the B1G it indicates there is not parity!
LikeLike
The barrier is that high tech, water retention system that the west refuses to share the secret (the cement pond)? Kids don’t swim except in the west? How many HS rowing programs are there compared to college, or equestrian?
By definition a department award is not about excellence in profitable sports or a popularity contest.
LikeLike
bullet says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:25 pm
As for softball, the SEC had 7 of the top 17 in the final rankings while the Pac 12 had 3. Of course the Big 12 had the top 2-#1 Oklahoma and #2 Texas.
duffman,
“Like it or not popularity drives sport. Football is popular so it produces revenues which in turns drives athletic departments to derive as much revenue as possible. While you keep questioning the use of the Big 5 you never acknowledge the market share they represent. As stated in several previous posts using the Big 5 is using a proven sample size that drives the popularity / revenue of the college sports market as a whole.”
10 > 5
So why doesn’t 10 P12 teams being good at something mean more than 1 team from each of the 5 AQ conferences being good at it? More importantly, why do insist on thinking that the AQ market share is the same in all sports? The number one TV school for lacrosse is JHU, a D-III school. In niche sports, smaller schools are often big names.
“The rivalry between Ohio State and Michigan is well known so if both schools started competing in tiddlywinks there would be be demand yet neither school does so. Could it then be possible the reason neither school does so is that tiddlywinks (as a sport) just does not move enough fan interest?”
So now the relevance of any sport is determined by whether OSU and MI play it or not? What a strange criterion. Why do you refuse to account for some conferences choosing to focus on fewer sports rather than supporting as many as they can afford? There’s be more teams in many sports if the SEC and B12 spent money on things other than revenue sports and Title IX sports.
“By having a Top 25 each year that has at least 1 school from each of the Big 5 shows the popularity is not exclusive to a single Big 5 conference but that it actually follows multiple conferences who are engaged in the sport.”
Newsflash – There are other conferences than the AQs. They are often good at some of the smaller sports, too. You’re just an AQ bigot. Look at the top teams in hockey. How many are not AQ?
“I respect that you have enough of a brain to know that sports at the college level are fed by high school sports which are fed by grade school sports. If only the PAC schools are represented in the Top 25 and no other schools in the Big 5 are then it suggests there is a reason.”
Like needing to be near an ocean or needing a long season of outdoor pool weather? It’s not the P12’s fault that they are the only AQ on the west coast.
“Following that process why should the sports points go to what is a monopoly of only 1 of the Big 5 when no other schools are represented?”
Why shouldn’t they? Nothing prevents those others from playing. The B10 recruits easterners to play lacrosse. They could recruit westerners for water polo.
“You point of the SEC dominating football is different in that at least all Big 5 conferences (and EVERY school inside each one of these conferences) participate in the sport.”
It’s not my fault you used stupid criteria to decide the P12 dominates. The SEC in football more than met your standards.
“This is not the case with MWP. It seems only to exist to allow the PAC monopolistic points where the barrier to entry by the other big 5 is prohibitive due to resources or in state high school support.”
Since when is recruiting out of state athletes too expensive for an AQ school? They all have pools.
“Brian, here is the Top 20 for Men’s Water Polo straight from the NCAA
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/waterpolo-men/d1
#1 – #4 are all PAC schools”
And #5-20 aren’t. That’s 80% of the top 20 that you just ignore, including 2 service academies and 2 Ivies in addition to a bunch of west coast schools.
“Can you seriously not see this or are you just trolling?”
Your bigotry seems more like trolling.
“Brian : No, it doesn’t. The SEC is the dominant top to bottom softball conference now.
Brian here is the WCWS for the past 10 years : Winner in BOLD”
See the phrase “top to bottom” up there? The WCWS is mostly irrelevant to my claim.
But let’s play your game by looking at the national seeds and the current alignment:
Overall seeds / top 10 seeds
2013 SEC 7 / 5, P12 3 / 2 – edge SEC
2012 SEC 6 / 6, P12 6 / 2 – edge SEC
2011 SEC 6 / 4, P12 6 / 3 – edge SEC
2010 SEC 6 / 4, P12 5 / 3 – edge SEC
2009 SEC 4 / 3, P12 5 / 5 – edge P12
2008 SEC 6 / 4, P12 4 / 3 – edge SEC
2007 SEC 5 / 3, P12 4 / 3 – edge SEC
That sure looks like the SEC did better than the P12 lately to me.
“Why you are in denial about PAC dominance is beyond me but these are the facts and are not in dispute. Look at the NCAA records and please show me this SEC dominance that you speak of over the past decade?”
See above. I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s not denial when I’m correct.
“Do you not understand how the softball tournament works?”
I understand the tournament, just not what you wrote. I find things like this to be confusing at best:
“PAC teams in the post season for the WCWS”
You say that but then trumpet the number of total national titles for each team. So what was your point? The total number of titles? Nobody argued that the P12 didn’t used to dominate. If it was about who made the tournament in 2013, then their total titles is meaningless. And why mention the WCWS if you mean the field of 64?
“When the PAC is invited 4 to 1 on the B1G it indicates there is not parity!”
No, it indicates the P12 is better than the B10 at said sport. Besides, your numbers are wrong again.
2013 teams in the field of 64
SEC – 11
P12 – 8
B10 – 3 (MI, NE and MN)
Yes, look at that P12 dominance. Oops, I mean SEC dominance.
LikeLike
Brian,
2007
PAC (10 schools)
(8) invites 80.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona
SEC (12 schools)
(7) invites 58.3% : (1) CWS team 8.3% : (0) Champion
80.0% > 58.3% / 30.0% > 8.3% / 1 > 0
PAC clearly dominates 2007
……………………….
2008
PAC (10 schools)
(7) invites 70.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona State
SEC (12 schools)
(8) invites 66.7% : (2) CWS team 16.7% : (0) Champion
70.0% > 66.6% / 30.0% > 16.7% / 1 > 0
PAC clearly dominates 2008
……………………….
2009
PAC (10 schools)
(6) invites 60.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Washington
SEC (12 schools)
(9) invites 75.0% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (0) Champion
60.0% 25.0% / 1 > 0
SEC gets more teams in but PAC dominates in finals (11-2 in 2 games)
……………………….
2010
PAC (10 schools)
(7) invites 70.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (1) Champion = Washington
SEC (12 schools)
(7) invites 58.3% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (0) Champion
70.0% 25.0% / 1 > 0
PAC clearly dominates 2010 – championship game was 2 PAC teams!
……………………….
2011
PAC (10 schools)
(7) invites 70.0% : (2) CWS teams 20.0% : (1) Champion = Arizona State
SEC (12 schools)
(7) invites 58.3% : (2) CWS team 16.7% : (0) Champion
70.0% > 58.3% / 20.0% > 16.7% / 1 > 0
Closer early on but PAC wins again
……………………….
2012
PAC (10 schools)
(8) invites 80.0% : (3) CWS teams 30.0% : (0) Champion
SEC (12 schools)
(9) invites 75.0% : (3) CWS team 25.0% : (1) Champion = Alabama
80.0% > 75.0% / 30.0% > 25.0% / 1 > 0
Close for both and SEC wins first SEC ever for edge
……………………….
2013
PAC (12 schools)
(8) invites 66.7% : (2) CWS teams 16.7% : (0) Champion
SEC (14 schools)
(11) invites 78.6% : (2) CWS team 14.3% : (0) Champion
66.7% 14.3% / 0 = 0
SEC gets more in but PAC performs better
Brian, I might give you some leeway on 2012 as Alabama actually won, but this year I would give the edge to the PAC because TAMU and MU got in and Colorado and Utah did not which signifies the SEC got 2 better softball additions than the PAC did. This does not however mean the PAC lost their top teams like UCLA and Arizona or their grip on softball. So here is the summary.
2007 = PAC domination
2008 = PAC domination
2009 = PAC domination
2010 = PAC domination
2011 = PAC edge
2012 = SEC edge
2013 = PAC edge
See above. I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s not denial when I’m correct.
No Brian, I am right and it is you who are wrong. You are in denial because you are not correct. Simple as that. Admit this is something you do knot know well and you made a mistake and act like a grown up. There is nobody in their right mind that would say the SEC has dominated the PAC in racking up the hardware when it comes to softball. Alan and Bamatab are SEC guys and even they would admit this point so I am wondering why you will not?
LikeLike
Brian,
As for the rest of your “selective” editing you totally ignored the main point contrasting MWP to Rifle. You omitting it tells me you comprehend the validity of the discussion and your lack of response tells me you continue to nitpick out the trees while you do not seem to admire the forest. The service academies participate in both sports yet you ignored that in your response. Interesting.
I point out the obvious imbalance of these 2 points and you respond by calling me a bigot. Do you not see the speck in my eye because of the log you refuse to remove from your own?
So you have MWP with the following Big 5 breakdown :
1 Big 5 conference out of 5 possible
PAC = 4 schools
ACC = 0 schools
B12 = 0 schools
B1G = 0 schools
SEC = 0 schools
And you have Rifle with the following Big 5 breakdown :
4 Big 5 conferences out of 5 possible
PAC = 0 schools
ACC = 1 school
B12 = 2 schools
B1G = 2 schools
SEC = 2 schools
Where exactly is my bigotry? Have I ever disparaged the race or religion of folks in the PAC or playing MWP in the PAC? No, I noted their is an imbalance in one sport when compared to another sport an you label me a bigot? Really? Did you look in the mirror when you wrote your original response? Rifle looks much more inclusive than MWP does and yet you argue for the less inclusive one. Interesting.
You argue the other 4 conferences should start MWP teams yet never suggest the PAC should add a rifle team instead. Why do you not suggest such a thing? Could it be that you are the one devoted to your own opinions and prejudices and treats others with loathing and hatred? You are a Buckeye but have you ever even been to a Rifle match where the Buckeye’s are competing? Or are you a “football only” Buckeye fan that loathes all the other sports the university participates in.
LikeLike
I look at that softball data and see
2007 Pac 12 stronger
2013 SEC stronger
2008-2012 equivalent
There are sports where the Big 5 aren’t all that good. For example in baseball, there is a top 7-in no particular order-Big West, Pac 12, Big 12, CUSA, Sun Belt, SEC, ACC. The Big 10 is not one of the top conferences. In basketball the last 3 or 4 years the SEC and Pac 12 have been down from their norm. The MWC and A10 have been better. There’s been a top 6-in no particular order-Big 12, Big 10, A10, ACC, Big East, MWC.
And of course, there are Division II schools that are pretty good in hockey.
LikeLike
Yawn. Throwing more data at the problem isn’t helping your case. You took 1000 words (not an actual count) trying to prove that the P12 was “clearly” dominant. If that was true, the number of teams in the NCAA tournament wouldn’t favor the SEC. As you may recall, I claimed the SEC was better “top to bottom.” You’re the one who claimed the WCWS was somehow the end all be all of evidence. All I had to do was drop to NCAA invites to show an edge for the SEC, and that still doesn’t account for the rest of the conference.
“No Brian, I am right and it is you who are wrong.”
You wish. This is just like your blind obsession with hating the B12. No amount of facts ever penetrates your preconceived on that subject either.
“Admit this is something you do knot know well and you made a mistake and act like a grown up.”
There’s no mistake. The data supports me that the P12 is NOT “top to bottom” dominant anymore.
“There is nobody in their right mind that would say the SEC has dominated the PAC in racking up the hardware when it comes to softball.”
And I didn’t say that either. That’s just your typical approach of creating straw man arguments to fight against because you can’t win against what I actually said.
LikeLike
duffman,
“As for the rest of your “selective” editing”
Nobody has enough free time to respond to the entirety of your screeds.
“you totally ignored the main point contrasting MWP to Rifle.”
That was your main point? You could have fooled me. It seemed like yet another irrelevant tangent to me. Rifle has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing. I honestly didn’t even bother to read that part, so I couldn’t respond to it.
“I point out the obvious imbalance of these 2 points and you respond by calling me a bigot.”
No, I called you a bigot because you dismiss out of hand every non-AQ school even though we’re talking about niche sports and not football. A top 20 that is 80% non-P12 is somehow dominated by the P12 in your bigoted view.
“You argue the other 4 conferences should start MWP teams”
No, I argued they COULD start them. I couldn’t possibly care less if anyone starts a MWP team. I’d be fine with nobody but the P12 playing it and I ‘d still give them full credit for it.
“yet never suggest the PAC should add a rifle team instead. Why do you not suggest such a thing?”
Because no P12 fan is whining about the B10 scoring points in rifle.
“You are a Buckeye but have you ever even been to a Rifle match where the Buckeye’s are competing?”
And that would be relevant to whatever point you are making in what way, exactly? Would my watching cause there to be more or fewer rifle teams somehow? Would it somehow cause the P12 to be dominant in softball again? Would it change the SOS of the B12?
LikeLike
I was surprised that was UCLA’s first baseball title as well.
USC was far and away the most accomplished team in college baseball post WWII through the 80s, so the Bruins baseball program was in that shadow historically. They might have firgured, if we can’t beat USC in baseball, don’t worry about it and put more resources into other sports.
LikeLike
The ‘Capitol One Cup’ is just another reason to hate ESPN. It pisses me off as much as The Weather Channel trying to name winter storms.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/06/24/pac-12-football-new-bowl-lineup-takes-shape/
Scott added that there will be mechanisms in place to 1) avoid having a repeat participant in a particular bowl and 2) take advantage of obvious benefits of having a team in a specific bowl.
I have to think the Kraft and Holiday bowls will work with the Pac-12 to maximize matchups against the respective Big Ten opponents.
In other words: The bowls will flip Pac-12 teams when it best serves the teams and fans.
So despite not using tiers, the P12 might shift teams around a little.
Also note: The Sun Bowl has moved down the Pac-12 lineup. It was No. 3 for many years … then No. 4 … and now No. 5.
Can’t imagine many teams (or fans) will be heartbroken over the situation.
It doesn’t sound like the P12 likes that game very much. The B10 could push to get back into the Sun Bowl if they want another TX game in the future, not that El Paso is an ideal bowl location.
LikeLike
How does Oregon’s departed HC get a show cause (while in probation for earlier violations and they get 1 scolly deduction for two years, and a bit more probation +, while USC got hammered with only an assistant getting a still contested show cause? Phil Knight’s power greater than that of Heritage Hall?
LikeLike
Because Oregon hired the agents instead of the students?
LikeLike
New motto: Just keep doing it. We got your back…
Compliance officer? Is he the head of Loop Hole Discoveries, LLC?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“How does Oregon’s departed HC get a show cause (while in probation for earlier violations and they get 1 scolly deduction for two years, and a bit more probation +, while USC got hammered with only an assistant getting a still contested show cause? Phil Knight’s power greater than that of Heritage Hall?”
1. OR cooperated and USC fought the NCAA.
2. None of OR’s recruiting violations were found to be intentional.
3. OR also lost a lot of recruiting rights.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9424556/oregon-ducks-put-probation-ncaa-lose-scholarship
• A reduction of official paid football visits from 56 to 37 for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years.
• A reduction of permissible football evaluation days from 42 to 36 in the fall of 2013, 2014 and 2015 and permissible football evaluation days from 168 to 144 in the spring of 2014, 2015 and 2016.
LikeLike
My biggest gripe is that the school allowed Knight to kick out the AD and install his buddy, who never graduated college. The AD with no degree’s mission was to get the new basketball arena (Matt Knight Arena) project finished quickly. All that athletic department oversight was just an inconvenient nuisance, intentionally transferring department control to an unqualified person. Is that still maintaining g institutional control? I can’t prove it, but I believe the more egregious transgressions (Willie Lyles) under Kilkenny would not have happened, or detected and self reported very early had Moos still been there.
LikeLike
Some ADs are better than others, sure. But unless the AD was installed specifically to ignore violations, I don’t have a problem with it.
LikeLike
The position wasn’t arena project facilitator. It was head of the athletic department, and all that entails. If a hospital allows a janitor to perform surgery, but not specifically to do harm, you wouldn’t object?
There is a reason even assistant coaches are often required to have (or be working toward) advanced degrees. Can’t swear to it, but I read on line that Kilkenny was the only AD with no degree in the NCAA, NAIA, or NJCAA. Great public face for an AAU school…
LikeLike
There are also plenty of successful businessmen who never graduated from college. Should I have objected to Bill Gates running Microsoft because he dropped out of school? Education isn’t always necessary to be successful in a job.
LikeLike
Brian:
You should have if it was a state entity, and they waived the states requirements for the position. Requirements that were installed to assure the proper qualification of the applicant for the job.
There were no requirements for Gates to attempt a start in business, didn’t require a hundred million dollar support organization to provide the opportunity (a state organization in this case), and opportunity wasn’t limited in number, like the number of D1 athletic director jobs. Just the imagination and chutzpah to make the private effort – the gamble. That’s not how state institutions operate (or shouldn’t).
LikeLike
And if they’d decided to hire Bill Gates as AD a few years ago, should I still object because he lacked a degree? Or would years and years of leading a Fortune 500 company perhaps show him to be capable despite the lack of formal education?
I’m not saying they hired the right guy, but I also don’t believe in worshiping degrees. Plenty of talented people lack degrees and plenty of people with degrees are useless. i don’t know this guy, so I refuse to speculate on whether he was a worthy candidate.
LikeLike
I agree many may be talented enough without a degree. Many, many many more are not. The degree provides a level of assurance and accountability. We really can’t just gamble that an ability to make money in a specific field confers the ability to administer a completely foreign organization, both in function and goal.
I’m surprised at you equating a university and its departments as a base business. There are business aspects, yes, but that isn’t its primary function.
LikeLike
You’re talking about the AD. That’s a purely managerial position. It’s the one position at a university most like being an executive in the real world.
LikeLike
I can’t prove it, but I believe the more egregious transgressions (Willie Lyles) under Kilkenny would not have happened, or detected and self reported very early had Moos still been there.
There’s the rub, right? The NCAA’s authority is limited to what it can prove, with the investigative techniques permitted (e.g., no subpoenas). I would bet that most of these schools we’re discussing (USC, Ohio State, Oregon,…) were guilty of more than the final report stated, but at some point investigators reached a dead end.
LikeLike
You guys are actually trying to make the argument that there should not be minimum requirements for powerful, public jobs?
Brian: Kilkenny’s expertise was growing profits of an insurance company. He held a San Diego Padre box. He also attended school. Is he qualified to be chancellor of the UC system? Why don’t you start a grass roots move to draft him to take Gee’s place? He ran a big company and made money. What more could possibly be required?
I don’t think tOSU would let itself be a play thing for its biggest donor.
Marc:
“There’s the rub, right? The NCAA’s authority is limited to what it can prove,”
1: when has that ever limited the NCAA.
2: how hard is it to show an unqualified person was put in place for a singular purpose (demanded by a donor), in-spite of not meeting any requirements, no experience in college athletic administration, not even a bachelors degree in anything, and over academic senate objections.
3: multiple administrators wind up in court over actions Kilkenny took directly in opposition to regulations the president had formulated and got passed while dean of law school, but then chose not to enforce as president (can’t upset sugar daddy).
I don’t think the NCAA was lacking in evidence of where control resided during that time, and it was not in Eugene.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You guys are actually trying to make the argument that there should not be minimum requirements for powerful, public jobs?”
No. I’m saying requirements are often arbitrary with no actual proof that clearing that hurdle always makes you a better candidate. For a top level executive position like AD, work experience means much, much more to me than a college degree from 30 years ago.
“Brian: Kilkenny’s expertise was growing profits of an insurance company. He held a San Diego Padre box. He also attended school. Is he qualified to be chancellor of the UC system?”
When did we switch to discussing other jobs? I spoke about one specific job. You don’t get to generalize that to all jobs at a university.
“I don’t think tOSU would let itself be a play thing for its biggest donor.”
Yeah, because they have no say on what happens in OSU’s athletic department. OSU’s BOT has several super-donors on it. They have a lot of influence over major decisions like firing Tressel and not firing Smith and hiring Meyer and firing Gee.
“1: when has that ever limited the NCAA.”
Since always. No proof means no punishment.
“2: how hard is it to show an unqualified person was put in place for a singular purpose (demanded by a donor), in-spite of not meeting any requirements, no experience in college athletic administration, not even a bachelors degree in anything, and over academic senate objections.”
Without a smoking gun email, it’s very hard actually. You can’t assume intent. Schools hire friends of super-donors for jobs they might not be ideal for sometimes, and academic senate objections are meaningless for the AD job. Those senates object to lots of things, especially if they involve money for athletics. The NCAA doesn’t have requirements for an AD, so they can’t punish a school based on who they hire. If OR broke the law, that’s up to the state to punish.
“3: multiple administrators wind up in court over actions Kilkenny took directly in opposition to regulations the president had formulated and got passed while dean of law school, but then chose not to enforce as president (can’t upset sugar daddy).”
NEWSFLASH – Rich people get special treatment.
LikeLike
Brian:
Work experience in pro sports, USOC administration, even a modest government job would have informed his ability to be an athletic director. He was king of the company he built, he dictated in challenged. I agree a degree doesn’t automatically make you better tha one without, but it increases the likelihood. And it has been, and is again, a requirement they they waived.
“When did we switch to discussing other jobs? I spoke about one specific job. You don’t get to generalize that to all jobs at a university.”
You defended his taking on something he really had no understanding (or interest in), rather than the specific job he had shown expertise in. Frankly, the autonomy of a chancellor would fit him better.
“Since always. No proof means no punishment.”
Tell that to the USC show cause assistant. Or PSU, getting penalized for non athletic, criminal actions prior to any trial or conviction.
“Yeah, because they have no say on what happens in OSU’s athletic department”
They influence regarding school/athletic issues. They don’t dictate the removal of arguably the best athletic director UO ever had because the palace intended to named after Matt Knight was not progressing as fast as wished.
“Without a smoking gun email, it’s very hard actually. You can’t assume intent.”
What is waiving requirements intended to increase the likelihood a candidate will be able to perform the job? Isn’t intent being circumvented?
“…broke the law, that’s up to the state to punish.”
Which the court said they did in one case, but the remedy being asked for was no longer available.
“NEWSFLASH – Rich people get special treatment”
Treatment is one thing, but apparent ownership?
LikeLike
If you think they didn’t know they were paying an agent to steer kids to them, I’ve got a bridge to sell….
LikeLike
What I think and what the NCAA could prove are 2 different things. I wouldn’t have acquitted OJ either, but the jury did the right thing based on the case presented to them.
LikeLike
(I already feel dumb asking this because it’s always no) Any truth to the Dude’s tweets about Big12 package with Netflix for all past espn and fox content?
LikeLike
He’s usually right about that sort of stuff, but I haven’t seen anything elsewhere.
LikeLike
The latest “pat on the wrist” “penalties” to the Oregon football program further prove that the NCAA will go to NO lengths to “punish” athletics programs that are perceived as money-making, dominant names.
See other examples… North Carolina, Auburn, Ohio State, USC.
Penn State does not count because the NCAA had no business in the Penn State stuff–as those were criminal actions by an individual (with others involved as enablers/ignorers) that the courts decide… Any other actions in the PSU case should be handled in civil court (lawsuits,etc.), or by the state/federal organization(s) that have authority over institutions of higher learning (not the conference/ncaa).
Very-related…this talk of the so-called “power-schools” desiring stipends, etcetera… breaking off from the rest of the NCAA also re-inforces thought that these powers-that-be have lost their heads… The first mission of these universities is higher education—NOT—pro football/basketball grooming. If that is what is desired–then, start up a junior or semi-pro league (or leagues) a la baseball or hockey. Kids that either don’t have the educational chops, or desire, can go this route—or like hockey—play in the junior leagues and still get a college education.
The most recent U of Minn budget (2013/14 fiscal) was approved at 3.6 Billion (BILLION) dollars. Approx $800 million of that budget goes towards academic research and what it entails. Approx $80 million of that budget goes towards athletics. That leaves apprx $2.7 Billion for running the university (salaries/academic aid/overhead/etc). There are approx 54,000 students—of which approx 1000 are involved in inter-collegiate athletics, and approx 125 of these are in the “Money” sports (FB, MBB, MHKY). The athletes make up approx 1.9% of the student body. The athletic budget makes up approx 2.2% of the overall budget. At MN the athletics revenue/expenditures are maintained as a balanced budget. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any of the 1.9% deserve a stipend, or any extra perks above what they already may be receiving. Please do tell…
MOST athletes have no chance at a professional career. Many of these kids (or their family/coaches) are delusional in regards to the odds that their little Johnny is the next AP or Elway. Please stop the madness. It is not the university’s, nor the public’s responsibility to see the kids get their education…
Each individual’s choices/actions dictate where they will go…
LikeLike
Mostly agree. One question, though? Are you referring to Southern Cal? Although the punishment was delayed, They took a gut shot. Far closer to PSU’s in consequences on the field than the minimal “don’t do that or we may warn you again” the others you mention.
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“The latest “pat on the wrist” “penalties” to the Oregon football program further prove that the NCAA will go to NO lengths to “punish” athletics programs that are perceived as money-making, dominant names.
See other examples… North Carolina, Auburn, Ohio State, USC.
Penn State does not count because the NCAA had no business in the Penn State stuff”
Frankly, you’re just wrong. USC got hammered. PSU got crushed and you don’t get to decide that it doesn’t count. The NCAA could have not done anything and left it all to the courts, showing the NCAA chose to punish a top brand. OSU got an unprecedented bowl ban (nobody else had ever got one for the same level of infractions). MI got in trouble for minor practice time violations. People are mad at the NCAA for working so hard to find Miami guilty. That’s a lot of top brands punished in the past few years despite your claim.
LikeLike
OSU got the ban because the head coach covered up and lied to the NCAA. It wasn’t the infractions which were fairly minor, it was the involvement of the head coach. Its REALLY rare for a head coach to get caught.
LikeLike
No, they didn’t. The NCAA explicitly said the exact opposite. It had nothing to do with Tressel. OSU got the bowl ban for the second set of infractions by players.
LikeLike
I’ve just re-read the press release and scanned through the report. Both documents mention the Tressel’s infractions prominently. The section on penalties goes through a long summary of everything the school did wrong, and then gives a list of sanctions. I don’t see where it says that a particular penalty is, or is not, tied to a particular infraction, except that Tressel’s personal show-cause is obviously tied to him alone. Otherwise, it appears that the full set of penalties is tied to the full set of infractions, which obviously includes Tressel’s.
It would be most strange if Tressel’s misdeeds had nothing to do with the most severe penalty imposed, which was missing the post-season last year. Since the whole NCAA system depends on self-monitoring and voluntary compliance, the scenario here was practically the worst imaginable: the head coach knew he was playing ineligible players, and did nothing about it. On top of that, had the whole truth been promptly known, it is rather unlikely that the players would have been cleared to play in the Sugar Bowl; and without their participation, it is rather unlikely that OSU would have won the game. If that conduct doesn’t contribute to a bowl ban, I don’t know what does.
After all, what the NCAA punishes most severely is not the ineligibility itself, but rather, the failure of school officials to act once they know (or willful blindness to what they should have known). When it’s the head coach himself, how much worse can it get?
LikeLike
OSU got the failure to monitor charge for the player violations with a booster (after the tat-gate stuff) and because OSU was a repeat violator due to a previous booster issue. Without the FTM charge, OSU doesn’t get the bowl ban. Thus, Tressel wasn’t the cause of the bowl ban.
LikeLike
But yes, USC and PSU were brands that got hammered. Alabama got hit pretty hard a few years back.
Miami and UNC remain to be seen.
LikeLike
As the number of conference teams increases, there are more divisional games and fewer opportunities to play teams in the other division. With 14 teams B1G divisions still work quite well; however, if it goes to 16 or more, the divisions become more and more isolated from each other.
This can be mitigated by dividing divisions into pods and rotating the pods to create new, temporary divisions (such divisions being necessary to qualify for a Conference Championship Game). This works very well in principle but is probably too complicated and too unsettling for the ordinary fan.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with 16 (or more) teams is to use shadow-pods and shadow-divisions. Yes, we should use rotating pods and temporary divisions, but we should hide them from the casual observer. There is no need to mention pods and divisions at all.
For example, assume the B1G goes to 16 teams (with Kansas and Virginia added). Then the setup for Nebraska would look something like this:
Nebraska — OSU — Michigan — PSU
Kansas
Iowa
Northwestern
Kansas, Iowa and Northwestern are Nebraska’s pod-mates. OSU, Michigan and PSU are Nebraska’s fixed crossovers. However, you don’t announce this. You simply say that every year Nebraska will play Kansas, Iowa, Northwestern, OSU, Michigan, and PSU. In addition Nebraska will play three other teams (which change each year). What could be simpler than that?
Let’s look at Iowa:
Nebraska
Kansas
Iowa — Wisconsin — Minnesota — Rutgers
Northwestern
The Iowa fans are told: every year you play Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rutgers and Northwestern (plus 3 others). Pretty good schedule, isn’t it?
It’s nice and simple: you’ve got six teams you play every year and three teams that rotate in and out of the schedule. No mention of pods, no mention of temporary divisions. When the conference standings are produced, it should be a single list ranked from top to bottom — with no pods and no divisions shown.
At the end of the season, the top team goes to the CCG. That is easy, everyone will understand that. The second team will be determined by looking at the shadow divisions (in order to comply with NCAA requirements for a CCG). In most years the second place team in the conference standings will be the leader of the other division. This has been the case since Nebraska joined the B1G. Last year the top two teams were OSU (8-0) and Nebraska (7-1), both leading their respective divisions. In 2011 the top teams were MSU (7-1) and three teams tied on 6-2 (one of which was Wisconsin, which led its division).
Occasionally the top two teams will be in the same shadow division and the second team will miss out. This may cause some controversy; however, it will be no worse than the controversy arising in 2008 from the tie-break rule used to determine the participants in the Big12 CCG.
LikeLike
Fans like to follow the standings. Whether you name the divisions or not, we’ll all know they exist and we’ll want to see the division standings to know what our team needs to do. All the web sites will show the division standings. The writers will talk about them, too. There’s no point in hiding them.
I’d say the best method is to not use the word “pod” but just tell each school here are your 3 locked teams. And by the way, this year you’re in the “Whatever” division. Using E and W anchor pods is ideal to me because then many fans always know which division they’re in, too.
Unfortunately, pods suck for your chosen 16 teams:
A – NE, KU, IL, NW
B – MI, MSU, IN, PU
C – OSU, WI, IA, MN
D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
or
A – NE, WI, IA, MN
B – MI, MSU, NW, KU
C – OSU, PU, IN, IL
D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
I’d stay with divisions, unfortunately:
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, IN, RU, UMD, UVA
W – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU, MN, IL, KU
LikeLike
You miss my point. There are not three locked teams. There are six: your three podmates and your three locked crossovers. I’m suggesting we present them as six locked teams.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced the B10 would lock 3 crossovers for everyone. How many of those games truly need to be locked? Also, I think the B10 would refuse to lock 3 kings for any one team.
I think the more likely system would be 4 locked games (3 in pod, 1 out of pod). That should cover almost all needed games. Anchor pods in the W and E also seem likely to me since the west and east have almost no ties (longest is PSU at 16 games vs IA).
A – NE, WI, IA, MN
B – MI, MSU, NW, KU
C – OSU, PU, IN, IL
D – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
Lock: OSU/MI, NE/PSU, WI/MSU, NW/IL, KU/IN, PU/UMD, IA/UVA, MN/RU
I still think divisions are more likely, with a 7-2 schedule.
LikeLike
Really? 7-2 is the best we can do? With just two crossover games, it will take four years (minimum) to play every team.
And what do you do about Purdue and Indiana? Drop their rivaly to once every four years? Or leave them with just one crossover to cover seven teams?
By using shadow pods, every team plays every other team in just three years. Including Purdue and Indiana.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“Really? 7-2 is the best we can do?”
Under the current rules, yes that’s the best we can do. This is why expansion is a bad idea so often. There’s a heavy price to pay in FB scheduling for adding teams. Besides, your plan is a 6-3 schedule. That’s not all that different.
7-2 = 7 x 100% + 8 x 25%
6-3 = 6 x 100% + 9 x 33%
“And what do you do about Purdue and Indiana? Drop their rivaly to once every four years? Or leave them with just one crossover to cover seven teams?”
I’d let them decide, but personally I’d lock it and leave them 1 rotating game. It’s hard to make divisions that don’t split a vital rivalry unless you do Inner/Outer, and your 2 additions mess with that, too.
A – OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PU, NW, IL, KU
B – NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
“By using shadow pods, every team plays every other team in just three years. Including Purdue and Indiana.”
And multiple games people don’t care about are locked. And fans are confused by the changing divisions.
Pods:
3-6 = 3 x 100% + 12 x 50%
4-5 = 4 x 100% + 11 x 45%
5-4 = 5 x 100% + 10 x 40%
6-3 = 6 x 100% + 9 x 33%
I’d rather lock fewer games if you’re going with pods. But more importantly I don’t think the B10 would bother with pods for 16 teams.
LikeLike
Brian says: “I’m not convinced the B10 would lock 3 crossovers for everyone”
These are not normal crossovers. When you have divisions, crossovers are needed to play teams from the other division.
However, when you have fully rotating pods, crossovers are not necessary because the pods automatically rotate through all the teams. Therefore you can lock all the games.
By locking six games permanently, you give each team a more stable schedule and insure all significant rivalries are played yearly. Moreover, you enable six king-vs-king matchups every year.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“These are not normal crossovers. When you have divisions, crossovers are needed to play teams from the other division.”
And your plan does have divisions, you just think you can hide them from people. Therefore, 2 of the 3 will be crossovers but which 2 will change as thew pods rotate. Feel free to coin a new term, but crossover conveys the point pretty well I think.
“However, when you have fully rotating pods, crossovers are not necessary because the pods automatically rotate through all the teams.”
They’re necessary to fill out the schedule unless you think the B10 would drop to 7 games. They’re also needed to maintain a high frequency of play. No crossovers would mean playing 12 teams only once every 3 years.
“By locking six games permanently, you give each team a more stable schedule”
But that stability is exactly what you don’t want in a large conference. You want as much change as possible to rotate through teams faster.
“and insure all significant rivalries are played yearly.”
You also ensure several unnecessary “rivalries” are forced on everyone each year. Nobody in the B10 needs 6 locked opponents to maintain their rivalries.
“Moreover, you enable six king-vs-king matchups every year.”
E/W locks 3.75. Pods lock anywhere from 2.5-6. The kings don’t want to all play each other annually, and the other schools don’t really want that either since it would mean them playing OSU, MI, NE and PSU less often.
LikeLike
Brian is half right. When you have only three locked games, pods suck for my 16 chosen teams. However, when you have six locked games, pods work great!
I intentionally chose Kansas and Virginia because they are awkward additions. As Brian pointed out, with just three locked games, pods are inferior to divisions. That’s why I am locking three crossovers to produce six locked games.
Six locked games enables every significant rivalry game to be played every year. Moreover, it produces six king-vs-king games every year.
LikeLike
For those of you who like details, here is my suggested structure for 16 teams with Kansas & Virginia. I have also looked at variations for Virginia & Georgia Tech, Virginia & Notre Dame, and Kansas & Missouri. They all work great.
Nebr – OSU – Mic – PSU
Kans – Pur – Ind – Virginia
Iowa – Wis – Min – Rutgers
Nort – Ill – MSU – Maryland
Every team is locked to its three horizonal and three vertical neighbors. This provides six king-vs-king games, gives the two new teams annual games with historic rivals, and enables the following trophies to be contested every year:
Land of Lincoln
Illibuck
Purdue Cannon
Old Brass Spittoon
Old Oaken Bucket
Floyd of Rosedale
Heroes Trophy
Heartland Trophy
Paul Bunyan Trophy
Little Brown Jug
Paul Bunyan’s Axe
LikeLike
All 4 kings would complain about the SOS gap. WI and MN would complain about missing NE so often. KU and UVA would complain about playing each other annually. RU would complain about playing the triangle of hate, and those 3 would complain about playing RU.
I don’t see how that plan works great.
LikeLike
Brian thinks the kings are going to complain about playing other kings? I don’t see it. Nebraska played all the kings (plus all the princes) in 2011 and again in 2012. Did they complain? No they relished the challenge and finished the season 7-1.
So which of the B1G kings is going to whimp out and complain about playing other kings?
LikeLike
Brian thinks Kansas, Rutgers and Virginia are going to complain about their schedule. Really? Rutgers is so pathetically grateful to be in the B1G, they won’t say a word. Ditto Kansas.
And as for Virginia, they get annual games with their closest neighbours (except for OSU) so a flight to Kansas City every second year is no big deal.
LikeLike
@StevenD: Brian is right on all counts.
In the first place, your premise fails because fans want to see standings. I oppose the NCAA’s current CCG rule as unnecessary, senseless, and anti-competitive. But as long as it remains the rule, fans are going to want to follow the standings of the two divisions.
Nebraska’s AD did complain (mildly) about having to face all three kings their first two years. But at least that arrangement was not permanent: this year, they miss OSU in the regular season.
Yes, I think Kansas and Rutgers would complain (and should complain) about having artificially-created annual “rivalries” at the opposite geographic end of the conference. But regardless of whether they’d complain, it’s simply a bad idea. Every game that you lock, is a game not available for that team to play other opponents. It therefore makes sense only to lock those games that make a modicum of geographic or historical sense.
That’s exactly the approach the Big Ten took with the new divisions, starting next year: the only locked cross-divisional rivalry is the one that’s truly needed: IU-PU. There are others they could have locked, with varying degrees of justification, but they took a minimalist approach. They certainly couldn’t have come up with meaningful cross-division rival for every team; the rivalries just don’t exist.
I also agree with Brian that if the next two teams are UVA and KU, the league will probably adopt the KISS principle, and just add those teams to the existing East-West divisions. The league was burned with the confusing Legends-Leaders split, which hardly anyone liked. They lucked out when the addition of Maryland and Rutgers gave them a free do-over. Simple is better.
Mind you, there are expansion scenarios where East-West doesn’t work anymore. But if the two teams are UVA and KU, it still works perfectly, so I think that’s what they’d do.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“Nebraska played all the kings (plus all the princes) in 2011 and again in 2012. Did they complain?”
Yes, they did. Their fans called it hazing but accepted it as the price they had to pay to join the B10. Accepting it for 2 years is very different from accepting it for the foreseeable future. They know that a schedule like that guarantees more losses and thus fewer division and conference titles and they’d complain.
“So which of the B1G kings is going to whimp out and complain about playing other kings?”
All of them.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“Brian thinks Kansas, Rutgers and Virginia are going to complain about their schedule. Really? Rutgers is so pathetically grateful to be in the B1G, they won’t say a word. Ditto Kansas.
And as for Virginia, they get annual games with their closest neighbours (except for OSU) so a flight to Kansas City every second year is no big deal.”
Yeah, and nobody would complain about Inner/Outer either, right? After all, they all got to play their neighbors in that scheme.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@StevenD: Brian is right on all counts.”
Thank you.
LikeLike
Marc thinks that the addition of Kansas and Virginia would make it simple for KISS divisions to continue. He is wrong.
KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.
So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?
Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana. However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.
So, if the B1G adds a pair in the east or a pair in the west, it will probably continue with the KISS divisions. But it is much less likely to do this with a Kansas-Virginia add.
LikeLike
KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.
So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?
Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana.
The Big Ten already decided that it is willing to tolerate this “awful” problem, not because it is perfect, but because they felt that all other options were worse. My guess is, yeah, the Indiana schools will continue play annually, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams. That’s the “least bad” option.
The alternative you’ve suggested is considerably more complicated, and they’re not going to do that just to even out the two Indiana schools’ schedule rotation. There’s got to be a proportionality between the complexity of the solution, and the severity of the problem you’re purportedly solving. That’s what’s lacking here.
However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.
Correct. Of course, with realignment now apparently off the table for the next decade or more, a lot could change between now and the next time the Big Ten has to consider this question. When we first started discussing these scheduling options on this blog, a lot of us thought that further expansion was imminent. Now, it doesn’t appear to be. These imaginary divisions are like a stovepipe league, something that has very little chance of occurring anytime soon.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“Marc thinks that the addition of Kansas and Virginia would make it simple for KISS divisions to continue. He is wrong.”
No, he isn’t. It’s the natural continuation from the 14 team alignment. It’s very simple to do it.
“KISS puts Kansas in the west and Virginia in the east. That means the divisions continue to be split between Indiana and Purdue.”
Yes. I’m still waiting to hear what’s difficult about it.
“So which is it, Marc? Do Indiana and Purdue play once every four years? Or do they play every year, leaving just one crossover game to play seven teams?”
That’s not a difficulty, it’s a downside. Every system has downsides. Yours confuses fans and forces fake rivalries.
There are many choices:
1. Lock IN/PU and leave them with 1 rotating game. They could schedule other B10 teams OOC to maintain frequency of play if they wanted.
2. Don’t lock IN/PU and have an equal rotation of 25%. They could schedule the game OOC in the years it isn’t played.
3. Go to 10 games and lock IN/PU.
4. Use pods.
5. Change the NCAA rule so that divisions aren’t necessary.
“Adding one team in the west (Kansas) and one team in the east (Virginia) causes this awful problem for Purdue-Indiana. However, if you add two teams in the east (Virginia, Georgia Tech) or two teams in the West (Kansas, Missouri), Purdue and Indiana are reunited in one division and the problem disappears.”
Which sounds like a reason not to add UVA and KU, not a reason to use double secret scheduling systems.
“So, if the B1G adds a pair in the east or a pair in the west, it will probably continue with the KISS divisions. But it is much less likely to do this with a Kansas-Virginia add.”
According to you. Do you have any corroboration for your opinion? Do others agree with you?
LikeLike
Marc says: “The alternative you’ve suggested is considerably more complicated, and they’re not going to do that just to even out the two Indiana schools’ schedule rotation.”
The alternative is not considerably more complicated. Every team has six fixed opponents (just like now). Every team has three games that rotate (just like now). What’s complicated about that?
My alternative doesn’t just fix the Indiana-Purdue problem. It also restores the Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug as annual contests, and it enables six king-vs-king games every year.
I don’t see the problem with all the kings playing each other every year. The fans and the TV people will love the matchups, and the kings will benefit from tough conference games as preparation for a tough post-season.
As long as all the kings face the same tough matches, there should be no problem. The only complaint Nebraska had (and it was a muted one) about playing all the kings last year was that the other kings did not face the same competition.
In my proposal all the kings play all the other kings so it is a level playing field. No problem.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“The alternative is not considerably more complicated. Every team has six fixed opponents (just like now). Every team has three games that rotate (just like now). What’s complicated about that?”
Pods are more complicated than divisions. Adding lots of locked games between pods is more complicated than having no locked games.
“It also restores the Illibuck and the Little Brown Jug as annual contests,”
I’m a staunch traditionalist, but even I will admit few fans really care about those games anymore. Besides, you conveniently skip over all the non-rivalry games you also locked that reduce frequency of play.
“I don’t see the problem with all the kings playing each other every year.”
Willful blindness doesn’t make a problem disappear.
“The fans and the TV people will love the matchups,”
Some fans will. Others will hate all the extra losses that cost their team division and conference titles.
“and the kings will benefit from tough conference games as preparation for a tough post-season.”
Tough games can prepare a team, but they also hurt the W/L record. More losses means fewer CFP/BCS appearances. That’s not a benefit.
“As long as all the kings face the same tough matches, there should be no problem.”
Right, NE will be fine with WI playing PU, IL, MN and RU annually while NE plays MI, PSU, NW and KU and they compete for titles and bowls. What possible complaint could NE have?
LikeLike
Brian does not understand my proposal (or he is intentionally misrepresenting it). I am proposing that NE play three kings every year, and Wisconsin play two kings every year.
This is no different than 2011 and 2012, when NE played three kings and Wisconsin played two.
Just to be clear, my proposal does the following:
(1) Every king plays 3 kings annually
(2) Every non-king plays 2 kings annually
(3) Every team is played triennially (minimum)
(4) All significant rivalries play annually
(5) CCG (it complies with current NCCA regs)
LikeLike
Brian does not understand my proposal (or he is intentionally misrepresenting it). I am proposing that NE play three kings every year, and Wisconsin play two kings every year.
This is no different than 2011 and 2012, when NE played three kings and Wisconsin played two.
Brian understands it perfectly, as far as I can tell. There is a difference between locking a particular scheduling inequity permanently, and an inequity that happens to have existed for two years, before rotating off.
The other problems with your proposal are there wouldn’t be published division standings, and you’re locking rivalries that no one wants.
LikeLike
Marc says: “The other problems with your proposal are there wouldn’t be published division standings, and you’re locking rivalries that no one wants.
First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.
Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.
In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?
When you give a team six permanent games, some of them are bound to be less exciting than others. That’s what happens with the current B1G schedule, and my proposal is no different.
The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.
LikeLike
First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.
Standings aren’t exactly a minor matter: if you can’t clearly show which teams are leading in the race to the CCG, then you’ve failed.
Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.
Many of the games you’ve chosen are games no school would seek. Surely you are able to see that.
In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?
Nebraska–Purdue is a rivalry that no one particularly wants. But organizing into geographic divisions is a pretty normal system in sports. In any division set-up, inevitably some rivalries are more important than others. People don’t mind, as long as the divisions themselves make sense. That’s why East–West works, but Legends–Leaders didn’t. Once you have no divisions at all, the exact purpose of locking non-existent rivalries eludes me. Lock what needs locking, and no more.
The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.
The league does not seem to want to lock all the king/king games permanently. Personally, I’d favor a system that allows LBJ and Illibuck to be played more often. But the cure can’t be worse than the disease.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“First, if they want to publish division standings, that’s fine by me. The only reason I suggested that they not be published was to avoid confusion.”
How would that avoid confusion? If anything, it would increase the confusion for most fans.
“Second, my proposal does not lock rivalries that no one wants. It merely gives each team six permanent games.”
Do you really not understand that those two sentences contradict each other? People use the phrases “locked rivalries” and “permanent games” interchangeably. More importantly, you have 6 locked games when only 3 are mandatory and 4 would cover essentially every important rivalry.
Let me quote your plan from above:
“Nebr – OSU – Mic – PSU
Kans – Pur – Ind – Virginia
Iowa – Wis – Min – Rutgers
Nort – Ill – MSU – Maryland”
Why would you do that when you could do geographic pods and lock 1 extra game at most?
W = NE, WI, IA, MN
N = MI, MSU, NW, KU
S = OSU, IL, PU, IN
E = PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
Locked (NW vs SE) – OSU/MI, IL/NW, (NE/PSU, IA/KU), [MN/PU, WI/RU, MSU/UMD, IN/UVA]
Locked (NE vs SW) – OSU/MI, IL/NW, (NE/PSU, WI/MSU, IA/KU), [MN/RU, PU/UMD, IN/UVA]
Locked (NS vs EW) – OSU/PSU, (NE/MI, WI/MSU, IA/KU), [MN/IL, NW/RU, PU/UMD, IN/UVA]
() – nice but not necessary
[] – can mix and match
Marc would say to lock only those that are necessary, but I’d expect at least 3 games under each scenario to be deemed too important to lose (OSU/MI, IL/NW & NE/PSU or OSU/PSU, NE/MI & WI/MSU) with a 4th being logical (IA/KU for regional play to help the newbie). At that point the B10 would have to decide whether to expand that to everyone or stop at 4.
That all assumes equal rotation, though. I’d personally never pair EW vs NS for travel reasons. That reduces the problem as the obvious locked games are OSU/MI, IL/NW, NE/PSU and IA/KU, with no obvious choices for the others. My guesses are MN/PU, WI/RU, MSU/UMD and IN/UVA since that brings the bigger brands into NYC and DC, limits travel by putting MN with PU and pairs two soccer schools. I’m not sure the B10 would consider those worth locking, but they might for the DC and NYC markets.
Schedule:
4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 3 x 33% (OSU, MI, IL, NW, NE, PSU) or
4 x 100% + 7 x 50% + 4 x 38% (IA, KU) or
3 x 100% + 12 x 50% (those without a locked game)
That’s 3-4 locked games per team with few rivalries lost and 4 king/king games every year. More importantly travel is reduced as local teams play each other more. That’s good for players and fans. That seems like a much better compromise than your system to me. Obviously you disagree.
But when looking at it, I think the B10 would clearly choose divisions. The E/W solution is too easy and obvious.
“In the new B1G schedule (starting in 2014), Nebraska will have a permanent game with Purdue. Are you saying Nebraska-Purdue is a locked rivalry that nobody wants?”
Yes.
“When you give a team six permanent games, some of them are bound to be less exciting than others. That’s what happens with the current B1G schedule, and my proposal is no different.”
Except that your 6 make less sense than the 2014 6 do. The whole point of pods is too avoid all the locked games that divisions require. If you’re going to lock 6 games anyway, you lose that advantage.
“The important thing about my proposal is that it provides more king-vs-king matchups and enables more trophy games (like the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck) to be played annually.”
You are making way too much out of the king/king games and minor rivalries while ignoring all the downsides. The B10 chose geographic divisions specifically to get the 3 eastern kings into the new markets as often as possible and reduce travel overall. Your system completely changes that which seems unrealistic for additions like UVA and KU.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9430582/michigan-sets-dynamic-ticket-prices-based-supply
MI is going to start using dynamic pricing for single-game tickets.
Opponent – season ticket price – initial single game price (end zone)
CMU – $65 – $70
ND – $65 – $195
Akron – $65 – $65
MN – $65 – $85
IN – $65 – $85
NE – $65 – $110
OSU – $65 – $175
LikeLike
I think this is a big improvement. It allows folks who just want to see UMich play be able to buy a cheaper ticket for Akron from UMich, avoiding the need to deal with a scalper or Stubhub and will probably allow UMich to sell more Akron tickets. I expect the Indiana prices to fall close to Akron level. I assume the OSU price is influenced by the date – weather will certainly be nicer for the ND game.
LikeLike
I suspect the ND is price is because it is the last game in the series that will be played in the Big House
LikeLike
That and MI’s dreams can’t be ruined before the ND game. By the end of the season, enthusiasm might be a touch lower depending on how things go.
LikeLike
That and MI’s dreams can’t be ruined before the ND game. By the end of the season, enthusiasm might be a touch lower depending on how things go.
True, but Michigan routinely sells out practically every game before any of that is known. Fans will buy Nebraska and Ohio State tickets well in advance, based on the premise that those are important games — whether or not that turns out to be true.
Anyhow, I am pretty sure that neither Michigan nor OSU has any trouble getting fans interested in The Game, even if one of the teams is having a down year. The Nebraska game could certainly be a letdown if Michigan is already out of the division race by then.
There are a lot of reasons people will get excited about ND: last game in the series (at least for now), the only home night game of the year, ESPN Game Day likely in attendance, and the way the last one turned out. Still, I am a bit surprised that tickets for OSU are lower. I think they could charge double for that game, and still sell out.
In case anyone is wondering, student season tickets are $40 a game.
LikeLike
Well, it is only the starting point. The more interesting numbers will probably be the final prices.
LikeLike
yes, I am outraged … yes, outraged !!! … that the ND ticket price is higher than the ticket price for The Game. LOL Actually, I agree with others. Both MI and tOSU could charge double for The Game and still sell it out. There would be a mighty howl of outrage, but in the end, the stadiums would be full.
LikeLike
I don’t think the cheaper games will drop much if they do poorly, not much room for them to drop and the Big House is already close to 85% sold out. It’s the ‘major’ games that’ll be more volatile, those Nebraska & Ohio games could move up or down a good deal. Again, these are just general tickets which there aren’t a lot available at Michigan Stadium after season & student tickets.
LikeLike
Are prices allowed to drop? Just curious.
LikeLike
I think they’re referring to the secondary market. In theory, yes, those prices could drop if Michigan’s season goes in the tank.
LikeLike
Glad I have season tickets. PSL fees + season tickets aren’t looking like a bad way to go anymore.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2013/06/michigan_state_athletic_direct_6.html
Mark Hollis predicts the B10 will stay at 14 schools for a while.
LikeLike
Agreed. Barring the unforeseen (e.g. ESPN reneging on its promise to create an ACC network), TV deals have things locked down for the next decade.
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-06-27/big-ten-schedule-ranking-nonconference-ohio-state-michigan-wisconsin
The B10 has the best OOC schedule of the big 5 this year.
Games against BCS teams: Big Ten (38 percent); Pac-12 (30 percent); SEC (30 percent); ACC (29 percent); Big 12 (27 percent).
Games against non-BCS teams: Pac-12 (46 percent); Big 12 (46 percent); SEC (45 percent); Big Ten (44 percent); ACC (42 percent).
Games against FCS teams: ACC (29 percent); Big 12 (27 percent); SEC (25 percent); Pac-12 (24 percent); Big Ten (18 percent).
Duffman, do you want to warm up your anti-B12 rant?
LikeLike
It’s always interesting to me that the ACC manages to play the lowest % of games against non-AQ’s but the highest % against FCS.
Also, the Big XII doesn’t really look that bad. They are only very slightly “worse” than average in all three metrics. They probably have the weakest OOC SOS, but (at least on paper) the ACC, SEC, PAC and Big XII are so tightly packed together the difference is pretty negligible.
LikeLike
It’s always interesting to me that the ACC manages to play the lowest % of games against non-AQ’s but the highest % against FCS.
Wake and Duke love their VMI, Richmond, Elon and Liberty.
LikeLike
Well if one school has an ooc of Washington St., Duke and Idaho St., just because its 2 BCS schools doesn’t mean its better than someone playing Boise St., BYU and Appalachian St.
Without looking at the specific teams, it all looks pretty close. Which means the Big 12 and Pac 12 have the toughest overall since they play 9 conference games. If you factor that extra conference game in to compare, the Big 12 would comparatively be at 45% BCS and 20% FCS while the Pac 12 would be at 47% BCS and 18% FCS.
LikeLike
If you calculate over the full 12 game schedule its:
Pac 12 BCS 82.5%, FCS 6.0%
Big 12 BCS 81.8% FCS 6.7%
Big 10 BCS 79.3% FCS 6.0%
SEC BCS 76.7% FCS 8.3%
ACC BCS 76.3% FCS 9.7%
LikeLike
Since when has duffman ever considered that 9th game when discussing this topic?
LikeLike
Here is the one for the B12
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-06-24/big-12-ranking-nonconference-schedule-bcs-games-oklahoma-texas
Big 5 OOC games in BOLD
According to the article here is how they rank :
First to worst
1. Oklahoma: Louisiana-Monroe, Tulsa, @ Notre Dame
2. Texas: New Mexico State, @ BYU, Ole Miss
3. TCU: LSU (Jerryworld), Southeast Louisiana, SMU
4. Iowa State: Northern Iowa, Iowa, @ Tulsa
5. Oklahoma State: Mississippi State (Reliant), @ UT-SA, Lamar
6. West Virginia: William & Mary, Georgia State, @ Maryland
7. Kansas: South Dakota, @ Rice, Louisiana Tech
8. Texas Tech: @ SMU, Stephen F. Austin, Texas State
9. Baylor: Wofford, Buffalo, Louisiana-Monroe
10. Kansas State: North Dakota State, Louisiana-Lafayette, UMass
(3) SEC games – LSU biggest of 3
(1) B1G game – rival game with Iowa State
(1) ACC game – scheduled when WVU was in the Big East
(1) IND game – Irish fit the ACC tho
(0) PAC game – even tho such a game makes the most sense
00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
.
…
.
now here is the PAC (who also plays 9 conference games)
First to worst
1. Arizona State: Sacramento State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame (JerryWorld)
2. California: Northwestern, Portland State, Ohio State
3. UCLA: Nevada, @ Nebraska, New Mexico State
4. Stanford: San Jose State, Army, Notre Dame
5. USC: @ Hawaii, Boston College, Utah State, @ Notre Dame
6. Oregon: Nicholls State, @ Virginia, Tennessee
7. Washington: Boise State, @ Illinois, Idaho State
8. Utah: Utah State, Weber State, @ BYU
9. Colorado: Colorado State (Denver), Central Arkansas, @ Fresno State
10. Oregon State: Eastern Washington, Hawaii, @ San Diego State
11. Washington State: @ Auburn, Southern Utah, Idaho
12. Arizona: Northern Arizona, @ UNLV, @ UT – SA
(5) B1G game – against better B1G teams
(2) SEC games – Scheduled when Auburn and Tennessee were up
(2) ACC games – granted not the toughest of ACC schools
(3) IND games – @ CA schools and a AZ school
(0) B12 games – even tho such a game makes the most sense
33.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
33.33% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
33.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
The PAC average 1 Big 5 game for every school
The B12 averages about 1/2 Big 5 game for every school
I still stand by that the B12 is lame when scheduling OOC especially when two of the Big 5 games were scheduled before TCU and WVU moved or it would be be even uglier.
LikeLike
I still stand by the Big 10 and SEC schedules being lame as well. The Pac 12 is not and typically is not as I have said before.
LikeLike
bullet,
To be fair I have always given Oklahoma credit for scheduling well but they are more outlier than conference average.
Here is the B1G using the same as above :
From first to worst
1. Purdue: @ Cincinnati, Indiana State, Notre Dame, N Illinois
2. Michigan St: W Michigan, USF, Youngstown St, @ Notre Dame
3. Michigan: C Michigan, Notre Dame, Akron, @ UConn
4. Nebraska: Wyoming, Southern Miss, UCLA, San Jose State
5. Wisconsin: UMass, Tennessee Tech, @ Arizona St, BYU
6. Illinois: Southern Illinois, Cincinnati, Washington, Miami (OH)
7. Northwestern: @ California, Syracuse, W Michigan, Maine
8. Penn State: Syracuse (Meadowlands), E Michigan, UCF, Kent State
9. Iowa: N Illinois, Missouri St, @ Iowa State, W Michigan
10. Ohio State: Buffalo, San Diego State, @ California, Florida A&M
11. Indiana: Indiana State, Navy, Bowling Green, Missouri
12. Minnesota: UNLV, @ New Mexico S, W Illinois, San Jose State
(5) PAC games
(3) IND games
(2) ACC games
(1) SEC game
(1) B12 game
.
…
.
here is the comparison between the B1G and the B12
B1G
8.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
83.34% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
8.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
B12
00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
Again the B1G averages 1 Big 5 OOC game per conference member while the B12 averages about half of that.
Looks to me like the B1G is tougher than the B12 OOC again this year!
LikeLike
duffman,
“here is the comparison between the B1G and the B12
B1G
8.33% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
83.34% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
8.33% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
B12
00% of teams play 2 Big 5 teams
60% of teams play 1 Big 5 teams
40% of teams play 0 Big 5 teams
Again the B1G averages 1 Big 5 OOC game per conference member while the B12 averages about half of that.
Looks to me like the B1G is tougher than the B12 OOC again this year!”
And like always, you neglect the fact that the B12 plays a 9th B12 game. That means 2 things:
1. Each B12 team starts with 9 Big 5 games. That means they average 9.5 Big 5 games this year while the B10 averages only 9.0.
2. Each B12 team only has 3 OOC games and they all need at least 2 at home with 5 of them needing 3 at home. Magically that math works out to half the B12 playing 1 Big 5 team OOC (the half with 5 home games in conference).
LikeLike
Big 10 and Big 12 ooc looking at actual games both look pretty bad this year. I think the Big 10’s is even worse than last year’s. The Big 12 looks slightly better than last year’s.
LikeLike
It really hurts the B10 that Cal is so down from where they were when OSU scheduled them. Also, Vanderbilt bailed out of their games with OSU (SDSU replaced them) and NW.
LikeLike
Brian, This is why I did the head to head between the PAC and the B12 because both played the 9 game schedule. Clearly the PAC dominates the B12 in their OOC. I know you keep making a big deal about the 9th game in the B12 but as stated before, 4 of the top 6 all time winners in the B12 left leaving just 2 and 6 bottom feeders. Think if the B1G kept their top 2 all time winners but lost the 4 right below them how differently we would view the B1G :
All time via wik for 12 team B1G (before Maryland and Rutgers) :
1 Michigan .735
2 Ohio State .713
3 Nebraska .704
4 Penn State .658
5 Michigan State .592
6 Minnesota .571
7 Wisconsin .571
8 Purdue .534
9 Iowa .531
10 Illinois .520
11 Northwestern .439
12 Indiana .419
Now remove #3, #4, #5, and #6 (similar to the B12 losing theirs)
1 Michigan .735
2 Ohio State .713
7 Wisconsin .571
8 Purdue .534
9 Iowa .531
10 Illinois .520
11 Northwestern .439
12 Indiana .419
Now add back Maryland and Rutgers for a 10 team B1G
1 Michigan .735
2 Ohio State .713
3 Wisconsin .571
4 Purdue .534
5 Iowa .531
6 Maryland .525
7 Illinois .520
8 Rutgers .508
9 Northwestern .439
10 Indiana .419
You can not tell me with a straight face the sports talking heads would be saying how the B1G got tougher after such a realignment! I firmly believe over time more folks will wake up that the B12 is no longer as strong as it was and they will be the next conference to fall in 10 – 20 years. Without Texas and Oklahoma how many of the 8 remaining teams have a MNC after say WW II? How many have a MNC since the Supreme Court case in the late 70’s?
Here is the B1G claims by school :
(6 / 1) Ohio State : 1954, 1957, 1961, 1968, 1970, 2002
(6 / 0) Michigan State : 1951, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1965, 1966
(5 / 3) Nebraska : 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997
(3 / 1) Michigan : 1947, 1948, 1997
(2 / 2) Penn State : 1982, 1986
(1 / 0) Minnesota : 1960
(1 / 0) Iowa : 1958
(1 / 0) Illinois : 1951
(35 / 7) from 8 of 12 members = 66.7% of conference has at least 1 MNC
Here is the B1G claims by school :
(7 / 2) Ohio State : 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000
(4 / 1) Texas : 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005
(11 / 3) from 2 of 10 members = 20.0% of conference has at least 1 MNC
If the rest of the remaining B12 was this great football conference then why do the remaining 8 teams have not 1 MNC between themselves to show for it? If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less? It was the teams that left (Nebraska and Colorado) that had the MNC’s not the teams that stayed or the replacements.
LikeLike
Edit that last part as I flipped B1G for B12 and Ohio State for Oklahoma
(here is how it should have read)
Here is the B12 claims by school :
(7 / 2) Oklahoma : 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000
(4 / 1) Texas : 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005
(11 / 3) from 2 of 10 members = 20.0% of conference has at least 1 MNC
LikeLike
duffman,
“Brian, This is why I did the head to head between the PAC and the B12 because both played the 9 game schedule. Clearly the PAC dominates the B12 in their OOC.”
Everyone already knows that the P12 always has the toughest OOC schedule. It’s the only way they can draw fans. But you also criticize the B12 in comparison to the other leagues that play 8, and we’re pointing out how silly that is considering you intentionally ignore the 1 extra AQ game built into their schedule.
“I know you keep making a big deal about the 9th game in the B12”
It’s as big a game as any AQ game. If playing IN and IL and MN and PU all count, then so does playing a B12 team.
“but as stated before, 4 of the top 6 all time winners in the B12 left leaving just 2 and 6 bottom feeders.”
Nobody but you cares. They still play 9 AQ teams in conference.
TCU has more wins (#41 all time) and a higher W% than IA, PU, IL, NW and IN. WV is #14 in total wins, putting them above MN, MSU, WI and all those behind TCU. WV is equivalent to TAMU in terms of wins and W%. TCU is equivalent to MO. Is the B12 worse for also losing CO and NE? Of course it is. But that doesn’t make them bad, just worse than they used to be.
“Think if the B1G kept their top 2 all time winners but lost the 4 right below them how differently we would view the B1G :”
By wins, that would mean losing OSU, PSU, MN and MSU. But to make more sense, replace OSU with NE. That would be the old B10 minus MN and MSU. But then add TCU and WV. TCU is a downgrade from MN, but not a huge one. WV would be at least as big an improvement over MSU, though. Net result is essentially the old B10. I’d consider a 9 game schedule in the old B10 as reasonably difficult.
By W%, it would be losing NE, PSU, MSU and WI. Again, WV and TCU make a roughly fair trade and we end up with an old B10 equivalent.
“Now add back Maryland and Rutgers for a 10 team B1G”
But the B12 didn’t add UMD and RU. They added WV and TCU. Both of those programs are much better than either UMD or RU.
“You can not tell me with a straight face the sports talking heads would be saying how the B1G got tougher after such a realignment!”
Nice straw man. Show me one time anybody here has ever argued that the B12 got tougher via expansion. Go on, I’ll wait.
As for the NC stuff, so what? Is a team worthless if it finishes #2 (TCU in 2010)? WV has had top 5 finishes. Is MN a better program for having a 50+ year old title?
“If the rest of the remaining B12 was this great football conference then why do the remaining 8 teams have not 1 MNC between themselves to show for it?”
TCU won it in 1938.
“If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”
Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.
LikeLike
Brian,
TCU has more wins (#41 all time) and a higher W% than IA, PU, IL, NW and IN. WV is #14 in total wins, putting them above MN, MSU, WI and all those behind TCU. WV is equivalent to TAMU in terms of wins and W%. TCU is equivalent to MO. Is the B12 worse for also losing CO and NE? Of course it is. But that doesn’t make them bad, just worse than they used to be.
Wow, at least you are finally stating they are not as good as they were. Far different from your stance in the past when you have argued they experienced no drop off losing 4 of their 6 teams in the old Big 12 and replacing them with TCU and WVU as better. I have never said Oklahoma was bad and always give them props for tough schedules. My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today. They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard. Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly. Look at the numbers :
TAMU = 53 K students, 83 K seats*, SWC / B12 / SEC, and #2 in #2
WVU = 30 K students, 60 K seats, IND / SoCo / BE, and #1 in #38
*TAMU is building a new 1/2 billion stadium that will seat over 100K
MU = 35 K students, 71 K seats*, B 8 / B12 / SEC, and #1 in #18
TCU = 10 K students, 45 K seats, WAC / CUSA / MWC, and #5/6 in #2
*MU is expanding to 77K or 80K seats currently
So TAMU and MU were playing power conference schedules most of their history while WVU and TCU were not. TCU and WVU may have more actual wins but they should because they were not playing Oklahoma + Nebraska + Texas every season. TCU went from 11-2 to 7-6 their first season in the B12. West Virginia went from 10-3 to 7-6 their first season in the B12. It is even more telling in conference play :
TCU 2011 went 7-0 in conference
TCU 2012 went 4-5 in conference
WVU 2011 went 5-2 in conference
WVU 2012 went 4-5 in conference
Further indicating the high win numbers were inflated by playing in weaker conferences.
pre realignment the Big 12 was probably #2
#1 SEC
#2 B12
#3 B1G
#4 PAC
#5 ACC
post realignment the B12 looks more like this
#1 SEC
#2 PAC – should at least be #2 or #3 long term
#3 B1G – down right now but should move to #2 or #1 in next decade
#4 B12 – could easily fall to 5th place in next decade
#4 ACC – could move ahead of Big 12 in next decade
Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years.
My main point in all of this is that the B12 will have to go out of their way in the future to schedule better OOC games because they will be seen as another ACC in terms of deadweight football teams once you get past Texas and Oklahoma. I also like how you still avoid the fact that 40% of the Big 12 fails to schedule even (1) Big 5 OOC game.
.
…
.
Nice straw man. Show me one time anybody here has ever argued that the B12 got tougher via expansion. Go on, I’ll wait.
As for the NC stuff, so what? Is a team worthless if it finishes #2 (TCU in 2010)? WV has had top 5 finishes. Is MN a better program for having a 50+ year old title?
Brian, you state this and then this is your very next reply!
TCU won it in 1938.
At least I divided it to post WWII titles and post 1970’s titles! I could have added all the Michigan and Minnesota titles if I really was playing your “creative” accounting game.
.
…
.
Duffman : “If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”
Brian : Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.
Brian, Nebraska says hello
States by population and schools stadium size
# 2 TX : UT = 100K / TCU = 45 K
#18 MO : MU = 71 K
#22 CO : CU = 54 K
#28 OK : OU = 82 K / OSU = 60K
#30 IA : Iowa = 71 K / ISU = 45K (seats) + 10K (hilltop)
#33 KS : KU = 50 K / KSU = 50 K
#34 UT : Utah = 45 K
#37 NE : UNL = 87 K and could increase to 93 K in the near future
#38 WV : WVU = 60 K
Brian, it is about winning. Nebraska wins and they have a big stadium for a small state. West Virginia wins but not at the same level as Nebraska so they have about 30,000 fewer seats to sell. This is not hard to comprehend. long term Nebraska will be better served playing in a conference where more teams are MNC contenders. Long term WVU and TCU will benefit less playing in a conference with only 2 MNC contenders. Heck, Alabama is not a huge state but that does not stop them from having (2) programs in the state with stadiums in the 100K range. Why does Auburn have almost 30,000 seats more than West Virginia and they have to play second fiddle to Alabama while WVU has the whole state to itself?
LikeLike
My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today. They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard. Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly.
The Big XII was never a market leader. I mean, why did they lose the schools they did? It’s because they were already in a position of weakness, and the schools with better options moved on.
Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years.
It’s not a big fall, because the Big XII was in fourth place to begin with, and they still are. Will the ACC surpass them? It’s not so clear. Football continues to be the most lucrative revenue sport, and the ACC’s best football programs aren’t as good as Texas and Oklahoma.
On top of that, four of the ACC’s better football programs (VT, GT, FSU, Miami) have weak historical ties to the league. Once the GoR expires, there is nothing preventing the last three on that list from accepting better offers. If Virginia eventually goes to the Big Ten, VT would be in the same boat. In contrast, UT and Oklahoma are tied to in-state schools that they can’t easily abandon.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Wow, at least you are finally stating they are not as good as they were. Far different from your stance in the past when you have argued they experienced no drop off losing 4 of their 6 teams in the old Big 12 and replacing them with TCU and WVU as better.”
No, I said previously that their average was unchanged from before. Clearly their history dropped as NE and CO left, but CO is so bad right now that they and NE cancel out.
“My argument is has been and continues to be that the Big 12 of old is not the Big 12 of today.”
They’ve still been clearly better than the ACC, BE and B10 lately.
“They are no longer a market leader but a market laggard.”
Wrong on both counts. That lost teams in part because they weren’t a market leader. And on the field, they’re still in the elite because up and comers have provided quality depth since NE and CO left.
“Sure Texas and Oklahoma will survive but WVU < TAMU and TCU < MU so the quality will drop accordingly. Look at the numbers :"
I'm sorry, I thought football was about winning, not a facilities and student body size competition.
"So TAMU and MU were playing power conference schedules most of their history while WVU and TCU were not."
So all those Big 8 powerhouses count for MO but the SWC is meaningless for TCU? What about WV's long independence playing Pitt, Syracuse and PSU (their 3 most frequent opponents, all with a strong FB history)?
"TCU and WVU may have more actual wins but they should because they were not playing Oklahoma + Nebraska + Texas every season."
Neither was anyone else. They didn't join the same conference until 1996 and NE was in a different division.
"TCU went from 11-2 to 7-6 their first season in the B12."
Losing a lot of starters might have been a small factor in that, too.
"pre realignment the Big 12 was probably #2"
Reasonable.
"post realignment the B12 looks more like this
#1 SEC
#2 PAC – should at least be #2 or #3 long term
#3 B1G – down right now but should move to #2 or #1 in next decade
#4 B12 – could easily fall to 5th place in next decade
#4 ACC – could move ahead of Big 12 in next decade"
Completely disagree.
1. SEC
2. B10, P12, B12
5. ACC
There is no evidence that the B10, B12 and P12 will settle into clear positions. The B10 has been the worst of the 3 on the field lately but seems to be bouncing back. OR and Stanford have been at all time highs and it seems unlikely that they both stay there. OU and UT have been down and are likely to bounce back. The ACC could easily join that group, too, but they've been down for a while so I left them separate.
"Once realignment is complete the ACC should pass the Big 12, leaving the B12 in last place. that is a pretty big fall in just a few years."
I fail to see Pitt and Syracuse boosting the ACC in football. Will playing ND? Maybe.
"My main point in all of this is that the B12 will have to go out of their way in the future to schedule better OOC games because they will be seen as another ACC in terms of deadweight football teams once you get past Texas and Oklahoma."
In the past 3 years:
KSU was #1 and was above OU and UT
OkSU was #2 and was above OU and UT
TCU was #2 and was above OU and UT
WV was in the top 5 for most of 2007. Baylor has been respectable and just had a Heisman winner. That's 5 other schools to go with OU and UT. How many of the AQ conferences can claim that 60% of their conference was in the top 5 in the past 6 seasons?
"I also like how you still avoid the fact that 40% of the Big 12 fails to schedule even (1) Big 5 OOC game."
I don't avoid it, I just understand it. They already play 9 AQs. MN only plays 8 next year. 10 of the B10's 12 only play 9 total. Only NW plays 10 which is what you're expecting of the B12. I'd say the B12 wins that comparison easily.
"Brian, you state this and then this is your very next reply!
TCU won it in 1938."
Because you said nobody else had a mythical national title in the B12.
"At least I divided it to post WWII titles and post 1970′s titles!"
The AP poll started in 1936. What makes a 1947 title better than a 1938 one? Both are ancient history and from a game we'd barely recognize.
Duffman : “If the product top to bottom was so good then why do almost all the B12 stadiums seat 60K or less?”
Brian : Because most are located in small cities and/or sparsely populated states (ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU, WV)? Because 2 of them are smaller and private? Because another is located in the middle of nowhere in a big state? 5 B10 stadiums seat 62.5k or less and we’re about to add 2 more.
Brian, Nebraska says hello
And OU ignores them. Of course a king has a bigger stadium. But you asked why the others don’t, so I told you.
“Why does Auburn have almost 30,000 seats more than West Virginia and they have to play second fiddle to Alabama while WVU has the whole state to itself?”
1. AL has more than 2.5 times the population of WV.
2. The entire state of AL is obsessed with football.
3. It’s harder to travel within WV than AL.
4. AU has more living alumni than WV.
LikeLike
The PAC average 1 Big 5 game for every school
The B12 averages about 1/2 Big 5 game for every school
Yes, you showed that the PAC schedules tougher OOC than the PAC. Congratulations on proving something everyone already knows.
two of the Big 5 games were scheduled before TCU and WVU moved or it would be be even uglier.
So then are you going to the Big XII credit for the UNL-UCLA game since that was scheduled when Nebraska was still in the Big XII?
LikeLike
To be fair to the Big 12, they do have 9 conference games (right now only matched by the PAC-12). While they might have fewer OOC games against BCS teams, they have more on their schedule thanks to the extra conference game.
LikeLike
I don’t have the energy to do this, but if you were going to be fair about it, I think that counting the number of Big Five OOC games is far too crude.
That’s not only because some leagues have nine conference games, and others have eight. It’s also because not all Big Five games are created equal. The team that schedules BYU is taking on a bigger challenge than the team that schedules Duke, but in @dhuffman’s scheme, the latter counts as a “Big Five” game, and the former does not.
A school scheduling three competitive mid-majors probably has a tougher OOC schedule than one scheduling a weak Big Five team and two punching bags. West Virginia is playing Maryland (poor Big Five), Georgia State (a team in its first FBS season) and William & Mary (still FCS). So their OOC schedule is in essence a fairly weak Big Five team and what amounts to two FCS teams. No great credit for that.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree but looking at where FBS will probably split into the first 64 (Big 5) and the second 64 (currently MAC type conferences) it makes a point of reference. BYU is the question mark but they (like UC) probably fall when they are no longer visible. In short Notre Dame and Louisville have stayed in the picture while BYU and Cincinnati are fading from it.
Here is the BYU schedule for 2013 :
@ Virginia in ACC
Texas in B12
Utah in PAC
Middle Tennessee
@ Utah State
Georgia Tech in ACC
@ Houston
Boise State
@ Wisconsin in B1G
Idaho State
@ Notre Dame as Big 5 IND school (the only one)
@ Nevada
That is 6 Big 5 type games at a time when the Big 5 are playing 8 or 9 such games in conference. Unlike the team they like to pattern after they have neither the following (catholic) or history that the Irish already have built up over at least a century of winning and lots of catholics in places like Chicago and the east coast. In short I view Notre Dame as equal to a Michigan where BYU may be more like a Houston.
As for scheduling I think the line in the sand is a single top school vs multiple mid level schools. Say Oklahoma plays Alabama and 2 cream puffs, that is much harder than Oklahoma State playing 3 teams in the middle and never facing a top team.
LikeLike
BYU is the question mark but they (like UC) probably fall when they are no longer visible.
I’m not sure, in all due respect, how you arrive at that. No Big Five school wants to play a schedule confined exclusively to other Big Five opponents. How on earth do you think a school like BYU, or even a weaker one like Cincinnati, falls to the point of becoming invisible?
BYU has games scheduled out into the 2020s with the likes of USC, Notre Dame, Washington State, Virginia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia. These schools want to play BYU.
LikeLike
Marc,
The question in the future will be how to load Big 5 schools based on how conferences schedule. The B1G, PAC, and B12 generally schedule non conference at the beginning of the season. The ACC and SEC schedule non conference late but they are usually cross games with history between the 2 conferences. After say the first 4 weeks who will BYU schedule in the Big 5? Of those 8 slots in October and November how many will be against Big 5 teams? Look at the schools who lost the exposure of a power confernce.
Tulane went from the SEC to CUSA
SWC schools that fell to CUSA
Montana and Idaho after they left the PAC
Since BYU won the 84 Holiday Bowl what have they done? Aside from a 97 Cotton Bowl against Kansas State in the pre BCS era? Not exactly the ringing endorsement of a power football team. They are Notre Dame Lite and heading to CUSA status if they are not already there.
LikeLike
@dhuffman: If your point is that BYU is a mid-major, how could I disagree? Of course they are. I’m just not understanding what you believe would occur to make them disappear. Indeed, after careful study they decided to go independent in football, the first school in many decades to do so voluntarily. They did so only after getting their own TV deal and making sure the schedule could work.
Yes, several schools fell off the radar after dropping out of Big Five leagues. On the other hand, Louisville, Utah, and TCU were able to get into the Big Five (in TCU’s case, returning to that level). Certain mid-majors remain big draws, Boise State and BYU among them. It’s not all or nothing, and the sport has worked that way for many years.
LikeLike
Marc,
I would agree if this were the last 10 years and the mid majors like Boise State could slip in to the discussion because FBS encompassed all 120 or so teams. However, going forward I really believe you will see a split of FBS into 2 separate groups where the Big 5 will get the lions share of the media but but the CUSA type teams will fall below the primary radar. I do not think you see a TCU or Utah (as MWC) in a Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl again. Viewed that way is why I think BYU and Cincinnati fall off the radar and become invisible. Sure some B1G folks watch MAC teams but mainly because the B1G plays them so much and they are local. It does not mean B1G folks watch the second tier conferences in the south or west on a frequent basis.
With all these new media deals with the Big 5 I think you will be even less likely to see teams outside as they would have to compete for space alongside the BTN, PTN, or SECTN. If my choices are equal exposure or less exposure (invisibility) I am going with less exposure.
LikeLike
I really believe you will see a split of FBS into 2 separate groups where the Big 5 will get the lions share of the media but but the CUSA type teams will fall below the primary radar.
Hasn’t that already happened? The Big Five have overwhelmingly the most lucrative TV deals and bowl tie-ins.
They’ve thrown the mid-majors only one tiny bone: every year (starting in 2014), ONE mid-major will be guaranteed a bid to a major bowl; that’s one bid out of twelve. Really, the only thing more they could do, is make it zero out of twelve.
When you’ve already frozen them out of 11/12ths of the pie, it’s not worth going after the last 1/12, and risking the anti-trust wrath of Congress. Their domination is already near-complete. It’s just not worth going after that last twelfth.
LikeLike
Marc,
I very much agree with you on the “scrap bone” being tossed out to prevent anti trust but as of today the NCAA has not officially split FBS football into 2 groups even tho they have headed that way for years now.
The issue was Louisville now getting ACC money while Cincinnati is relegated to the kids table. Like Penn State vs Pittsburgh when PSU joined the B1G it put a great distance between 2 longterm rivals. One seems to have prospered and one has withered and most of that can be attributed to the better exposure the B1G gets on the national level. I guess my longer term view is a school like BYU or Cincy will have and almost impossible task of winning each and every year to keep the spotlight on them for that scrap bone.
Cincy got an Orange Bowl in 2009 and a Sugar Bowl in 2010. Louisville got an Orange Bowl in 2006 and a Sugar Bowl in 2012. 20 years from now my guess is UC and UL will no longer be close in football prowess as they once were and a long standing rivalry will be lost like so many other from realignment.
LikeLike
I’m agnostic on the question of whether FBS will split formally into separate subdivisions of Division I. They’re already split economically; the only question is whether the formal rules will follow suit.
But the Big Five teams will continue to play the “Little Five,” much as they do today, and much as they have continued to schedule FCS teams. For a wide variety of reasons, the Big Five want those games. One reason is that they need opponents that don’t demand a return game, so that they can get the seven home dates that everyone wants. The other reason is that a number of the mid-majors are decent gate attractions (e.g., Boise, BYU, the service academies).
If your point is that it’ll remain very difficult for any mid-major to move up to Big Five status, I agree. In recent times the only ones who’ve pulled it off are Louisville, Utah, and TCU.
LikeLike
BYU just scheduled a series with USC with two games over Thanksgiving weekend in November. The future matchups with Notre Dame will also likely occur in November. Boise St. is on the schedule through 2023, with most of those matchups in the second half of the season.
Notre Dame’s arrangement with the ACC also creates holes in the ACC schedule in the latter half and will provide plenty of opportunities for BYU v. ACC matchups in October and November. The ACC-SEC rivalry games at the end of November also create holes in the ACC and SEC late season schedules.
BYU will be fine. They will continue to have 5-7 Power 5 schools on the schedule, more than any other school from the Group of Five.
There will be plenty of MWC and American teams to fill October and November holes in the schedule. They already have Houston, Cincinnati, UConn, UCF, and ECU on future schedules through 2018, mostly in October and November. And, MWC games will hold regional interest – Utah St., Hawaii, UNLV, Nevada, Colorado St., San Diego St., etc.
If BYU wins, it will have the schedules that will attract the selection committee’s attention and gain national respect. Any team that has a potential resume with wins over Notre Dame, Boise St., and schools like Texas or West Virginia, Georgia Tech or Virginia, Wisconsin or Nebraska, and Utah or USC (see upcoming schedules), along with some of the upper tier of the MWC and American conferences, would get attention and respect. Obviously, the key for BYU will be winning.
It also noteworthy that BYU has finished in the top 25 in six of the last eight seasons. I expect the Cougars to consistently finish in the top 25 (at least half the time), with occasional season where they legitimately contend for a top 10 ranking. Although not elite status, that is a much more stable program than the majority of Power 5 teams.
LikeLike
News on the LSU/Wisconsin games.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/6369672-123/no-georgia-or-south-carolina
“Another scheduling piece still to be completed is the contract that will have LSU face Wisconsin in a pair of neutral-site games. The schools have agreed to open the 2014 season against each other at Reliant Stadium in Houston, but Alleva said they still have to decide which year they would face each other at the Green Bay Packers’ iconic Lambeau Field.
“It’s going to happen,” Alleva said of the two-game series.”
LikeLike
Click to access June27release.pdf
Director’s Cup finishes:
1. Stanford 1261.25
2. UF 1244.75
3. UCLA 1227.25
4. MI 1138.25
6. PSU
16. Ohio State
22. Minnesota
24. Nebraska
29. Wisconsin
30. Michigan State
31. Illinois
32. Indiana
40. Northwestern
42. Purdue
65. Iowa – get it in gear, Hawkeyes
44. UMD
120. RU – need to fix this soon
LikeLike
65. Iowa – get it in gear, Hawkeyes
Especially since the Cyclones finished 41st.
44. UMD
120. RU – need to fix this soon
As I’ve argued for some time, the transition to the Big Ten will be considerably more difficult for Rutgers than for Maryland, which at least has 60 years of all-around big-time conference experience under its belt. In contrast, Rutgers spent nearly half that time as an ersatz Ivy and the other half in conferences where many rival schools had far smaller athletic programs (the Atlantic 10, then the Big East). The Big Ten will be a whole new ballgame on the banks of the Raritan.
The good news for Rutgers is that it can be rectified, though it will take time. Virginia Tech ranked well below ACC schools in the Directors’ Cup when it joined the ACC in 2004; now, it’s competitive in most sports. I fully expect Syracuse and Pittsburgh to improve in ensuing years as a benefit of ACC membership.
LikeLike
The 66 B5 conference +BYU schools took 49 of the top 50 Director’s Cup places (Princeton was #35). Thirteen more schools came in below New Mexico (#51) but in the next 27 slots. Most of these were schools like CO, MS, UT, and KS St, but there were a few I did not expect: Clemson, Missouri, Kansas, and Miami. The bottom of the barrel besides Rutgers (120) are Wake Forest (95), Pittsburgh (109) and Washington State (192).
LikeLike
The 66 B5 conference +BYU schools took 49 of the top 50 Director’s Cup places (Princeton was #35).
A #35 finish for a school that doesn’t offer athletic scholarships is pretty remarkable.
LikeLike
There was an article a year ago suggesting some of the Ivy’s may become competitive again because of their ability to academic scholarship nearly everyone admitted. Stanford had a plan pre crash to full scholarship everyone admitted who’s family yearly income was below 100 or 200k. Not sure where that stands currently.
LikeLike
There was an article a year ago suggesting some of the Ivy’s may become competitive again because of their ability to academic scholarship nearly everyone admitted. Stanford had a plan pre crash to full scholarship everyone admitted who’s family yearly income was below 100 or 200k. Not sure where that stands currently.
As I understand it, the Ivy League’s challenge cuts a bit deeper than that. Ivy League coaches have less ‘pull’ to get athletes admitted who wouldn’t ordinarily have qualified. Technically, all an Ivy League coach can do is recommend admission, not guarantee it. If you play sports at Yale, you still have to be able to make it through a Yale curriculum.
In a number of sports, they don’t play full seasons. In football, they do not participate in the FCS playoffs and play just 10 regular-season games. In basketball, they don’t have a conference tournament. In hockey, the six Ivy League schools that play the sport have a season about three weeks shorter than everyone else.
They also have the chicken-and-egg problem that all programs have: you can’t be competitive without great athletes; but the great athletes want to join programs that are already competitive. That’s why Indiana football and Penn State basketball remain perpetually terrible.
Of course, there are only so many kids that are great at sports and can handle an Ivy League course load, and a lot of them choose the “near-Ivies” — places like Stanford and Duke, where the education is just as good, but the sports teams have a higher profile, and the scholarship is a straight-up grant, without having to demonstrate financial need.
(There are a lot of people, even some in the Ivy League itself, who think they made a mistake stepping down to Division I-AA. The larger programs forced their hand, but they were already considering the move anyway, and didn’t fight it. Had they objected, they might well have been able to remain in I-A. By the time that happened, the Ivy League programs weren’t national championship material, but some of them did appear in the Top 25 from time to time.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“(There are a lot of people, even some in the Ivy League itself, who think they made a mistake stepping down to Division I-AA. The larger programs forced their hand, but they were already considering the move anyway, and didn’t fight it. Had they objected, they might well have been able to remain in I-A. By the time that happened, the Ivy League programs weren’t national championship material, but some of them did appear in the Top 25 from time to time.)”
How were they forced? They didn’t even try to appeal the move because they knew they didn’t belong. The Ivy League formed in part to de-emphasize football. They agreed to not give scholarships and to have strict conference-wide admission standards for all players. They also gave up the postseason. Football at those schools started declining then and it was only accentuated as football slowly became big business. They dropped to I-AA just before OU vs the NCAA brought TV money into the game in a serious way. They weren’t going to be competitive after that anyway, so they were better off in I-AA where they could win games.
Here’s a relevant article:
Jeff Orleans, the Ivy League’s executive director, said, “For those who wonder why we didn’t stay in Division I-A as Duke, Stanford and Northwestern did, I would ask, what do you think of their football experience this year?”
That would be a very different question now.
LikeLike
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I believe you are underestimating how many exceptional students would choose an Ivy degree is the cost was minimal. NFL scouts will find the talent where ever it is, a reduced schedule lessens the risk of injury, there would no longer be an athletic scholarship cost concern, etc. I’m not saying that it is likely to happen quickly, or at all, and it is certainly not the goal of those schools. It would be a slow process. The article was just that a large reason for their decline (competitively) would be alleviated. I’ve known several D1 kids who would gladly have gone to an Ivy, or Stanford (they had been long term mediocre FB, pre Harbaugh) if it they had been admitted, and a couple who were, but a full ride elsewhere was much more affordable.
LikeLike
How were they forced?
The very article you quoted (which I have seen before), says: “…less than a month after the 1981 season ended, the Ivy League was expelled from big-time college football.”
Are not “forced” and “expelled” pretty close to synonymous? They might eventually have reached the same conclusion anyway (they were considering it), but in the end it was the big-time programs that forced them out, rather than the Ivy League voluntarily withdrawing.
The article goes on to quote a number of people associated with the Ivy League (alumni and some ADs) who regret the move—just as I said. So I am really not sure what you’re disagreeing with.
They didn’t even try to appeal the move because they knew they didn’t belong.
I think the experience of such programs as Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern, suggests that there was a plausible path for the Ivies to remain competitive in major collegiate athletics without sacrificing their academic ideals.
Of course, the choice was theirs to make — not ours. I am merely pointing out that not everyone in the Ivy League agrees, and it wasn’t necessarily foreordained.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“However, I believe you are underestimating how many exceptional students would choose an Ivy degree is the cost was minimal.”
I think Stanford, NW, Vandy, etc would still have a huge edge. No postseason means no chance at a national title or even a major bowl game and most elite players want that chance to shine on the biggest stage. Besides, those players with NFL aspirations would know that the talent around them could hold them back (a great QB needs OL and WR to look good, etc).
“NFL scouts will find the talent where ever it is,”
And a few Ivy League players make it to the NFL as is.
“a reduced schedule lessens the risk of injury,”
How many 18 year-olds worry about that?
“and it is certainly not the goal of those schools.”
I think that’s the key. The presidents don’t want football to be big at these schools. They go to the postseason in every other sport but football, for example.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
The very article you quoted (which I have seen before), says: “…less than a month after the 1981 season ended, the Ivy League was expelled from big-time college football.”
Are not “forced” and “expelled” pretty close to synonymous? They might eventually have reached the same conclusion anyway (they were considering it), but in the end it was the big-time programs that forced them out, rather than the Ivy League voluntarily withdrawing.
I guess I was unclear. I’m really asking how they were forced. Did I-A hold a vote and kick the Ivies out? Did they set some standard (attendance, for example) that the Ivies failed to meet and thus they kicked them out? How did this actually happen? It’s mentioned but never explained.
The article goes on to quote a number of people associated with the Ivy League (alumni and some ADs) who regret the move—just as I said. So I am really not sure what you’re disagreeing with.
I wasn’t disagreeing, I was asking a question. I linked the article because it was relevant to what you were discussing. But to be fair, it also had people on the other side of the issue.
I think the experience of such programs as Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern, suggests that there was a plausible path for the Ivies to remain competitive in major collegiate athletics without sacrificing their academic ideals.
All the schools you mentioned give athletic scholarships and play in the postseason. the Ivies refuse to do either. I don’t see this plausible path unless those things change, and those changes would be viewed by the presidents as them sacrificing their ideals.
LikeLike
I could see the Ivy adopting a single bowl policy similar to the PAC or B10 of yesteryear.
Those bright enough to be admitted will be able to calculate the value of a “bigger” name FB school, along with the odds of actually making the NFL vs the lifetime value of a Harvard or Princeton degree (like many who choose Stanford over Oregon, Vandy over Alabama, etc. when offered by both).
Again, I’m not saying a concerted effort to quickly rise would happen. Stanford, NW, Vandy etc would continue to have an advantage…until they didn’t. If the Ivy’s aren’t trying, they won’t care. If cost is no longer a critical factor, parents will “help” some (not all by any means) make the better long term decision.
LikeLike
I wonder if they’d run into issues with the no tuition for poor kids policy at Harvard (for example)? If they got competitive, I’d think others might question their ability to give as many free rides as they want.
LikeLike
Brian:
My recollection is that if you are admitted, it’s free. For everyone. The proposed policy wasn’t intended to promote sports but to avoid failing to enroll students who are qualified in every way but the bank account arena. Everyone gets preferential treatment, therefore it isn’t. Every other school is free to do the same, if they choose to…
LikeLike
http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19810925-01.2.20&srpos=&dliv=none&e=——-en-20–1–txt-IN—-
I guess I was unclear. I’m really asking how they were forced. Did I-A hold a vote and kick the Ivies out? Did they set some standard (attendance, for example) that the Ivies failed to meet and thus they kicked them out? How did this actually happen? It’s mentioned but never explained.
The linked article does a pretty good job spelling out what happened.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124798/2/index.htm
Here is another one from a year later. Basically the CFA schools + the Big Ten and PAC were prepared to expel the Ivies along with some other smaller conferences. The Ivies initially opposed the move, but later decided they were better off dropping down anyways.
LikeLike
I remember the Ivies decided themselves to move down. Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton and would have met the standards and Cornell only needed a small stadium expansion. The other 3 would have had problems. But there was a provision at the time that if a majority of the conference made it, everyone was in. The MAC, PCAA and Southland schools almost all either dropped football or moved back up to I-A. Basically it just permanently moved down the MVC, Southern and Ivy, not all 6 conferences as was the intent.
Of the Southland schools, 3 are now in the Sun Belt, 1 is in the Sun Belt but has dropped football and 2 are in CUSA. Lamar is still in the Southland, dropped football but re-started and is trying to get in the Sun Belt. Only McNeese is happy in FCS.
LikeLike
I guess I was unclear. I’m really asking how they were forced. Did I-A hold a vote and kick the Ivies out? Did they set some standard (attendance, for example) that the Ivies failed to meet and thus they kicked them out? How did this actually happen? It’s mentioned but never explained.
It was attendance: there was a rule promulgated (I forget the precise figure) that a number of Ivies didn’t satisfy. Some large schools (Michigan among them) suggested a grandfather clause that would have allowed the Ivies to remain, but that exception wasn’t approved, and the Ivies themselves didn’t agitate for it.
One can speculate forever, e.g., if the Ivies had fought like heck to remain in I-A, would the other schools really have gone through with forcing them out. But anyhow, it was trending in that direction and the Ivies elected to step down.
(I live within walking distance of Columbia’s football stadium in Upper Manhattan and have gone to a couple of games. There are high schools that attract more fans than Columbia does. If you show up after halftime, they just let you walk in.)
All the schools you mentioned give athletic scholarships and play in the postseason. the Ivies refuse to do either. I don’t see this plausible path unless those things change, and those changes would be viewed by the presidents as them sacrificing their ideals.
That’s exactly right: I’m just pointing out the path that was potentially available to them, without necessarily compromising their academic excellence. Obviously, they didn’t take that path, and most of the Ivy presidents are still comfortable with the choice. Un-ringing the bell at this late date, even if they wanted to, would be very difficult.
LikeLike
frug,
So the I-A schools were voting to eliminate a rule that gave the Ivies special consideration to stay in I-A despite not qualifying under the attendance/stadium size rules?
I don’t have an objection to that.
Thanks for the links.
LikeLike
A great book to read about the genesis of the Ivy issue is “College Football” by John Sayle Watterson : http://www.amazon.com/College-Football-History-Spectacle-Controversy/dp/080187114X
(Note: I do not receive anything for clicking on the above link: Its just an excellent history book.)
The book talks about how the Ivy’s started deemphasizing college football back in the 50’s, when the ban on TV took effect (with UPenn the lone holdout). This led to the formation of the Ivy League in 1954 by the 8 schools to band together as like-minded institutions that played football second to learning. It also was a reaction to the legalization of athletic scholarships–something all Ivy schools opposed.
A good read–probably the best college football history book (up there with “Stagg’s University” by Robin Lester about the history of UChicago’s football program.) (http://www.amazon.com/Staggs-University-Decline-Big-Time-Football/dp/0252067916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372688191&sr=1-1&keywords=stagg%27s+university)
LikeLike
I’ve got a relative in Jersey an he says all the kids in Jersey leave the state to go to college, I’d assume the same is true of the athletes.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
What did you think about this NBA draft?
LikeLike
My 2 cents:
1. The Nets are idiots for making that trade. Getting Methusaleh and his friend isn’t worth half your roster and all your future picks.
2. Some head-scratching picks like always.
3. What a weak draft class. The Cavs couldn’t give the #1 pick away and not a single player deserved to go #1.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/06/arkansas-state-miami-finalize-2014-2017-home-and-home-football-series/
Want to know how bad things are for Miami? They have agreed to a home and home with Arkansas St.
LikeLike
Maryland had not officially informed the ACC of its planned departure until this week. The school argued in court that the ACC was wrong to withhold conference revenues since Maryland had not yet provided formal notice.
Maryland provided notice this week. The school declined comment on the timing.
The ACC argued last month that Maryland’s suit should be dismissed.
But Davey left three of Maryland’s four counts intact, dismissing only a count in which Maryland alleged its economic and competitive standing was harmed by leaving the ACC. The judge said Maryland had publicly declared that it gained financially from joining the Big Ten.
Davey stayed the rest of Maryland’s suit pending the outcome of the North Carolina case. Maryland is seeking to dismiss the North Carolina-based suit on grounds that the court there lacks jurisdiction.
“The decision of the North Carolina Court and the decision by this Court could be similar to one another, could directly compete with one another, and/or could leave unresolved issues,” the judge said in a 36-page opinion.
“Permitting both matters to proceed simultaneously plainly risks inconsistent and/or competing determinations of fact and law, an outcome this Court seeks to avoid,” his opinion said.
http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76490478/
LikeLike
The future. Concussion concerns canceled.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cl98-HwR15s&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dcl98-HwR15s
LikeLike
Great read on how Creighton made the Big East. Lots here:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130630/NEWS/706309914/1685#big-east-how-creighton-made-it-to-the-big-time
LikeLike
I loved this little bit “Lannon was less familiar with other presidents. In fact, he was a little embarrassed to discover that the president of Seton Hall had a daughter who was a first-year medical student at Creighton. Shame on us for not knowing that, Lannon said. He checked to make sure she was doing OK.”
“make sure she was doing OK… more like telling those med professors that this girl is going to pass for the greater good of the university
LikeLike
Dude, Frank, you look like Ang Lee!
LikeLike
Now that we are about to enter the month of July I thought it would be the right time to ponder how the athletic competition within the P5 might develop over the next few years. I just came across an article about the debate within ACC circles over whether their basketball tournament should try to muscle in on the coveted MSG spot.
Excerpt: With SU set on Monday to officially join the Atlantic Coast Conference, Syracuse will play its post-season conference basketball in North Carolina for the next two years. The ACC is committed to holding its annual affair in Greensboro through 2015.
Speculation has swirled since the ACC announced it would add Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh and eventually Louisville that the ACC would eventually claim New York for its basketball tournament. And in separate conversations, ACC Commissioner John Swofford and Gross made the possibility seem likely.
“We have had talks about that, both internally and externally. And those discussions are ongoing right now,” Swofford said. “Our tournament has tremendous history and success here in North Carolina, but we’ve also moved it around on occasion to various sites. And we’ve had very positive discussions about the possibilities that could exist in New York looking forward. And we will be continuing those discussions.”
“We haven’t confirmed anything,” Gross said, “but the fact that it’s on the table and the fact that we have been able to voice our opinion and that people understand it and believe that New York is very intriguing and important is exciting.”
http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2013/06/swofford_gross_say_holding_the.html
It would be interesting to see if in the coming years the ACC sheds its reputation as a Carolina-centric conference. Already, we heard speculation that the Louisville add was the result of Florida State and a couple of other football-first schools using their influence to change the focus of the conference a bit towards their preference. However, I wonder if Louisville has to choose between Florida State and UNC which way would they go. UL is still viewed more for the basketball than for their football, despite the Sugar Bowl win. Then there are the new northern members like SU, Pitt and ND. ND football is only partial but that doesn’t mean that they would not play a key role in the direction of the conference, as long as they can play together with SU, Pitt, BC, UL and maybe VT, GT or Miami. Most of those schools already had a history with ND through the Big East (except for GT, who had a football history with them).
In the Big Ten, the issue going forward is how to best integrate Maryland and Rutgers, along with Johns Hopkins, into a conference that historically is tied to one region of the country until the addition of Penn State. Once Delany finally retires we should know by then how the newest members and Penn State have contributed to the conference after a few years as peer schools. Lacrosse is going to obviously be a barometer of the success or failure of the new direction it has taken. The real expectation, however, is the new markets and, more key, recruiting grounds in NJ and Md that the B1G is gaining access to, providing that extra lift to help keep up competitively with the SEC and B12. There may be surprises along that way but most likely in sports other than football. Basketball and maybe a couple of non-revenue sports is going to be massive battle between the B1G and ACC, with the Big East and other mid-majors occasionally being in the conversation.
In the SEC, we will see whether TAMU becomes, essentially, the next LSU in that West division. If the Aggies can maintain last year’s success they may emerge as the serious threat to not only dethrone Bama but win the actual championship as well. I think TAMU could in the next ten years be at the level of UGa, UF, LSU, Bama and Tenn in terms of true power.
For PAC-12, I think Oregon is going to decline a bit, leaving USC again in a dominant position, unless the Trojans screw it up again. Stanford has had a nice run but it’s a question of whether they can sustain it with their academics. Then again, if Northwestern can sustain its run, why not as well for Stanford. Cal is an absolute mess and I don’t know how that program can be turned around. UCLA is far away from the John Wooden days in basketball. They really need to figure out how to get back to getting back in the conversation. Colorado has done much better in basketball than in football and I think should be a decent power in the PAC in the short term. Utah should now start to assert itself in the conference more. They’ve had the two years of transition from the Mountain West conference. The Utes are one of the teams that I root for in order to convince the so-called blueblood program fans that the PAC didn’t make a mistake in adding them.
The B12 will continue to be strong in football and, with the Sugar Bowl deal, have a nice deal going forward. There is a question of stability but that will be answered in 10-15 years. Right now they’re OK. If in five years there’s still an issue about WV’s geography then I think the conference will seriously try to add a program like Cincy but won’t go to 12 because they don’t want a CCG. The Big Ten did OK with eleven. Basketball would be fought over by always-favorite Kansas, K-State and WVU. If Texas basketball gets back to competing then that would be a major help to that conference.
LikeLike
Then again, if Northwestern can sustain its run, why not as well for Stanford.
Northwestern has been fielding good teams by their historical standards, but not BCS contenders, as Stanford has been doing. That’s a lot harder to sustain.
LikeLike
I like where Fitzgerald is heading, I can see him sustaining NW as a top 20 program going forward. The West division of the B10 is relatively weak and they could easily end up in the B10 CCG a good share of the time. Potential top 20 program heading forward? Possible but I don’t like their chances this season, OOD they play Ohio & Wisconsin.
LikeLike
The B12 will continue to be strong in football and, with the Sugar Bowl deal, have a nice deal going forward. There is a question of stability but that will be answered in 10-15 years. Right now they’re OK. If in five years there’s still an issue about WV’s geography then I think the conference will seriously try to add a program like Cincy but won’t go to 12 because they don’t want a CCG. The Big Ten did OK with eleven.
There is one major problem with expanding to 11: You can’t play a 9-game conference football schedule with it. Yes, you could revert to an 8-game schedule, but you’d consequently reduce your inventory of league games from 45 to 44, which could run afoul of TV contracts.
I agree the conference needs to address West Virginia’s “island” status, but WVU had no idea the dominoes were going to fall the way they did. Maryland’s move to the Big Ten led the ACC to fill the void with Louisville, a school many believed was destined for the Big 12 because it was somewhat in the same academic tier as WVU. Now, for a three-team eastern flank, the Big 12 likely would have to take Cincinnati and Connecticut; both probably would agree to such a move, but I doubt Texas Tech has any great zeal in sending its baseball team to Storrs in April.
Regarding the ACC and its basketball tournament, I would guess the Big East probably installed some exclusivity clause with MSG, meaning the ACC would have to play its tourney in Brooklyn. I don’t know if that would appease SU fans’ temper tantrums.
LikeLike
The B12 will continue to be strong in football and, with the Sugar Bowl deal, have a nice deal going forward. There is a question of stability but that will be answered in 10-15 years. Right now they’re OK. If in five years there’s still an issue about WV’s geography then I think the conference will seriously try to add a program like Cincy but won’t go to 12 because they don’t want a CCG.
The Big 12 is sticking at 10, because they already have a sweetheart TV deal, and the networks won’t pay them any more unless the next addition is a blockbuster, e.g., Florida State. Cincinnati wouldn’t earn them any more money, but would give them another mouth to feed, which is the worst of all worlds.
Besides that, adding just one team wouldn’t improve WV’s travel to any significant degree. It would amount to one football game every other year — not enough of a difference to justify adding a program that wouldn’t bring any new revenue. Of course, it would also mean that the Big 12 could no longer play a round robin in football, and as @vp19 noted, you can’t play a 9-game schedule with 11 teams.
The UConn/Cincy combo, likewise, is not financially accretive. They could stage a CCG, but UT and Oklahoma don’t want that anyway.
LikeLike
The WV travel complaints have been about basketball and Olympic sports. The way the scheduling and B12 rules worked WV was making 2 round trips to Texas in a week for basketball due to rules that required a return and scheduling that did not take the travel distance for WV into account. The XII will address these issues by changing some travel rules and producing more travel friendly schedules for minor sports rather than looking at expansion, especially given the quality of expansion candidates available.
LikeLike
A couple of points: 1: The ACC will not move the Conference Championship to New York (unless it is to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn), because the Big East is still at MSG, and the “Tobacco Road Schools” like it in North Carolina. 2: The School in the PAC to watch out for going forward is ASU. They are finally getting their act together in Tempe, and once they finally upgrade Sun Devil Stadium, it should be a recruiting magnet. 3: The Bill O’Brien situation at Penn State will be something to watch. As we get further away from the Paterno/Sandusky/Sanctions, the odds increase we will contend for Conference Championships (Although we are not beating Ohio State or Michigan on a constant basis), if and this is a BIG if, he remains at State College. If not, we will be like the Pitt Panthers going forward (a 6 to 7 win team for the next decade). 4: What will the B10 Schools do with the extra revenue coming in with the next TV Contract? Schools in the West like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa & especially, Illinois (They are like ASU a School who should be better) should step up their game and invest more revenue in their football teams, and facilities, if they want to play in the Rose Bowl, because Ohio State & Michigan are not going down, and we could see a return to the “Big Two and the Little Eight” days (In fact I would wager that in the next 10 years, that UM or OSU will represent the East at least Seven times (probably more) in the Conference Championship). 5: I suspect B10 Hockey will be a success, and I see Nebraska and at least one other School adding it.
LikeLike
As we get further away from the Paterno/Sandusky/Sanctions, the odds increase we will contend for Conference Championships if and this is a BIG if, he remains at State College.
It’s worth noting that in the 18 years that Penn State was in an 11-team Big Ten, they won the conference title three times, i.e., 1/6th of the time. That counts shared titles, and ignores the fact that two of them were [wrongly, in my view] vacated.
It only gets harder from hereon out, because there’s an extra King in the league, and there are no longer any co-champions.
LikeLike
Big East Football ~ Goodnight, Sweet Prince
LikeLike
Ditto for WAC football.
LikeLike
Just a FYI, the CIC front page already has a picture welcoming UMD and RU to the club. No Johns Hopkins, AFAIK.
http://www.cic.net/home
LikeLike
The transition in College Park has begun!
LikeLike
Really cool! The Terps have updated their sports web page.
UM Terps.com
LikeLike
Rutgers moves ‘fast’ to restructure basketball team
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/07/01/rutgers-basketball-eddie-jordan/2478511/
LikeLike
The following list is from Texasjeremy on the WV Big 12 Scout board. Thought some of you might find it interesting. Obviously it is the official wins with PSU at the bottom of the list.
WINS BY POWER 5 CONFERENCE TEAMS, plus ND (or teams that will be in a power 5 conference by 2014)
PAST 5 YEARS
61 – Alabama
56 – Oregon
54 – TCU
52 – Florida, Oklahoma
51 – LSU
49 – Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech
48 – Nebraska, Stanford
47 – Florida State, Texas, Wisconsin
46 – Georgia, Southern Cal, Utah
45 – South Carolina
44 – Michigan State, West Virginia
43 – Clemson
41 – Missouri, Notre Dame, Texas Tech
40 – Georgia Tech, Northwestern
39 – Iowa, Kansas State, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
38 – Arkansas, Auburn
37 – Texas A&M
36 – Miami
35 – Arizona, NC State
34 – Louisville, Michigan, Oregon State
33 – Baylor, Mississippi State
32 – California
31 – Mississippi
30 – Boston College, UCLA
29 – Arizona State
28 – Syracuse, Tennessee
27 – Kentucky, Wake Forest
26 – Iowa State, Purdue, Vanderbilt, Washington
25 – Maryland, Minnesota
24 – Illinois, Virginia
23 – North Carolina
21 – Duke
19 – Kansas
17 – Colorado, Indiana
12 – Washington State
8 – Penn State
PAST 10 YEARS
107 – LSU
106 – Oklahoma
101 – Texas
100 – TCU
99 – Virginia Tech
98 – Florida
97 – Georgia
95 – Oregon
94 – Wisconsin
93 – West Virginia
92 – Utah
91 – Ohio State, Southern Cal
88 – Auburn
85 – Nebraska
83 – Clemson, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
81 – Louisville, Missouri
80 – Michigan
78 – Iowa
77 – Boston College, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina
76 – Florida State
75 – California
74 – Arkansas, Notre Dame, Rutgers
73 – Alabama, Michigan State, Oregon State
72 – Tennessee
71 – Kansas State, Pittsburgh
69 – Northwestern, Texas A&M
67 – Arizona State
66 – Stanford
65 – UCLA
63 – NC State, Purdue
61 – Virginia
60 – Maryland, Wake Forest
56 – Minnesota
55 – Mississippi
54 – Arizona, Kansas
52 – Kentucky, Mississippi State
51 – Baylor
49 – Iowa State
47 – Syracuse
45 – Colorado
44 – Vanderbilt, Washington
43 – North Carolina
42 – Washington State
41 – Illinois
38 – Indiana
29 – Duke
8 – Penn State
PAST 30 YEARS
293 – Nebraska
281 – Florida
278 – Miami
276 – Florida State
269 – Oklahoma
266 – Ohio State
263 – Michigan
256 – Tennessee
254 – Georgia
253 – Texas
252 – Auburn
249 – Virginia Tech
239 – LSU, Texas A&M
238 – Notre Dame
235 – Clemson, Southern Cal
234 – Alabama
233 – Oregon
230 – West Virginia
218 – Iowa
216 – Utah
214 – Wisconsin
212 – Arkansas, UCLA
207 – Virginia, Washington
206 – Texas Tech
205 – TCU
202 – Georgia Tech, Syracuse
200 – Boston College
198 – Colorado
196 – Arizona State, Kansas State
195 – Oklahoma State
194 – Louisville
192 – Michigan State
191 – NC State
189 – Arizona
186 – South Carolina
182 – Mississippi
175 – Pittsburgh
171 – Stanford
170 – North Carolina
167 – Maryland
162 – California
160 – Missouri, Purdue
158 – Mississippi State
157 – Illinois, Washington State
155 – Baylor
149 – Rutgers
148 – Kentucky
147 – Wake Forest
146 – Minnesota, Oregon State
144 – Penn State
143 – Kansas, Northwestern
131 – Indiana
130 – Iowa State
104 – Vanderbilt
97 – Duke
PAST 50 YEARS
481 – Nebraska
439 – Oklahoma
431 – Ohio State
428 – Michigan
427 – Texas
425 – Alabama
412 – Florida
410 – Southern Cal
409 – Georgia
405 – Florida State
401 – Tennessee
399 – Notre Dame
388 – Auburn
385 – LSU
381 – Miami
372 – Arkansas
365 – Virginia Tech
358 – Arizona State
355 – West Virginia
351 – Clemson
343 – Texas A&M
341 – UCLA
335 – Washington
325 – Texas Tech
324 – Penn State
319 – Boston College
315 – NC State
314 – Utah
313 – Georgia Tech
310 – Oregon
309 – Colorado
307 – Syracuse
301 – Michigan State, North Carolina
299 – Mississippi
298 – Pittsburgh
297 – Arizona, Louisville
294 – Wisconsin
293 – Stanford
291 – Missouri
290 – Oklahoma State
288 – Iowa
286 – South Carolina
283 – Purdue
277 – Maryland
276 – Virginia
275 – Rutgers
266 – California
264 – TCU
258 – Kansas State
245 – Baylor, Minnesota
241 – Illinois
237 – Mississippi State
235 – Washington State
233 – Kansas
227 – Kentucky
222 – Iowa State, Oregon State
214 – Wake Forest
208 – Indiana
196 – Northwestern
187 – Duke
173 – Vanderbilt
ALL-TIME (First Season)
903 – Michigan (1878)
867 – Texas (1893)
866 – Nebraska (1890)
865 – Notre Dame (1887)
837 – Ohio State (1889)
829 – Oklahoma (1895)
827 – Alabama (1892)
799 – Tennessee (1891)
786 – Southern Cal (1888)
760 – Georgia (1891)
744 – LSU (1893)
723 – Penn State (1887)
721 – Auburn (1891)
708 – West Virginia (1891)
699 – Syracuse (1889)
697 – Virginia Tech (1892)
696 – Georgia Tech (1892)
693 – Texas A&M (1894)
684 – Pittsburgh (1890)
682 – Arkansas (1894)
680 – Florida (1906)
679 – Washington (1889)
677 – Colorado (1890)
669 – Clemson (1896)
654 – Minnesota (1882)
652 – North Carolina (1888)
648 – California (1882)
647 – Michigan State (1885)
644 – Wisconsin (1889)
640 – Utah (1892)
637 – Missouri (1890)
632 – Rutgers (1869), Virginia (1888)
629 – Boston College (1893)
628 – Mississippi (1893)
618 – Maryland (1892)
602 – Oregon (1894)
599 – Iowa (1889)
598 – TCU (1896)
597 – Stanford (1891)
592 – Purdue (1887)
582 – Illinois (1890)
580 – Kentucky (1881)
577 – Kansas (1890)
576 – Arizona (1899)
573 – Miami (1927), Vanderbilt (1890)
566 – Arizona State (1896), South Carolina (1892)
561 – NC State (1892)
557 – UCLA (1919)
550 – Baylor (1899)
541 – Oklahoma State (1901)
532 – Texas Tech (1925)
515 – Mississippi State (1895)
514 – Oregon State (1893)
506 – Washington State (1893)
504 – Iowa State (1892)
499 – Northwestern (1875)
486 – Kansas State (1896)
485 – Florida State (1947)
467 – Louisville (1912)
463 – Duke (1888)
452 – Indiana (1887)
425 – Wake Forest (1888)
LikeLike
For anyone who wants to do statistical analysis, vacated games are a pain.
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s one reason I despise vacating wins as a punishment. It’s very easy for results to be very misleading with even one vacated season. Add in multiple and things are royally messed up.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Obviously it is the official wins with PSU at the bottom of the list.”
Let’s adjust for vacated W’s. I’ll fix OSU and PSU below.
WINS BY POWER 5 CONFERENCE TEAMS, plus ND (or teams that will be in a power 5 conference by 2014)
PAST 5 YEARS
61 – Alabama
56 – Oregon
54 – TCU
52 – Florida, Oklahoma
51 – LSU, Ohio State (was 39)
49 – Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech
48 – Nebraska, Stanford
47 – Florida State, Texas, Wisconsin
46 – Georgia, Southern Cal, Utah, Penn State (was 8)
45 – South Carolina
44 – Michigan State, West Virginia
43 – Clemson
41 – Missouri, Notre Dame, Texas Tech
40 – Georgia Tech, Northwestern
PAST 10 YEARS
107 – LSU
106 – Oklahoma
103 – Ohio State (was 91)
101 – Texas
100 – TCU
99 – Virginia Tech
98 – Florida
97 – Georgia
95 – Oregon
94 – Wisconsin
93 – West Virginia
92 – Utah
91 – Southern Cal
88 – Auburn
85 – Nebraska
83 – Clemson, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
81 – Louisville, Missouri, Penn State (was 8)
80 – Michigan
78 – Iowa
77 – Boston College, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina
76 – Florida State
75 – California
PAST 30 YEARS
293 – Nebraska
281 – Florida
278 – Miami, Ohio State (was 266)
276 – Florida State
269 – Oklahoma
263 – Michigan
256 – Tennessee, Penn State (was 144)
254 – Georgia
253 – Texas
252 – Auburn
PAST 50 YEARS
481 – Nebraska
443 – Ohio State
439 – Oklahoma
436 – Penn State
428 – Michigan
427 – Texas
425 – Alabama
412 – Florida
410 – Southern Cal
409 – Georgia
405 – Florida State
401 – Tennessee
ALL-TIME (First Season)
903 – Michigan (1878)
867 – Texas (1893)
866 – Nebraska (1890)
865 – Notre Dame (1887)
849 – Ohio State (1889) was 837
835 – Penn State (1887) was 723
829 – Oklahoma (1895)
827 – Alabama (1892)
799 – Tennessee (1891)
786 – Southern Cal (1888)
760 – Georgia (1891)
LikeLike
Just because I have the data handy, FSU had 12 wins vacated between ’06-’07 and was retroactively given an extra win for the ’83 season. (Meaning a net of -11 all time)
Alabama had 21 wins vacated from ’05-’07 and 8 taken away from ’93 (when they retroactively forfeited 9 games, one of which was a tie).
USC had 14 wins taken away from ’04-’05
LSU was retroactively awarded 2 additional wins from ’75-’76. Auburn got three wins from ’75-’77. Tennessee was given one for the ’93 season (the Alabama game).
Nebraska (’51) and Texas (1910) which each given additional wins from long ago.
Obviously, there were more, but this covers the top schools.
LikeLike
So taking out NCAA adjustments here is the all time Top 10
903 – Michigan (1878)
866 – Texas (1893)
865 – Nebraska (1890)
865 – Notre Dame (1887)
856 – Alabama (1892)
849 – Ohio State (1889)
835 – Penn State (1887)
829 – Oklahoma (1895)
800 – Southern Cal (1888)
798 – Tennessee (1891)
760 – Georgia (1891)
LikeLike
http://www.bigeast.org/
Big East website still not ready.
LikeLike
That’s terrible, even for a temporary site. It looks like the Val Ackerman home page.
LikeLike
Funny thing is, up until recently it was even worse; it said “begins” July 1, meaning they didn’t even think to update it. They finally swapped in the word “began”.
LikeLike
Is “Big East” still spelled in ALL CAPS? Eliminating that should be one of Ackerman’s first decrees.
LikeLike
It looks more like a Val Ackerman fan page, since they didn’t use a new photo:
http://alumni.ucla.edu/share/alumni-stories/stories/val-ackerman.aspx
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2013/07/negotiations_continue_on_many.html
A look at things from the MAC’s POV.
LikeLike
— Though it’s considered a given that Rutgers and Louisville will depart the American in 2014, no formal agreements have been reached. League bylaws mandate a 27-month waiting period, but West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame all negotiated to leave early. Aresco said negotiations with Louisville have remained amicable but that dealings with Rutgers have been tied up in a “frivolous” lawsuit.
“We’re likely to figure something out,” Aresco said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigeast/2013/07/01/american-athletic-conference-enjoys-official-first-day-as-new-league/2480437/
LikeLike
Q: Do you like the relationship with Notre Dame the ACC agreed to (joining in all sports except football, but playing five football games a season against ACC foes) in order to add the Fighting Irish?
A: I think you can’t do something for one that you’re not willing to do for all in these type of situations. I would never have accepted personally them coming in and not being totally in.
Why don’t Duke and North Carolina do something different in basketball? I mean it’s not right. I’m happy that they’re part of it I’m just not happy the way that they’re apart of it.
They add value but, just being old-fashioned, [if] we’re playing cards, we all get five cards. That’s why they were never a member of the Big Ten.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/lenn_robbins_special_with_mike_krzyzewski_Qsfun4H1MoBy9tk8455gLL/0
So add Mike Krzyzewski to the list of people who don’t like the ND/ACC deal. It’s going to be an interesting next 14 years in that conference.
LikeLike
When you’re in a position of weakness, sometimes you are forced into sub-optimal choices. Of course, it’s interesting to wonder what the Irish would’ve done if the ACC had said, “It’s all or nothing.”
LikeLike
Of course, it’s interesting to wonder what the Irish would’ve done if the ACC had said, “It’s all or nothing.”
“Paging Mr. Bowlsby…”
LikeLike
Would have said, “Nothing.” Football indepedence is more important to the alumni (who donate a ton) than any other issue by far and they’d have stuck it out in the Big East (which might have survived) before giving that up. Honestly, I was amazed the ACC got 5 games out of them. I always figured 4 was the max.
LikeLike
Honestly, I was amazed the ACC got 5 games out of them. I always figured 4 was the max.
Yep. Five is much closer to eight than it is to zero. So to say that they’re still independent is a half-truth. Still, that was their decision to make. What I was trying to get at here is what this does to internal ACC politics. We already read Coach K grumbling about whether Duke should’ve asked for a similar agreement to enhance the Duke basketball program. Of course, they don’t really need it now as the competition in the ACC will be much better with Louisville and Syracuse coming in. But we are still talking about what the elites in a given organization believe, right?
As the years go by I won’t be surprised if tensions emerge between the traditional ACC schools and the yankee newbies over the direction of ACC basketball, to add to the old tensions between basketball-first and football-first schools. Complicating all of that is the ND partial deal. This is why I think going to 17 can’t be ruled completely out. Since the Big Ten made that major move into the mid-Atlantic, the ACC has been scrambling to shore up whatever position they have on the East Coast. They may well move to completely block the B1G from getting into New England, as well as enhancing their presence in the Ohio Valley, giving ND and Louisville another partner. Five years from now is the most likely time.
LikeLike
I don’t see Notre Dame as a partial football member at all. Being committed to playing 5 games (while more than I thought they’d go for) is still a long way from being a member of the conference. They don’t compete for either divisional or a conference championship. Also, while 5 isn’t a small number, the difference between 5 and 8 is huge. Five games against one conference is high, but not impossible of for an independent. 8 games means almost all the free schedule (the games you don’t need one and dones with) are locked up in conference play. It sounds like they are basically picking the weeks for the games too.
LikeLike
Would have said, “Nothing.” Football indepedence is more important to the alumni (who donate a ton) than any other issue by far and they’d have stuck it out in the Big East (which might have survived) before giving that up.
Well, @vp19 hints at their options. The Big XII hinted very strongly that they were open to giving Notre Dame the same sort of deal that the ACC eventually did. Failing that, it’s Big East, AAC, or bust.
Honestly, I was amazed the ACC got 5 games out of them. I always figured 4 was the max.
It shows that Notre Dame was weak, too. Football is King there, but the other sports aren’t chopped liver. Finding a plausible home for them was an urgent concern.
I think going to 17 can’t be ruled completely out. Since the Big Ten made that major move into the mid-Atlantic, the ACC has been scrambling to shore up whatever position they have on the East Coast. They may well move to completely block the B1G from getting into New England, as well as enhancing their presence in the Ohio Valley, giving ND and Louisville another partner. Five years from now is the most likely time.
Huh? The ACC’s only new full members are schools the Big Ten doesn’t want (Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville). The only remaining schools in the region that the ACC might take (Cincinnati, UConn), are likewise schools the Big Ten would never want.
LikeLike
I think the power of Notre Dame is being exposed as a myth. They got their clocked cleaned by ASU (unable to get out of the Game in Tempe), and they actually made a big mistake with the ACC if they could have went to the Big XII. There are basically two Schools in the Big XII (Kansas and Iowa St), that are meaningless, while Duke, Wake, Boston College, Syracuse, and Virginia are bottom feeders. I hope they enjoy road games at Durham and Winston-Salem.
LikeLike
There are basically two schools in the Big XII (Kansas and Iowa St), that are meaningless, while Duke, Wake, Boston College, Syracuse, and Virginia are bottom feeders. I hope they enjoy road games at Durham and Winston-Salem.
You’re obviously talking in strictly a football sense; Iowa State and especially Kansas have meaning beyond football (and ISU has drawn more than 50,000 in football for 13 straight home games, putting the lie to those who would relegate Ames in any vast reorganization). As far as the ACC is concerned, UVa is on the way back, with some good recruits (and eight home games this year, including OOC with Brigham Young and Oregon). And ND has played at Syracuse, BC and Wake over the past decade.
And I agree the Big Ten has no interest in Connecticut and even less (were than possible) in Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Have we learned nothing from Frank?
Other than UT, the Big 12 is a flyover league. It has small markets. Notre Dame did not want its Olympic sports travelling to Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Lubbock and Waco.
Instead, it chose to send its Olympic sports teams to markets from Boston to Virginia to Miami…with a potential push for basketball and other championships in New York (a la the Big East). That is a WAY better decision for Notre Dame’s alumni, recruiting, and market penetration.
The Big 12 states are an afterthought, especially for Notre Dame’s supporters and constituents.
LikeLike
I think the power of Notre Dame is being exposed as a myth.
The proof that they’re not “a myth” is that the ACC gave them the deal they did.
There are basically two Schools in the Big XII (Kansas and Iowa St), that are meaningless, while Duke, Wake, Boston College, Syracuse, and Virginia are bottom feeders. I hope they enjoy road games at Durham and Winston-Salem.
In football, five ACC schools are among ND’s top twenty most frequent opponents: Pitt, GT, Miami, BC, and UNC. There are no Big XII schools on that list.
The Irish played a home & home with Wake Forest the last two years, and had Syracuse already scheduled before they joined the ACC. You could add FSU, Clemson, UVA, VT, and Louisville, to the list of schools they certainly would not mind playing in football. Notre Dame recruits far more in the East and Southeast than in the heartland, and there’s much more of a Catholic and ND alumni population in the ACC footprint.
In the Big XII, you have it exactly opposite: there are only two schools in that league that Notre Dame would have any interest in playing: Texas and Oklahoma. They’re finishing their H&H with Oklahoma this year, and have Texas scheduled in 2015–16 and 2019–20. No other Big XII opponent interests them.
In the Olympic sports, it’s no contest. The ACC is clearly the superior basketball league, and it’s better for most of the other sports the Irish play (e.g., Lacrosse, which the Big XII doesn’t offer).
LikeLike
Actually what we’ve learned is that brands matter far more than markets. Nebraska got chosen first by the Big 10. The Big 12 chose TCU in a market they already had and WVU in a small market. The ACC chose Syracuse over Rutgers or Louisville and Louisville over UConn. And nobody was interested in paying the AACK! conference much of anything, but the 2013 Big East with its basketball brands was worth more than twice as much, despite the lower value of basketball.
LikeLike
Bullet:
True, but that is because national brand means nationally marketable.
vp19:
“…and ISU has drawn more than 50,000 in football for 13 straight home games, putting the lie to those who would relegate Ames in any vast reorganization.”
Not the lie so much as hypocritical to the justification for a relegation.
LikeLike
and ISU has drawn more than 50,000 in football for 13 straight home games, putting the lie to those who would relegate Ames in any vast reorganization
I mean not sure why. ISU still doesn’t have any real TV value nor do they help opponents sell tickets. I mean even ISU’s own administrators have admitted that if the Big XII’s collapses they will be relegated to have not status.
LikeLike
@Marc
The Irish played a home & home with Wake Forest the last two years
The series wasn’t a home and home; it was simply the first 2 games in a 2 for 1. WF owes ND a return game 2014*, and then has a to turn around and go back to South Bend in 2015* as part of the ACC-ND scheduling agreement.
*I may have those backwards as to which is the final game in the already scheduled series and which is was part of the scheduling agreement.
LikeLike
ISU still doesn’t have any real TV value nor do they help opponents sell tickets. I mean even ISU’s own administrators have admitted that if the Big XII’s collapses they will be relegated to have not status.
And they aren’t the only ones. ISU is the most vulnerable, because it lacks a “big brother” in-state partner. But a number of other Big XII schools could be in that position, depending on how the cookies crumble.When Texas and OU were considering joining the Pac-12, it looked like Baylor, Kansas, K-State, and ISU were all going to land in the Big East.
The series wasn’t a home and home; it was simply the first 2 games in a 2 for 1. WF owes ND a return game 2014*, and then has a to turn around and go back to South Bend in 2015* as part of the ACC-ND scheduling agreement.
Actually, what happened was that Wake agreed to a one-off game in South Bend, and later on, the two teams agreed to a home & home. (See here.)
LikeLike
@Marc
Notre Dame has played Baylor, Kansas and West Virginia relatively recently and TCU is the type of school they like to play (like Wake Forest and Stanford), although its been many years since they played them.
LikeLike
@bullet: Notre Dame has played Baylor, Kansas and West Virginia relatively recently and TCU is the type of school they like to play (like Wake Forest and Stanford), although its been many years since they played them.
You missed the point. I didn’t say Notre Dame never plays those schools; only that they don’t care to, and their scheduling patterns bear this out. The bulk of their schedule, historically, is in Big Ten and ACC territory (plus their rivalries with USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, BYU, and the service academies).
LikeLike
ACC Insider – ACC continues to drift away from its roots
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20130702/COLUMNIST/130709907/1005?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar
A column from within the “old ACC country” from the traditionalist perspective.
LikeLike
And much of what he says also applies to the B10.
LikeLike
One big difference, I think, is that the ACC felt it needed to make defensive moves. The Big Ten was under no such obligation.
LikeLike
Agreed. I was talking about the downsides and unintended consequences.
LikeLike
The writer seems to imply that the coup d’gras for the ACC took place when Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame joined the conference to get it up to 15 members.
But the ACC he seems to long for was the one that was in existence prior to 1991 when Florida State joined up. Prior to FSU’s admission, it was an eight-member conference with Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson and Georgia Tech (the Yellow Jackets joined in 1979).
The conference clearly wanted to have a substantial presence in the northeast back in 2003 when Syracuse was on the invite list. If the Virginia legislature hadn’t strong armed UVa, the SU would have been in the ACC in lieu of Virginia Tech. Just imagine if that hadn’t happened though. VaTech might be in the SEC or Big XII by now.
What I do find interesting is that the Big Ten and the ACC are now going to be waging a battle for the hearts and minds of college sports fans . . . in New York. I won’t be shocked to see basketball teams from both conferences playing there (Michigan played at the new Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn last year and will do so again next season). Will Syracuse and Rutgers hosting college football games at MetLife Stadium be part of that process? It’s interesting to see both conference fighting over the same “turf”.
LikeLike
…the ACC he seems to long for was the one that was in existence prior to 1991 when Florida State joined up. Prior to FSU’s admission, it was an eight-member conference with Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson and Georgia Tech (the Yellow Jackets joined in 1979).
If you follow his logic to its conclusion, then why is Georgia Tech acceptable? If his thinking had prevailed, the ACC would be a six-team league right now: the original seven minus Maryland.
What I do find interesting is that the Big Ten and the ACC are now going to be waging a battle for the hearts and minds of college sports fans . . . in New York.
Which will be interesting, because as a New Yorker myself, I can say that most of the sports chatter I hear is for pro teams. Most people, of course, root for whatever school they attended (if it had sports that were any good), but it’s random. The only rooting interests with critical mass are the pro teams.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech and FSU were acceptable southern schools for the ACC with the same general cultural outlook as other ACC members. You missed the author’s comment about losing “southern roots”. So my guess*, is this author puts the beginning of the ACC’s change when Boston College was invited, and it really jumped the shark when three more Yankee schools joined July 1.
* The other possibility is Miami which despite its location as the furthest south is not really southern culturally. If Virginia Tech had not replaced Syracuse in the two team invite, this easily would have been the start.
LikeLike
New scheduling data point. WVU and VPI home and home 2021-2022.
LikeLike
Military Bowl moves from DC to Annapolis and will feature the ACC v. AAC.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9447096/american-athletic-conference-acc-play-military-bowl-sources
LikeLike
The ACC sticks it to Maryland (he said with just a hint of sarcastic paranoia).
One wonders if the Big Ten might retort by establishing some sort of D.C.-based bowl, perhaps played at Nationals Park rather than decrepit RFK Stadium.
LikeLike
You’re right about the description IRT RFK Stadium. It makes sense to move the Military Bowl out of there and into Annapolis given the location of the Naval Academy and seeing that Navy-Marine Corps Stadium is a more pleasant looking venue.
If I were to put a bowl in Washington DC, I’d look to have it at Fedex Field instead of RFK. It’s a bigger, better venue and it has hosted a number of college football games before.
I wouldn’t be too shocked to see Maryland playing there or in Baltimore on a regular basis when Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State play the Terps. Fedex Field holds 85,000, M&T Bank Stadium has a capacity of 71,000 and Maryland’s Byrd Stadium has seating for 54,000 (the attendance record there was 58,973 set in 1975 for a game with Penn State).
OTOH, Maryland needs to sell out its luxury boxes at Byrd Stadium and diverting the biggest draws to other venues in the area might not be a good idea from that standpoint. We’ll see what happens. UMd did consider expanding Byrd Stadium to 65,000 when Friedgen was the head coach, but stepped away from that plan. There is another plan to add 8,000 seats to the west end zone, but that is also in a holding pattern until the luxury boxes are sold and there’s a consistent demand for them.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine any bowl in D.C. drawing enough interest to come close to filling FedEx. Nationals Park has a more realistic scale, and in a few years the neighborhood around the ballpark should be built up with dining and entertainment options.
LikeLike
A relatively unsung genius passes.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html?partner=yahoofinance&
I’d say the “mouse” was not his primary achievement.
LikeLike
How is this “legal?”
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/room-grant-gibbs-doug-mcdermott-walk-creighton-next-204755071.html
And I’m not talking about the coach paying for a scholarship. Granting a sixth year is supposed to only happen if a player loses two complete seasons of his 5 to play four to injury. And the RS year is used for one of the injury years. Sounds like they are restoring his lost transfer year.
LikeLike
Beats me. But then, in a system where you apply to bureaucrats for a waiver, it figures that the rules are going to be applied inconsistently. Publish a set of rules that are the same for everyone, and eliminate bureaucrats.
LikeLike
McDermott will be a two time All American Senior Walk-on next year
LikeLike
Want more football? 7 on 7 might be it. Already allowed by NCAA.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/07/03/the-best-hope-for-more-football-is-summer-7-on-7.htm
LikeLike
Personally, I think that would be a bad thing for the players. They already have enough of a workload, especially in summer when they’re taking classes to keep their progress up. They already have to do “voluntary” summer workouts before showing up for fall.
LikeLike
A ranking of every game played by a B10 team in 2013.
MI – the top 3 and 5 of the top 10 and no bottom 10
NW – 4 top 10 and no bottom 10
OSU – 3 of the top 5 plus the bottom 2
NE – 3 top 10 and 2 bottom 10
This goes to show that the west is expected to have a better division race, plus OSU doesn’t have a strong OOC game (Cal stinks and Vandy bailed on us).
1. Ohio State at Michigan, Nov. 30: How great could the clash be between Michigan’s Devin Gardner and Ohio State’s Braxton Miller? Heck, the winner of this battle could end up being the Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year. Each is a classic dual-threat quarterback capable of making a big play at any time.
2. Nebraska at Michigan, Nov. 9: Can’t wait for the battle between Nebraska offensive coordinator Tim Beck and Michigan defensive coordinator Greg Mattison. Beck looks to have the top offense in the Big Ten, a unit that teems with experience and talent. Mattison’s group keeps improving.
3. Notre Dame at Michigan, Sept. 7: The Fighting Irish won last year, 13-6, ending the Wolverines’ three-game winning skein in the series. The last four meetings have been decided by a touchdown or less. Keep the Maalox handy.
4. Ohio State at Northwestern, Oct. 5: This could be one of the best quarterback battles all season, with Braxton Miller taking on NU’s dynamic duo. This will be the biggest game in Evanston in … well, a long time.
5. Wisconsin at Ohio State, Sept. 28: The Ohio State offense and Wisconsin defense should be among the best in the Big Ten among their respective units. So, it will be interesting to watch Ohio State offensive coordinator Tom Herman match Xs and Os with Wisconsin defensive coordinator Dave Aranda, good buddies and Cal Lutheran alums.
6. Michigan at Michigan State, Nov. 2: Before losing, 12-10, last year in Ann Arbor, Michigan State had won four in a row in this oh-so-heated rivalry. With apologies to every other rivalry, this may be the best. Nothing like in-state hatred.
7. Northwestern at Nebraska, Nov. 2: The last time the Wildcats played in Lincoln, Kain Colter came off the bench to replace an injured Dan Persa and promptly led unranked Northwestern to a shocking 28-25 triumph over No. 10 Nebraska. Will this be a de facto Legends Division title game?
8. UCLA at Nebraska, Sept. 14: Last year’s trip to La-La Land was a nightmare for Nebraska. The Huskers allowed 653 yards in a 36-30 loss in the venerable Rose Bowl. It was the first of three horrible performances for the Husker defense (at Ohio State; Big Ten title game). Oh, and these Bruins will be better than last year’s team.
9. Michigan at Northwestern, Nov. 16: Devin Gardner and Northwestern’s Kain Colter could hook up for some excitement in what could be an unofficial Legends Division title game.
10. Northwestern at Wisconsin, Oct. 12: Since Barry Alvarez arrived in Madison in 1990, the Wildcats are 8-9 vs. Wisconsin. But NU is 4-3 vs. the Badgers in the last seven meetings. Burr (Wildcats), meet saddle (Badgers).
…
87. Wyoming at Nebraska, Aug. 31
88. Eastern Michigan at Penn State, Sept. 7
89. Tennessee Tech at Wisconsin, Sept. 7
90. Missouri State at Iowa, Sept. 7
91. Youngstown State at Michigan State, Sept. 14
92. Western Illinois at Minnesota, Sept. 14
93. UMass at Wisconsin, Aug. 31
94. South Dakota State at Nebraska, Sept.21
95. Buffalo at Ohio State, Aug. 31
96. Florida A&M at Ohio State, Sept.21
LikeLike
ACC spokesman Amy Yakola said Wednesday that Maryland has been invited to all the meetings. Several officials who have attended meetings said the exclusion applies when the subject is conference business involving the post-2013 period when Maryland will have left the ACC. At that point, the Maryland officials leave the meeting.
In addition to monitoring ACC developments, Maryland representatives have already begun attending Big Ten meetings on marketing and other topics.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-acc-0704-20130703,0,3074339.story
Not unexpectedly, ESPN is trying to hype up some hypothetical battle between the B1G and ACC for the NY market: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/79256/take-two-b1g-acc-battle-for-new-york
LikeLike
Maryland, Rutgers get recruiting boost by joining Big Ten, but not likely at Penn State’s expense
http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2013/07/maryland_rutgers_get_recruitin.html
LikeLike
The only problem I have with this column (and a lot of internet discussion of Penn State) is the idea that they have “battled through the sanctions” with little effect on recruiting. Things have barely started.
All Penn State has battled through so far is two years of a bowl ban, and that has just served to reinforce the USC example that bowl bans are a very weak punishment.
Hold off on the post-mortems until PSU has actually suffered through some years of weakened on the field performance due to the 65 scholarship limit.
LikeLike
I remember the gloom & doom predictions when the sanctions were announced: the whole team was going to transfer. They were going to shut down the program because no one would play for them. No decent high school player would even take their phone calls. They’d be kicked out the Big Ten.
Wrong, all wrong.
You can put together a pretty good team with 65 scholarships. Most programs have at least 10–15 kids at a time redshirting, whereas O’Brien is selling: “Come to Penn State and play immediately.” Most teams have another 15–20 scholarship players who are active, but seldom see the field.
On top of that, teams are seldom perfectly efficient with their 85. On Michigan’s current roster, there are 3 kickers and a long snapper with scholarships. At many programs, those roles would be walk-ons. Programs with tradition can get good players at other positions as walk-ons, as well.
Tradition matters: that’s why Indiana, even with their 85, can’t field a winning team, while Penn State, with their 65, will still be pretty good. Not great, but good.
Now, I’m not denying that the sanctions hurt. With 20 fewer scholarships, you have less room for error, less depth in case of injury. But it’s nowhere near as bad as it (at first) seems.
LikeLike
Agree. The scholarships, and time are most important. PSU will be at greater disadvantage as the limitation compounds. It will take time after they end before full strength returns. A couple being lost over two years (oregon) is no worse than the occasional but inevitable busts that regularily happen. USC is just reaching the height of their sanctions. PSU needs several years of accumulation before the effects can be evaluated. It’s cool kids are going there, but unless around ten elite, scholarship kids decline offers elsewhere to walk on each year their depth will be more than tested a couple seasons down the road.
LikeLike
Anybody see this coming? Brad Stevens to the Celtics.
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2487881
LikeLike
Not me, but it does make sense. They needed a cheap coach since they’ll be rebuilding for at least 2 years. What established coach wants to lose 50+ games per year and then get fired just when the team starts to turn around? This gives Stevens a few years to grow on the job, surrounded by veteran assistants.
LikeLike
I wonder who Butler will get to replace him? Butler’s spot in the pecking order has really shot up during Stevens’ time there.
LikeLike
Not totally unexpected. Sat with some Butler folks at the NCAA tourney this year and they were mentioning it. They were donors and not just fans so it made me think they were seeing a change coming.
LikeLike
Happy July 4th everyone.
I hope everyone else is having a better holiday than me (it’s raining, I’m sick and I’;m at work).
LikeLike
http://oklahoma.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1521117
OU’s AD admits publicly for the first time that the school pushed for the Big XII to add Louisville.
LikeLike
From the article :
“We have to respect the nine other members in the conference and while there were others that shared our perspective, it didn’t get enough traction,” explained Castiglione.
How do you think the vote went?
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for UL
Texas and Baylor against UL
How would you think they voted?
LikeLike
Well months ago the rumor was that there were 5 schools favoring expansion (with one strongly in favor) and 5 opposed (one strongly). Combining that with this report, I think it is safe to say that OU, OSU and WVU (who has been publicly pushing expansion since before they were officially admitted) were yeses and UT is a clear no.
As for the others? Much like OU and OSU, TCU has spoken positively about expansion in the past but stopped short of publicly endorsing the idea so I’m guessing they would probably have been favor of the move. That would be 4 in favor.
As for the opposed? I’m guessing KU, KSU and ISU. Much like the PAC’s North Cal, Arizona and Mountain schools weren’t willing to give up annual games in LA in order to add Oklahoma and Okie St., I seriously doubt that the Big XII’s Midwestern bloc would give up 2 annual games in Texas in order to add Louisville and whomever their partner would have been.
That leaves Baylor and TTU. Since Baylor is completely screwed in the event that the Big XII collapses and is going to have plenty of game in Texas regardless, I’m guessing they would favor any move that strengthens the Big XII so I’m going to say they backed Louisville. While the Red Raiders have been showing more independence of UT lately (not selling their Tier III rights to the LHN and threatening to cancel their Texas St. game if it was broadcast on the network) I guessing they would follow the Longhorns’ lead on this one.
LikeLike
I get just the opposite vibe from Baylor. They basically do whatever UT says and UT seemed to be the strongly opposed, so so Baylor may have operated opposite of their long term interest. Bears and Cards both had strong men’s and women’s basketball so that would work well for both. Same with baseball which should help the Bears if UT was not an issue.
Your North bloc vote makes sense as I would have not guessed such a thing but it makes sense. I just flipped it and did the same with a South bloc (TX). I could understand ISU and KSU but it seems like KU would favor the Cards because it would greatly raise the basketball profile of the B12 and KU is a basketball first school.
Considering your data – maybe this was the breakdown
(5) For : Oklahoma
Oklahoma State / West Virginia / Kansas / Kansas State
(5) Against : Texas
Baylor / TCU / Texas Tech / Iowa State
4 TX schools as bloc and ISU to deadlock (maintains football focus)
ISU might have motivation as they are the only B12 school without baseball
or this
(5) For : Oklahoma
Oklahoma State / West Virginia / Iowa State / Kansas State
(5) Against : Texas
Baylor / TCU / Texas Tech / Kansas
4 TX schools as bloc and KU to deadlock (maintains KU monopoly)
LikeLike
Definitely could be the case.
I’m not convinced Texas was definitely opposed (not saying it wasn’t, but I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion; people tend to overstate Texas power in these decisions). I do think it’s a pretty safe bet that Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State were against (divisional splits could hurt them and little benefit except maybe far down the road). From there I could see a couple different scenarios. I don’t think it was foregone conclusion that north/south would have been used again. There definitely would have been some push to divide up the Texas schools (for recruiting reasons) and Texas/Oklahoma (meaning everyone loses some games vs. one or the other). It’s quite possible that Texas Tech and Baylor were very against as they like playing all the Texas games (TCU would have been easier to convince as they hadn’t been playing the others annually anyway). Oklahoma State could have been as well.
LikeLike
Phil Steele’s ranking of the toughest schedules.
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2013/JUL13/DBJuly03.html
SEC: #1 Florida, #5 Arkansas, #9 Kentucky, #11 Mizzou, #14 South Carolina, #16 LSU, #18 Auburn, #19 Tennessee, #23 Georgia, #28 Texas A&M, #33 Miss State, #34 Ole Miss, #39 Vandy, and #40 Alabama
Big XII: #2 Oklahoma, #6 Iowa State, #10 Kansas, #15 Texas, #17 TCU, #22 Baylor, #25 K-State, #30 Texas Tech, #32 OK State, and #44 West VA
Pac-12: #3 Cal, #7 Colorado, #8 Stanford, #12 Utah, #21 UCLA, #26 Wash State, #31 Arizona State, #35 USC, #37 Oregon State, #50 Washington, #52 Arizona, and #58 Oregon
B1G: #4 Purdue, #20 Illinois, #29 Michigan, #38 Indiana, #43 Iowa, #45 Northwestern, #51 Penn State, #53 Minnesota, #61 Michigan State, #66 Nebraska, #67 Ohio State, and #69 Wisconsin
ACC: #24 Pitt, #27 Virginia, #36 BC, #41 GA Tech, #42 UNC, #46 Syracuse, #48 Wake Forest, #56 Clemson, #57 NC State, #59 VA Tech, #60 Miami, #62 Maryland, #64 Florida State, and #77 Duke
Ind: #13 Notre Dame and #49 BYU, #99 Navy, #117 Army
AAC: #47 South Florida, #54 SMU, #63 UConn, #65 Temple, #68 Memphis, #85 Rutgers, #86 Houston, #88 UCF, #98 Louisville, and #101 Cincy
Toughest schedules in the non-AQ conferences are: MWC – #56 Nevada; Sun Belt – #70 Idaho; MAC – #71 Akron; and CUSA – #73 Tulsa.
LikeLike
This list really emphasizes the shock that Rutgers and Maryland are in for: their schedules are going to get quite a bit tougher next year.
A lot of these rankings are due to factors beyond the schools’ control. Purdue’s #4 ranking is mainly because Notre Dame and Ohio State are coming off of undefeated regular seasons; and on top of that, they face Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State on the road. The one and only decision THEY made was scheduling Cincinnati on the road.
It would be interesting to rate schools’ schedules based on the “courage factor”, giving more credit for games the school scheduled voluntarily, based on what they knew at the time. For instance, Washington State would get a lot more credit for scheduling a visit to Auburn this year, because at the time they planned it, the Tigers were a premier SEC program, not the cellar-dwellers they are now.
LikeLike
For comparison sake here is UK @ 9 and KU @ 10
Which is the tougher schedule?
Kentucky
Western Kentucky (Nashville) : 7-6 / 4-4 : Lost Pizza Bowl, but hired Petrino
MIAMI (OHIO) : 4-8 / 3-5
LOUISVILLE : 11-2 / 5-2 : Won Sugar Bowl 33-23
FLORIDA : 11-2 / 7-1 : Lost Sugar Bowl 23-33
@ South Carolina : 11-2 / 6-2 : Won Outback Bowl 33-28
ALABAMA : 13-1 / 7-1 : Won BCS MNC 42-14
@ Mississippi State : 8-5 / 4-4 : Lost Gator Bowl 20-34
ALABAMA STATE : 7-4 / 7-2 : finished #3 in SWAC
MISSOURI : 5-7 / 2-6
@ Vanderbilt : 9-4 / 5-3 : Won Music City Bowl 38-24
@ Georgia : 12-2 / 7-1 : Won Capitol One Bowl 45-31
TENNESSEE : 5-7 / 1-7
Kansas
SOUTH DAKOTA : 1-10 / 0-8 : finished dead last in MVFC
@ Rice : 7-6 / 4-4 : Won Armed Forces Bowl 33-14 (Loki!)
LA TECH : 9-3 / 4-2 : Coach Dykes left for Cal
TEXAS TECH : 8-5 / 4-5 : Won Meineke Bowl 34-31
@ TCU : 7-6 / 4-5 : Lost Buffalo WW Bowl 16-17
OKLAHOMA :10-3 / 8-1 : Lost Cotton Bowl 13-41 : Blown out
BAYLOR : 8-5 / 4-5 : Won Holiday Bowl 49-26
@ Texas : 9-4 / 5-4 : Won Alamo Bowl 31-27
@ Oklahoma State : 8-5 / 5-4 : Won H of Dallas Bowl 58-14
WEST VIRGINIA : 7-6 / 4-5 : Lost Pinstripe Bowl 14-38 : Blown out
@ Iowa State : 6-7 / 3-6 : Lost Liberty Bowl 17-31
KANSAS STATE : 11-2 / 8-1 : Lost Fiesta Bowl 17-35 : Blown out
.
…
.
Top 4 = 60% of schedule toughness : UK tougher by far
Alabama >>>> Kansas State
Georgia >>>> Oklahoma : UK on road, KU at home
South Carolina >>>> Texas
Florida >>>> Oklahoma State
Middle 4 = 30% of schedule toughness : UK tougher than KU
Louisville >>>> Baylor
Vanderbilt >> Texas Tech : UK on road, TT new coach @ KU
MS State ?? TCU
Missouri ?? West Virginia
Bottom 4 = 10% of schedule toughness : Toss up
Tennessee > Iowa State
Rice > Western kentucky
La Tech >> Miami (OH)
Alabama State > South Dakota
.
…
.
UK looks like Top 10 SoS but KU does not look like it should be in the Top 25
LikeLike
So you’re saying that the school with the 9th ranked schedule plays a tougher schedule than the school with the 10th rank schedule? Shocking.
LikeLike
Yes, shocking!
No, it was more like for a school with the #9 and a school with a #10 there is a much wider disparity than a single place in line would indicate. Think of the conversation between Kitz and Constantine in the movie “Contact”
Constantine: I assume you read the confidential findings report from the investigating committee.
Kitz: I flipped through it.
Constantine: I was especially interested in the section on Arroway’s video unit. The one that recorded the static?
Kitz: Continue.
Constantine: The fact that it recorded static isn’t what interests me.
Kitz: [pauses] Continue.
Constantine: What interests me is that it recorded approximately eighteen hours of it.
Kitz: [leans forward so he is looking directly in the camera] That is interesting, isn’t it?
LikeLike
@duffmsn
“@ Rice : 7-6 / 4-4 : Won Armed Forces Bowl 33-14 (Loki!)”
You damn us with faint praise. The Owls went to Kansas and whipped the Jayhawks last fall. Those Owls return 19/22 starters and play at home this year.
LikeLike
I was watching that Tulsa game and still thought that was going to be a win for Rice and the Marshall game was winnable. That would put the Owls at 9-4 so I think you guys will take down KU in 2013.
LikeLike
Nothing hurt as much as the Memphis game.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9450753/nebraska-cornhuskers-developing-10-minute-concussion-test
Some good work going on at NE on concussions.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22636805/in-big-money-marriage-between-tv-and-college-football-who-has-most-say
An in-depth look at the relationships between the networks and the CFB conferences.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22561778/sec-pac-12-big-12-eyeing-more-weeknight-games-
Look for more weeknight games in the future from the B12, P12 and SEC. ESPN is pushing the B12 for more Friday night games. They only have 1 this year (an opener). Bowlsby says they would consider late November Fridays after the HS FB season is over. The P12 already is contracted to play 8 weeknight games, but could increase that. I think being on PST really helps for that since the NFL game would end before halftime of a primetime P12 game. The SEC has to play 2 Thursday games now, but might increase that once their network is running.
On the other hand, the ACC is comfortable with the 5 Thursday night games they already play. The B10 continues to refuse to play during the week except before Labor Day and on Black Friday.
LikeLike
Interesting. ESPN.com did an online poll over which conference between the B1G and ACC would have a bigger impact in NYC. The result were laid out over this map:
http://espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=sportsnation&pollId=3781922
Thoughts: no surprise that the Big Ten states favored the Big Ten, while the southeastern states, save for Tennessee, plus NY State, chose the ACC. In Pennsylvania, the B1G leads by 30%. The other interesting thing is the divide between Maryland and Virginia. The votes from Maryland slightly favored the B1G while in Virginia the ACC was overwhelmingly favored. West Virginia went for the ACC while Connecticut went for B1G. In NY State, it’s right now 52-48 for the ACC. That gap is pretty narrow, considering that it’s the home state of Syracuse. If I’m the B1G brass I would feel very encouraged.
LikeLike
Transic,
Thanks for posting this poll. In a clever, yet transparent ESPN-sort-of-way the “World Leader” os taking inventory on their ACC products & will likely use these results in future broadcasting & marketing. The poll raises a lot of questions in the assumptive realm because it’s not exactly a spelled out ACC vs BIG poll, & we can only read between the lines here & with not enough substance. Thus I’ll go with non-scientific assumptions, repeat “non-scientific assumptions”:
1.) BIG seems to be a far bigger national brand than the ACC & is perhaps more respected or liked once you leave the southeast and certain, more loyal mid-Atlantic & northeast states. Just imagine if the BIG went down a more proactive ESPN route -sought a better relationship – the “Leader” would have to partly listen based on these results.
A.) I expected Mass to side with the ACC, but not very many people casted votes in this state. In fact, of all the BIG-ACC states, Mass participation was the lowest by at least 50 votes. My home state, Minnesota, casted the lowest amount of votes within the BIG at 93 votes. On the other hand, we went overwhelmingly BIG (85% to Mass’ 59%).
B.) Md to the BIG is still not embraced by the general population – pretty close mind you. But, I think in 5 years time, Md will be far more pro-BG – and the shift is trending pro-BIG in this poll. I think Md would have been much more pro-ACC had this poll been done within the first 3 months after they announced their decision to go to the BIG
C.) Syracuse is not NY’s pride and joy & they are now officially in the ACC – no BIG school in NY.
D.) PSU is Pa’s biggest brand & despite a breed of anti-BIG PSU fans out there, mostly hidden in the blogosphere-message board world, the BIG comfortably prevails.
E.) The exclusive SEC states or ones with no ACC school: Al, Ak, Miss, La, & Tn had lower vote counts & two went for the BIG (La & Tn) while the others saw a smaller majority % go with the ACC (Ak, Al). Miss kind of surprised me, but again, the total votes were quite low, one of the lowest of all states.
F.) I think Conn would have been predominantly pro-ACC say 2 years ago.
G.) Most Big12 states went BIG, minus WVa. The Pac12 went all BIG – albeit total votes were lower across most these states.
H.) Mo won’t leave the SEC anytime soon, but if they were suddenly homeless the ACC doesn’t seem to be their first choice.
I.) Virginians & Georgians are pro-ACC, the latter being SEC first, which underscores my thoughts on UVa or GT as rumored BIG targets in the past – the backlash from these schools would have been more excessive than Md had a BIG membership been determined. I do believe any future BIG expansion should at least consider cultural compatibility. But, Va could be shaken loose – they didn’t hit the 70% mark. In fact their breakdown was similar to Pa despite Pitt now being an ACC school. We all know that there is no BIG school in Va, to be more specific Va has two ACC schools.
J.) In the BIG footprint, all but Pa, Md, Nj, In & Il hit the 80 % mark. Il & In were very close to 80%, reaching 79% & 78% and Rutgers is comfortably pro-BIG at 72%. Interesting note on Indiana – Notre Dame is mostly an ACC school at this point, yet Indiana went pro-BIG as much as NC – obviously there is no BIG school in NC. Btw, not one ACC state, not even NC, reached 80%. In fact no state voted ACC at the 80% margin.
K.) Really odd that Id went ACC while being totally surrounded by blue.
J.) ESPN makes the BIG blue (jackasses) & the ACC red (Dumbos) – go figure! I find it somewhat humorous since a lot of traditionally red states went blue : ).
LikeLike
Under 1a; last sentence should read: On the other hand, MN went overwhelmingly BIG (85% to Mass’ 59% for the ACC).
LikeLike
@gFunk. Thanks for the post. Very interesting analysis, even if a few points may be controversial and you continue your “culture-matters” meme (with which I agree).
I particularly appreciate the reminder that these ESpin “polls” serve an in-house purpose for ESpin. That is always worth remembering.
The map really IS interesting. A sea of blue (B1G) vs. localized red (ACC). Idaho really stands out, but only 7 votes for the whole state. So 4 votes for the ACC vs. 3 votes for the B1G. Might as well add New Hampshire. It’s a 50-50 split at 3 votes each. As of today (July 6 at about 5:30 ET), it is now 56% B1G vs. 44% for the ACC. As you said, very non-scientific.
Texas was interesting at 74% for the B1G.
Obviously, some of this voting is conference pride related, but a lot is ~~~ as you say ~~~ about the power of the brand. I think the B1G does have more emph! than the ACC and that is reflected in the voting in states that dont have a B1G or ACC school.
LikeLike
Right now, the ACC has gained some distance in Md. However, the B1G there still has 46%. Some work certainly has to be done…and time needed for people to understand the B1G. NJ has been won over, though, at least with the folks who voted.
LikeLike
You’re not really paying attention to an Internet pole on a single site (that is invested in the subjects) offered during the summer, the slowest sports time of the year, are you?
LikeLike
Wow! Something is going wrong with this poll now. Look at Illinois, 7/9/13: 50/50. That’s some bs, someone has figured out a way to monkey with this poll.
LikeLike
Must be those dead people voting…or ND fans. 😉
LikeLike
There’s still some talk going around about a 4 x 16 conference setup down the road (now, at least a decade down that road). Let’s assume Notre Dame and Brigham Young both remain football independents. How could such a setup take place?
Pac: The only realistic way the Pac can go to 16 is by taking in Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State, so take those off the board.
Big Ten, SEC: We’ll assume the Big Ten and SEC, as the strongest conferences, each can pull two of their choosing from what’s left, although each would probably forbid the other from adding a Florida school — so for the Big Ten, enter Virginia and North Carolina (both AAU), and for the SEC, welcome Virginia Tech and N.C. State
ACC/Big 12: The fourth 16-member conference is a blend of what’s left of the ACC (Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Wake Forest) and the Big 12 (Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Christian and West Virginia).Still a cut below the Big Ten and SEC, though if FSU and Miami can operate at peak capacity, it’s not that bad a league. Perhaps Louisville and Pitt would be added to the Big 12 side of things for geographical balance.
LikeLike
I don’t know why everybody just assumes that the SEC would take NC State without North Carolina. While I’m pretty sure the SEC would take NC State to get North Carolina, I don’t think that they’d take NC State alone. If the SEC was so desperate to get into the North Carolina Market, they could have simply taken ECU, which is frankly equivalent or better than NC State in almost every aspect other than basketball, which the SEC really doesn’t care about anyway. (I realize that NC State has better academics than ECU, but it’s not that huge of a difference.) The SEC has better options than NC State if it had to expand in 10 years, the ACC/Big 12 collapses, and UNC, such as Kansas (who’s basketball is so good that it is more valuable than a mediocre football school), West Virginia, Florida State, and Clemson. I know that those schools wouldn’t necessarily add the new markets that NC State would, but they would be so much more desirable from a television ratings standpoint that it wouldn’t matter.
VaTech is a different story. I’m pretty sure that the SEC looks at them like they did with Texas A&M, if they call they’re in and some other partner can be found.
LikeLike
That was supposed to say “and UNC won’t come,”
LikeLike
The SEC has better options than NC State if it had to expand in 10 years, the ACC/Big 12 collapses, and UNC, such as Kansas (who’s basketball is so good that it is more valuable than a mediocre football school), West Virginia, Florida State, and Clemson.
Except that Kansas, FSU and Clemson would require the SEC to reverse what appears to be a pretty clear (if unofficial) requirement that all future schools be from Southern states in non-redundant media markets.
LikeLike
East Carolina has a good program for what it is, but it’s nevertheless a “directional U,” an upscale version of Northern Illinois or Western Michigan. No, N.C. State isn’t UNC, but armed with the SEC imprimatur, it would do significantly better than it is now…and the mindset of the Wolfpack fan base would be more similar to that of the SEC’s than those of the sky blue folk from Chapel Hill. State is more or less what Virginia Tech was in the ’80s — undervalued.
LikeLike
You’ve done a reasonably good job of divvying up the 64 Big Five schools into four groups of 16, but I’m not so sure that would ever happen. These leagues are competitors, to an extent, and some Big Ten sources have suggested they could go as high as 20.
Your fourth league, consisting of ACC and Big XII remnants, is clearly the weakest one. Several of those schools would try to make the next step up, if they could, and a few of them would probably find an audience in Big Ten circles.
LikeLike
Given your PAC 16, the ACC will be in the drivers seat as a viable 4th conference and in a decade it would not surprise me to see Notre Dame as a full member or at least playing 6 ACC games instead of 5. That said I could see the PAC taking the 4 you mention which should put KU in the B1G with another team. SEC can stand pat at 14 or see if better schools came up as a pair. The issue is the bottom half of the Big 12 would have little value to anybody.
TCU and Baylor are small private schools
B1G already has Iowa, and Iowa State is not near the SEC
B1G would have Kansas, and Kansas State is not probable in the SEC or PAC
West Virginia would not fit in the ACC, B1G, or PAC and SEC passed before
The next decade may bring a onetime massive shift with future non compete clauses for any school in the ACC, B1G, PAC, or SEC once the swaps occur. Nobody gets everything they want and everybody gets stuck with at least 1 team they did not want. May look something like this in the next media realignment in a decade or so :
PAC 16 = PAC 12 + UT, TT, OU, and OSU
B1G 16 = B1G + KU + ISU (only midwest AAU’s left and both are FOX)
SEC 16 = SEC 14 + VPI and NCST (with agreement UNC and UVA must remain in ACC)
ACC 14
+ Notre Dame as full member in decade or two
– VPI (sets up UVA vs VPI OOC rival game for ESPN)
– NCST (sets up UVA vs VPI OOC rival game for ESPN)
+ Uconn (protects ESPN ties to CT and basketball in ACC)
+ Cincinnati = rival for Louisville
+ West Virginia = rival for Pittsburgh
= ACC 16
From then on members of the ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC could not move unless approved by all 4 conferences. To avoid anti trust issues the Big 4 could allow movement from the top 64 – FBS I – and the bottom 64 – FBS II – as time goes by and adjustments need to be made. Such an example would be the ACC dropping Wake Forest to pick up Tulane or the PAC dropping Washington State to pick up Boise State. If say movement inside the Big 4 went down everybody would have to approve. So if Notre Dame left the ACC for the PAC the B1G and SEC would also have to bless the move.
In simple terms ESPN would keep the ACC and SEC while the B1G and PAC would be FOX properties. This maintains balance and sets up how many of the OOC games get scheduled with the ACC playing the SEC while the B1G plays the PAC. Stability is restored and uncertainty is replaced by ordered movement. Only 3 schools get left behind (Baylor, TCU, and Kansas State) and all 3 can work their way in if they can maintain success at the next level down. Similar to Jack Welch running GE it would keep constant pressure on the bottom teams to produce better quality if failure meant a loss of place at the Big Boy table.
LikeLike
Given your PAC 16, the ACC will be in the drivers seat as a viable 4th conference and in a decade it would not surprise me to see Notre Dame as a full member or at least playing 6 ACC games instead of 5.
I can’t see the events that would make this happen. Besides their five ACC games, ND has standing rivalries with USC, Stanford, Purdue, and Navy. On top of that, they frequently play Michigan State and BYU. So they really only need to come up with 1–3 games to fill out a schedule — which is no more difficult than any other school’s “OOC” schedule”. On top of that, they have all the advantages of independence.
The next decade may bring a onetime massive shift with future non compete clauses for any school in the ACC, B1G, PAC, or SEC once the swaps occur.
Why should the leagues agree to this? They’re competitors. If the Big Ten and an ACC school want each other, then they’re going to switch.
B1G 16 = B1G + KU + ISU (only midwest AAU’s left and both are FOX)
The Big Ten would rather stay at 14 than take those two. Who’s going to force them to accept two schools they don’t want? I do think the Big Ten would consider Kansas as #16, if #15 is a blockbuster. Needless to say, ISU isn’t a blockbuster.
LikeLike
One potential advantage to my proposed 4 x 16 is that, aside from UCLA, Southern Cal, Cal and Stanford in a Pac-16, no conference would have more than two members from a state. This helped drag down the ACC, particularly in football, and didn’t help matters in the SWC and to a lesser extent, the Big 12.
LikeLike
The issue isn’t the number of schools from the same state in the same conference, the issue is that some states (i.e. NC) can’t support 3+ schools in AQ. Whether UNC, Duke, NC St and Wake are in the same AQ league or different AQ leagues doesn’t change the fact that North Carolina just doesn’t have the resources (population, TV market, recruiting base etc.) to support 4 AQ programs.
LikeLike
B10 has a lot of schools they’d add (& would be willing to come) before they even considered Iowa State.
LikeLike
By that time I hope the leagues have figured out a way to deal with the travel issues that getting larger would cause. I just read this article about the travel issues that the U. of M at Columbia had to deal with during their first year in the SEC: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/mizzou-travel-expenses-among-tops-in-sec/article_b26d13a4-a0ed-53de-a09d-0aa492d6103b.html
Travel is going to be the main theme in conference politics going forward because, even with greater revenues, the money spent on travel that would have gone to upgrading the program would add up quickly. This is a reason why I don’t know how the American Athletic Conference can handle its business with all those teams spread out and very little money coming from TV.
LikeLike
@Transic.
I agree with a lot of thoughts set out by Marc Shepard (below).
I’ll add a few of my own. You say: “Travel is going to be the main theme in conference politics going forward because, even with greater revenues, the money spent on travel that would have gone to upgrading the program would add up quickly.”
I disagree with this. I think for Missouri, the extra $1 million in travel costs is okay. They just miscalculated. But the alternatives are not as good. If they were in the SEC West, their travel costs might go down, but they’d be in the SEC West. Alternatively, they would still be in the BXII. So, an extra million a year is the cost of not being stuck in the BXII and not having to face ‘Bama, LSU, A&M, Auburn, etc., each year.
Obviously, travel costs are an issue for WVir. But I suspect they will get a subsidy like MD has gotten in the B1G.
In the end, travel costs are a $$ factor, but only one factor to be considered concerning which conference is best for one’s school.
LikeLike
By that time I hope the leagues have figured out a way to deal with the travel issues that getting larger would cause. . . . Travel is going to be the main theme in conference politics going forward because, even with greater revenues, the money spent on travel that would have gone to upgrading the program would add up quickly.
You’ll note that, despite travel costs higher than budgeted, Missouri is waaaay ahead, compared to where they would’ve been in the Big XII. There’s not much that can be done about it, other than writing the schedule a bit more sympathetically. The SEC schools are simply farther away than the Big XII schools were, and most of them aren’t near major airports. Those facts aren’t changing.
I’m not sure how Missouri managed to miscalculate its travel costs quite so badly, when most of the data (number of teams, number of games, number of players, location of the opponents) was known. It can vary depending on which games are at home, but if they missed by that much, I’d say someone was being awfully optimistic.
A subtitle of that article might have been: beggars can’t be choosers. Missouri was begging to get out of the Big XII and got exactly what they asked for. In the eyes of the public, they were one of the winners in conference re-alignment.
This is a reason why I don’t know how the American Athletic Conference can handle its business with all those teams spread out and very little money coming from TV.
With intelligent scheduling a lot of that can be mitigated. There are a couple of clusters of schools reasonably close together, i.e., no further than in most leagues. It’s essentially a brand new league, not like Missouri having to fit into SEC scheduling patterns that are already long-established. Obviously, it’s not geographically compact, but all other options are worse.
LikeLike
Article is wrong about Missouri being ahead with conference revenue. The new conference excitement likely improved their internally generated football revenue, but with conference revenue alone, the continuing Big 12 members earned $22 million vs. the $20.7 for the SEC. Now if only A&M had left, perhaps its $20.8 million with only 1 school earning a half share (instead of 2). That’s still more than the SEC distribution and doesn’t include any Tier 3 media revenue Missouri might have earned. So that puts Missouri behind by $2.1 million before any internally generated revenue. Missouri also had around $14 million in exit fees the prior year.
LikeLike
That’s still more than the SEC distribution and doesn’t include any Tier 3 media revenue Missouri might have earned. So that puts Missouri behind by $2.1 million before any internally generated revenue.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but SEC schools maintain their Tier III rights as well.
Of course this is only in the short term. Long term Missouri will almost certainly make more money in the SEC than in the Big XII.
LikeLike
You’re right on Tier 3. There’s no difference for 2012 and 2013.
LikeLike
although I think it should be said that money was not the primary motivation (in my view) for the schools that left the BXII. My guess is that Missouri would have left for the B1G or SEC even if they lost a few million here or there doing so. The “Texas-Me-Me-Me” Conference is/was pretty dysfunctional.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9452292/ad-says-uconn-huskies-done-chasing-other-conferences
UConn’s AD claims they are no longer looking to escape the AAC. Maybe a few years of dominating a lesser league (if they can) will help them build a fan base.
LikeLike
I wish I had a dollar for every time a school said, “We’re committed to ______,” while in fact keeping their eyes open for opportunities elsewhere.
Schools are always arguing in alternatives. Very few would turn down the chance to move to a better league. But while they wait for that chance, they have to support the league they’re already in — especially if they’re likely to be there for many years to come.
UConn’s has pretty good reasons to be pro-AAC, given that nothing better is likely to come along for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
LOL. UConn, the cream of the ACCK!!!!
LikeLike
…AACK!!!…
LikeLike
LOL. obviously couldn’t type last night. another reason why the American Athletic Conference was a bad name choice. Mix up a “c” for an “a” and you identify a different conference.
LikeLike
Which is why the conference wants to be known as “the American.”
LikeLike
Basically UConn’s AD is saying the B10 and ACC turned him down.
LikeLike
The ACC, yes. One doubts the Big Ten reached that stage, as Connecticut isn’t an AAU member.
LikeLike
One doubts the Big Ten reached that stage, as Connecticut isn’t an AAU member.
I think Barry Alvarez said that the Big Ten had turned a school down for academic reasons. UConn could conceivably be that school.
LikeLike
Well, the B10 would turn UConn down for more than academic reasons, however.
LikeLike
Well, the B10 would turn UConn down for more than academic reasons, however.
I entirely agree — in fact, I think they fail on multiple grounds, even before the quality of their academics enters into the discussion.
LikeLike
Well, the B10 would turn UConn down for more than academic reasons, however.
Probably, but if the Big Ten thinks it can get value out of Rutgers it’s hard to imagine they couldn’t get some out of UConn.
LikeLike
Disingenuous argument.
“Getting some value from” is a ways away from “invite a school”.
As you may know, NJ has 2.5 times CT’s population.
The B10 could get some value from Louisville as well. That doesn’t mean the Cardinals ever were or will be invited by the B10.
LikeLike
@Richard
As you may know, NJ has 2.5 times CT’s population.
True. The difference is people actually care about UConn’s sports teams. After all, New Jersey has almost 5 times the population of Nebraska, and UNL got an invite over Rutgers back in 2010.
Now, Huskies don’t have the level of following as the Huskers, but they are way more popular than Rutgers.
The B10 could get some value from Louisville as well. That doesn’t mean the Cardinals ever were or will be invited by the B10.
Agree on both counts.
I’m not disagreeing with you that UConn won’t get an invitation, I just think that academics are likely the overriding factor. If UConn was an AAU member I suspect they would be very high on the Big Ten’s list. Probably not UNC level, but I doubt the Big Ten would value them too much different than Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
The other issues with UConn are that its stadium seats just 40,000, and it was in FCS until 1997.
LikeLike
frug said-
“Now, Huskies don’t have the level of following as the Huskers, but they are way more popular than Rutgers.”
-Out of the top 5 rated ESPN and top 5 rated ESPN2 college football games ever, in the NYC TV market, Rutgers was involved in 9 of those 10 games,
-Last year, Rutgers averaged 49,000 fans for football and UConn averaged 34,000.
While you were pulling that UConn statement out of your a** did any facts to support it come with it?
LikeLike
@Phil
Out of the top 5 rated ESPN and top 5 rated ESPN2 college football games ever, in the NYC TV market, Rutgers was involved in 9 of those 10 games
In spite of what many New Yorkers believe, NYC is not the only place on Earth that matters.
Last year, Rutgers averaged 49,000 fans for football and UConn averaged 34,000.
A. Just because Rutgers can put more butts in seats does not necessarily mean value. Indeed, based on the comprehensive study done to date (at least that I know of) an IUPUC prof. estimated that UConn’s FB team was worth about 59% more than Rutgers’.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html
B. Even if Rutgers had a marginal lead in FB value, it doesn’t come anywhere close to catching UConn’s BB value. UConn is near blue blood, while Rutgers team is most renowned for the fact it exists.
Also, worth nothing is that UConn’s WBB team is far and away the most valuable in sport (it is the only one that doesn’t lose money). WBB doesn’t usually matter in realignment, but UConn’s is likely the exception. They are the only WBB team in the country with TV contract that guarantee’s all their home games are broadcast live.
LikeLike
frug, Connecticut isn’t a near blue-blood, it’s nouveau riche, especially in football. I don’t think you realize how much the rest of college athletics hates the Huskies. Now that they’re effectively locked out of a top-tier conference for years to come, many want to see UConn’s self-righteous fan base wither on the vine, along with the Evil Empire of women’s basketball.
LikeLike
…an IUPUC prof. estimated that UConn’s FB team was worth about 59% more than Rutgers’.
Given the choice between Rutgers and UConn, the Big Ten chose Rutgers. Given the choice between Louisville and UConn, the ACC chose Louisville.
Connecticut isn’t a near blue-blood, it’s nouveau riche, especially in football. I don’t think you realize how much the rest of college athletics hates the Huskies. Now that they’re effectively locked out of a top-tier conference for years to come, many want to see UConn’s self-righteous fan base wither on the vine, along with the Evil Empire of women’s basketball.
I’m very skeptical that anyone in the sport actually “hates” UConn. Fans perhaps, but fans don’t make any of these decisions. I mean, if self-rightesousness were a crime, Notre Dame would be the worst felons of them all. But Notre Dame got a sweetheart deal from the BCS, a sweetheart deal from the ACC, a sweetheart deal from NBC, etc. Teams from all over the country are eager to play them; bowls are eager to invite them. When the playoff was being negotiated, the Notre Dame AD was at the table with the five major conference commissioners, as if he were their equal. No other single school was granted that courtesy.
Fans tend to “hate” particular schools, and they just assume that athletic directors and presidents hate them too. It ain’t so.
LikeLike
@Marc
Rutgers was taken over UConn because Rutgers was an AAU member and UConn isn’t.
I’m not sure what your point is about UConn and Louisville though, especially as it pertains to the Big Ten.
@vp19
UConn is absolutely a near Blue Blood in basketball. And you seem to severely overestimate the hatred of UConn. They aren’t anywhere near as polarizing as you make them out to be. Plus as Marc says, that doesn’t matter to the administrators.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what your point is about UConn and Louisville though, especially as it pertains to the Big Ten.
Because, given the choice, the ACC took Louisville, which was widely acknowledged to be primarily a football move. In the data that you cited, supposedly Louisville is a less valuable program than UConn, but apparently the ACC didn’t think so.
With all due respect to the good professor, I’m just not so sure how relevant those numbers are. He’s estimating what the programs might be worth if they could be bought and sold like pro sports teams, but this is clearly not possible, so he’s estimating an abstraction.
LikeLike
@frug: if they’re valuing football programs like businesses, then fundamentally they’re looking at revenue and expenses. Just because UConn is (presumably) run more efficiently than Rutgers doesn’t mean that the true value of the program is correct.
A couple other points:
1) There’s a LOT of volatility in the valuations here, see “Michigan’s valuation surged 18% over the year before because of improved cash flow, Brewer said.” That should add to the skepticism about how accurate the valuations are.
2) I sincerely doubt that the study authors put anywhere near as much time into valuing the lower level programs compared to the upper level.
3) IF the Big Ten Network can get a strong foothold in New Jersey, then that’s a big value-add that the study (presumably) doesn’t consider at all. That’s way more valuable (due to population) than adding CT.
LikeLike
Pingback: The ACC & Texas | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
This was published back in May. But I don’t remember seeing it linked. SIAP.
http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/cord-cutting-at-last-hard-evidence-its-really-happening-1200484321/
“The research firm found that the 13 biggest U.S. cable, satellite and telco TV providers lost about 80,000 subscribers for the 12 months ended March 31, 2013.”
FWIW, I am not concerned about the changing nature of cable vs. internet streaming on revenue for the various conferences. Both the B1G and the P12 are investing in streaming capabilities. Someone someday ~~ maybe Netflix ~~ will offer a Netfilx-like sports site. Justin.TV was basically that for awhile.
You can already watch ESpin, etc., via streaming if you have a cable account. At some point, if the $$ is sufficiently high, we’ll be able to buy a stand-alone account directly from the networks, thus, bypassing the providers.
LikeLike
Here is something I don’t understand about the Big 10’s thought process regarding expansion. They seem unwilling to add schools that don’t meet their academic mold, but they don’t seem to consider the academic potential that schools would have with Big 10 membership. Does anyone really think that a school like UConn, Florida State, or Oklahoma couldn’t rapidly achieve AAU status due to the expanded resources provided by the CIC and association with Big 10 members? The Big 10 has enough AAU votes to influence membership at this point anyway. Those schools have the full support of their states, not to mention a number of highly influential and wealthy alumni to help as well. Frankly, at least half the schools in the Big 10 would not be close to where they are academically if they weren’t members. The Big 10 is clearly willing to bet that membership will improve the athletic reputation of its members (see Rutgers and to a much lesser extent Maryland), but they seem unwilling to make the same bet on improving academic reputations, which I think is a much safer bet. Feel free to disagree, but I think UConn’s chances of joining the AAU are much greater than Rutgers’ chances of fielding nationally relevant football or men’s basketball teams.
LikeLike
I’m not sure you understand how the AAU process works; neither it nor CIC membership is meant to affect athletics.
LikeLike
Does anyone really think that a school like UConn, Florida State, or Oklahoma couldn’t rapidly achieve AAU status due to the expanded resources provided by the CIC and association with Big 10 members? The Big 10 has enough AAU votes to influence membership at this point anyway.
Well the Big Ten couldn’t even stop the AAU from tossing Nebraska…
LikeLike
Here is something I don’t understand about the Big 10′s thought process regarding expansion. They seem unwilling to add schools that don’t meet their academic mold, but they don’t seem to consider the academic potential that schools would have with Big 10 membership. Does anyone really think that a school like UConn, Florida State, or Oklahoma couldn’t rapidly achieve AAU status due to the expanded resources provided by the CIC and association with Big 10 members?
I don’t think anyone could achieve AAU status rapidly, just by joining the Big Ten. It’s a slow grind, because the criteria they look at cannot be manufactured overnight. And bear in mind, everyone else is constantly getting better, too.
The AAU is boxed in, because they just kicked out Nebraska. Having done that, anyone they add is going to have to be a lot better than Nebraska; otherwise, they’d have to turn around and let Nebraska back in again. My guess is that the Big Ten would first prefer to get Nebraska re-admitted than sponsor another school as a “project”.
And bear in mind, the AAU doesn’t take schools that just barely qualify. Anyone they invite has to be well above the bottom end of their membership (i.e., better than the likes of Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State).
The Big 10 has enough AAU votes to influence membership at this point anyway.
Well, they couldn’t prevent Nebraska from getting expelled. In fact, two Big Ten members (Michigan and Wisconsin) cast what turned out to be the deciding votes. There are 62 AAU members, and the Big Ten has just 13 votes. I doubt that the other members are going to do the Big Ten any favors, in terms of membership standards.
A more interesting question is why AAU membership matters quite so much. The Big Ten would take North Carolina in a heartbeat, and yet, the Tar Heels had star athletes taking no-show classes, and their football program is a violations rat’s nest.
Bear in mind, I don’t think the conference has ever said that AAU membership is a litmus test. The league would take Notre Dame any day, and they’re known to have evaluated Oklahoma. With the right partner (Texas), I suspect the Sooners would get in.
UConn, as I said in another post, fails the Big Ten’s critieria for multiple reasons, and we don’t really know whether FSU was ever actually turned down. They’re another one that might get in, with the right partner(s).
LikeLike
The fact that Michigan and Wisconsin were the deciding votes proves my point about the potential power of a Big 10 voting block in the AAU. Had all of the Big 10 schools voted together, Nebraska would not have been kicked out.
LikeLike
Not the same thing, unless a new applicant is a single vote short of admittance and Wisconsin + Michigan are both willing to switch their vote (which they didn’t for UNL).
LikeLike
Bear in mind, it takes a two-thirds vote to get expelled; Michigan and Wisconsin just happened to be two schools, among many, that voted against Nebraska. I am guessing it also takes two-thirds to get IN, so the Big Ten would be (at best) 13 out of 42 votes required, assuming the league voted as a bloc.
LikeLike
I’m not saying that the Big 10 would be powerful enough alone to get a new member in, but they would certainly be strong enough to strongly influence membership. 13 out of 42 is roughly a third of the votes necessary, which is a pretty powerful voting block.
LikeLike
“and they’re known to have evaluated Oklahoma. With the right partner (Texas), I suspect the Sooners would get in.”
I believe they were asked to look into OU, and the result was even with UT it was no go. UT doesn’t dictate membership terms to the B1G.
LikeLike
I believe they were asked to look into OU, and the result was even with UT it was no go. UT doesn’t dictate membership terms to the B1G.
I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that UT dictates membership terms. As far as I know, UT never got to the point where terms were even discussed: they have their “Tech problem,” after all. I was merely suggesting that the UT–OU two-fer is something that the league might consider in the future, in the hypothetical case where both were available.
LikeLike
Rutgers has gone to bowls 6 of the last 7 years (winning 5 of them) and their recruiting (according to Rivals) for the last 4 years is ranked:
2011 – #32
2012 – #24
2013 – #45
2014 – #16
They will be joining the B1G at the Northwestern/Iowa/Mich St level in football, and are already relevant while UConn will wait decades for the AAU if they ever get in.
LikeLike
Phil,
“They will be joining the B1G at the Northwestern/Iowa/Mich St level in football, and are already relevant”
After a few years, maybe. I think you underestimate the difficulty of joining the B10. PSU and NE fans both did, too. RU hasn’t exactly been dominant against lesser competition. And having locked games against OSU, MI, PSU and MSU means it will be even tougher to compete with NW and IA.
LikeLike
Rutgers may end up doing fine, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The Rutgers program has feasted on terrible schedules. See the analysis here. http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2013/02/14/rutgers-very-nervous-big-10-will-not-schedule-fcs-games/ Or go to jhowell.net and look it up the hard way.
Compare and contrast WVU, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers each year during Rutgers’ upswing. It’s not even close. Only Cincinnati scheduled as poorly as Rutgers.
Even the bowl games are not impressive. 7-5 Arizona State (L), 7-6 Kansas State; 7-6 Ball State; 6-7 North Carolina State; 8-5 Central Florida; 6-7 Iowa State. And then last year, they lost to 7-6 Va Tech. The combined records are 48-42.
Let’s put it yet another way. Name the last football “king” that Rutgers beat (hard enough to find one that they played). 1988, a 5-6 Penn State team. That’s 25 years.
Again, Rutgers may pan out. But they are just not that impressive right now.
LikeLike
At peak performance (e.g., 2001-2003), Maryland is a better football program than Rutgers. Not by all that much, mind you, but better.
LikeLike
That is being modest. Give Maryland the schedule Rutgers had for the past 10 years and tell me what you think the results would have been each year?
Maryland scheduled West Virginia OOC every year. How often did Rutgers ever schedule an OOC as difficult as WVU?
New Jersey has a ton of talent and if Rutgers can keep it, they should get better and better. But they are not there yet.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“Here is something I don’t understand about the Big 10′s thought process regarding expansion.”
If there’s only one thing about it you don’t understand, you’re way ahead of me.
“They seem unwilling to add schools that don’t meet their academic mold, but they don’t seem to consider the academic potential that schools would have with Big 10 membership.”
A lot of schools have potential. But they are competing with schools that are ahead of them already. If you haven’t noticed, schools tend to move up the rankings very slowly if at all. The B10 presidents take academics very seriously and don’t want to gamble on a school improving after being admitted.
“Does anyone really think that a school like UConn, Florida State, or Oklahoma couldn’t rapidly achieve AAU status due to the expanded resources provided by the CIC and association with Big 10 members?”
Yes, lots of people think exactly that. How many years do you think it’ll be before NE gets back into the AAU? They have all those advantages you’re talking about now. GT just got into the AAU in 2010. Those schools you named are miles away from being at that level, and improvement is harder to make the closer you get to the top.
“The Big 10 has enough AAU votes to influence membership at this point anyway.”
Explain NE getting the boot, then. The B10 takes AAU standards seriously. They wouldn’t try to force an unworthy school in.
“The Big 10 is clearly willing to bet that membership will improve the athletic reputation of its members (see Rutgers and to a much lesser extent Maryland), but they seem unwilling to make the same bet on improving academic reputations, which I think is a much safer bet.”
They are universities first and foremost. Athletics are a side business the presidents use to help their schools. Of course they’ll take more chances with sports than academics.
LikeLike
I should clarify, when I said rapidly achieve AAU status, I meant rapidly in terms of a school achieving AAU status, which would be 10-15 years. Obviously a school couldn’t just join the Big 10 and suddenly be AAU level. However, with the added exposure of the Big 10 and the lobbying resources of the CIC, I think that any school with a realistic chance of becoming AAU in the foreseeable future could do so within 10-15 years.
LikeLike
“GT just got into the AAU in 2010. Those schools you named are miles away from being at that level, and improvement is harder to make the closer you get to the top.
Georgia Tech should have been in the AAU many, many years ago. Indeed, with all due respect to Florida State, UConn, NC State, and others with AAU aspirations, GT is a school in a class well ahead of those. I would argue GT is a stronger school than many universities that have been in the AAU for a much longer time.
But that only underscores how difficult achieving AAU membership is. Georgia Tech deserved to get in a long time ago, but the exclusivity of the AAU forced a long, long wait.
LikeLike
Actually, GT was held back by being too specialized. The AAU asked them to broaden their strength more into the sciences and not just engineering before they admitted them.
LikeLike
Deserves to be AAU is not accurate. Qualified, perhaps. But it is an invitational club that doesn’t have to invite anyone regardless of qualification. There are a number of supremely qualified schools who have declined membership.
LikeLike
Hey all, just wanted to let you know that Frank was very gracious in giving his time to allow me to interview him via email at length for a Q&A on realignment for the readers at Burnt Orange Nation. You can find Part One (of three) here.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22683806/big-ten-overunder-win-totals-our-picks
Over/Under lines from Vegas for the B10 regular season:
OSU – 11.5
PSU – 8.5
WI – 8.5
IN – 5.5
PU – 5.5
IL – 3.5
MI – 9.5
NE – 9.5
MSU – 8.5
NW – 8.5
IA – 5.5
MN – 5.5
The article picks:
Over – IL, NE, NW, IA, MN
Under – the rest
He thinks:
OSU 11-1
NE 10-2
MI, NW 9-3
MSU, WI 8-4
PSU 8-4 or worse
IA, MN 6-6
IN, PU 5-7
IL 4-8
LikeLike
The OSU line seems particularly designed for suckers, since the Buckeyes would need to run the table for the bettor to win. Half OSU’s wins last year were by 7 points or less, and over time those types of games tend to split much closer to 50/50.
LikeLike
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/07/08/whos-ready-for-some-college-football/
Who tweeted about CFB the most in the past 6 months?
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/espns-ratings-are-way-down-this-year-whats-the-matte-722030528
Trouble in Bristol?
LikeLike
Fox is coming in at the perfect time. ESPN’s arrogance and monopolistic ways have taken a little bit of the shine off of Disney’s jewel. The ‘golden age’ of ESPN feels like its in the rear view mirror. It will still be the top dog for the foreseeable future but its days of self-deluded invincibility are coming to an end.
LikeLike
That coupled with a few Tent pole bombs at the box office spell bad news for any supposed, but not really, ACC network.
LikeLike
Speaking of the ACC network…what is the ACC’s plan “B” if ESPN keeps the network “supposed” rather than reality? Do members have an escape clause from the GOR if the network doesn’t materialize, or are they stuck? If Clemson and Florida State discover they have been sold a bill of goods by Swofford and the NC four, have they any legal recourse?
Frank, I know you think UNC is a linchpin to future conference realignment, but if it’s apparent it merely thinks it’s an alpha dog while playing the two ACC members that are legit alpha dog football schools for suckers, how can anyone take Chapel Hill seriously? Unless UNC is serious about big-time football — and yes, it was burned by Butch Davis, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t succeed if it truly tried — I think both the SEC and Big Ten would be glad to keep the Tar Heels in their delusional “basketball-first” ghetto, and the gap between the ACC and the other four conferences will continue to widen.
LikeLike
Do members have an escape clause from the GOR if the network doesn’t materialize, or are they stuck?
The details of the GOR aren’t public so your guess is as good as anyone’s.
If Clemson and Florida State discover they have been sold a bill of goods by Swofford and the NC four, have they any legal recourse?
Again, it depends on the terms of the GOR. Of course the other issue is what exactly FSU or Clemson would do even if they could escape the GOR. By all accounts the Big Ten and SEC aren’t willing to take them so their only other option would be the Big XII which they don’t seem to have any interest in.
As for your point about the who the lynchpin of the ACC is, I agree that Frank is under estimating exactly how valuable FSU is to the SEC. I agree that UNC is the “political” head of the ACC, but FSU is the financial and the conference can’t survive without both. If either one bolts the conference is doomed.
LikeLike
what is the ACC’s plan “B” if ESPN keeps the network “supposed” rather than reality?
Raid the American Athletic Conference? 😉
LikeLike
Speaking of the ACC network…what is the ACC’s plan “B” if ESPN keeps the network “supposed” rather than reality? Do members have an escape clause from the GOR if the network doesn’t materialize, or are they stuck?
I’m surprised no one yet has FOIA’d the GoR, but to date there are no copies in circulation, so who knows?
If Clemson and Florida State discover they have been sold a bill of goods by Swofford and the NC four, have they any legal recourse?
Well, for starters, we don’t know if it WAS a “bill of goods”. People sign contracts all the time based on predictions (hopes) of future events. The failure of those events to materialize does not necessarily invalidate the contract.
Moreover, as @frug has noted, Clemson and FSU don’t exactly have a better landing spot at the moment. Until they do, it’s all academic.
Frank, I know you think UNC is a linchpin to future conference realignment, but if it’s apparent it merely thinks it’s an alpha dog while playing the two ACC members that are legit alpha dog football schools for suckers, how can anyone take Chapel Hill seriously? Unless UNC is serious about big-time football — and yes, it was burned by Butch Davis, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t succeed if it truly tried — I think both the SEC and Big Ten would be glad to keep the Tar Heels in their delusional “basketball-first” ghetto, and the gap between the ACC and the other four conferences will continue to widen.
If you think the Big Ten and the SEC wouldn’t take UNC with open arms, then you’re smoking a very different weed than the rest of us.
It isn’t so easy for UNC to become a football school. I am sure they’ve tried. Among the seven founding members who are still in the ACC, only Wake Forest and Virginia have fewer league titles. And four of UNC’s five titles were in one unusually good 10-year period, from 1971-80. Since then, it’s 33 years without a title.
FSU and Clemson are alpha dogs, only if they want a new conference that also wants them. Right now, that is not the case.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Yes, that’s exactly where UNC’s power lies. It all goes back to whether the Big 12 was ever in a realistic position to take anyone from the ACC and my firm opinion is that was never the case. That means that the leverage of the “football” schools such as Florida State and Clemson was lower than what most fans would think. In contrast, UNC is the one of the few schools that *both* the Big Ten and ACC would want in a heartbeat. Also, for the Big Ten, getting UNC is the key to accessing the other academically-oriented ACC schools that they may want, such as UVA and Georgia Tech.
This is one instance where the fact that UNC is “basketball-focused” is irrelevant even though we’re largely in a football-focused world. UNC has disproportionate power in the world of college sports because of its academic prestige, athletic brand, and ability to deliver its large home state all by itself with an extremely high level of passion and fervor (meaning that these aren’t just households on paper, but ones that will 100% demand UNC hoops in the way that NYC would demand to see Yankees games or LA would demand to see Lakers games). It also helps that the commissioners of the Big Ten and ACC along with the president of ESPN all happen to be Tar Heels. UNC is right up there with Texas and Notre Dame as schools that will always be in the power club no matter what.
LikeLike
I would say UNC is a linchpin only because if they leave everyone else would. But just because they choose to stay doesn’t mean anyone else would.
Its really FSU and Virginia Tech. First off, if they lose those two, they are no different than the MWC in football and would lose their “contract conference” status rather quickly. If FSU were to go to the Big 12 or SEC with Louisville or a non-ACC team, the league might continue. But if FSU left, VT might also feel compelled to leave and then it would all fall apart. But of course, that’s not going to happen for at least a dozen years.
LikeLike
Sports Business Journal is reliable, but does anyone else wonder about their article where they said ESPN would pay the ACC an extra $2 million per school if they DIDN’T do a network? ESPN would be paying the ACC $2 million for not doing something more with rights they already owned. Why not just give what they don’t want back and let them re-sell them again? That would be a really bizarre provision if true.
That is the plan B. Take the $2 million and run. If there really is a $2 million.
LikeLike
“Why not just give what they don’t want back and let them re-sell them again?”
They played that card before and presto, the BTN happened. They are buying an insurence policy.
LikeLike
Some interesting tidbits: “ESPN2’s primetime ratings dropped 12 percent, and its total-day ratings fell to an average of 244,000 viewers a day, down from 268,000 in the same quarter last year, 266,000 the year before, and 306,000 in 2010.”
This surprised me. From the talk and how I/we think about ESpin, I would have thought they had millions upon millions of daily viewers. 244,000 viewers a day seems paltry. Wonder what the BTN gets?
“… ESPN accounts for 45 percent of all of Disney’s operating income….” Wow, just wow.
By contrast, NBC Sports Network “… saw gains all around in the second quarter …”
LikeLike
If anything, it should be a message aimed at the sports leagues. For some reason, the leagues like NBA, ACC, SEC, BXII and MLB think that being on ESPN is the most important matter. The NHL made the only move possible that made sense to them and that was going to a network that’s more than willing to put them on the marquee. One other thing to look for is how would the Barclays Premier League fare after getting off of Fox and ESPN and becoming exclusive to NBC Sports. Should that move pay off, then look out!
Remember that this is only the beginning. As much as some of us love to stick it to the mothership, the B1G presidents must first be assured that whoever bids on the property would give the league the exposure and financial security that they’ve enjoyed in the current deal. I’m afraid that Fox or anyone else would not make that ballsy move for fear of financial failure. NBC should at least be thinking about putting in a serious bid. The NHL, BPL and Olympics are nice and all, but they need more.
LikeLike
@Transic – The thing is that 250,000 viewers on ESPN2 (which is not the mothership ESPN that has a lot higher viewership) still completely blows away the viewership on NBCSN, so it’s absolutely a massive concern for all sports leagues to make another network into a primary carrier of games from an exposure standpoint. Most of NBCSN’s shows are having a hard time getting to just 20,000 viewers, so it’s a massive gap.
I’d also disagree about who is more likely to provide a larger bid: Fox has proven to be MUCH more likely than NBC to give high bids for sports properties. In fact, that’s how News Corp. has largely built its TV empire around the world – they turned Sky Sports into a player in the UK by buying up the top Premier League rights and the Fox network in the US only gained real traction after they won a then-stunning bid for the NFL in the 1990s. This has continued with Fox being willing to spend much more for better content to start up Fox Sports 1 (MLB, Big 12, Pac-12, NASCAR, Big East, World Cup) compared to NBCSN.
At the same time, we, as Big Ten fans, have VERY little to complain about in terms of ESPN exposure. Many fans are too focused upon the pundits on GameDay and SportsCenter when it comes to “exposure”. Ultimately, what really matters to guys like Jim Delany is the exposure where ESPN is putting its money where its mouth is, which is who gets the top time slots for live events on the network. On that front, the Big Ten has long had the best college football time slots on ABC and ESPN (and the Big Ten would get even more if they wanted to shift to more prime time games, which they have been reluctant to do). This is far from an NHL situation where that league was getting shunted to bad time slots on a then-nascent ESPN2. The Big Ten has fantastic time slot real estate on ABC and ESPN (far better than the ACC and arguably better than the SEC), and that means ESPN has the financial incentive to promote them heavily.
I’ve said this before: I believe that the Big Ten wants to mimic the Pac-12’s deal that’s about 60% ESPN/40% Fox. ESPN and Fox have shown that they will work together as partners and they certainly want nothing to do with NBC getting any Big Ten rights.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9462300/college-realignment-frequently-asked-questions-college-basketball
ESPN blames Big Ten for realignment, fails to mention that it was the WWL’s decision to low ball the Big Ten back in 2007 that caused the led to BTN.
LikeLike
…2007 led to the BTN.
LikeLike
Well, they chose the starting of the BTN as the root cause of expansion. They didn’t say the B10 shouldn’t have done it.
My biggest complaint is how they always fail to mention that it takes two to tango. No expansion would have occurred if everyone was happy where they were.
If CO didn’t leave for the P12, what else have happened? Would NE, TAMU or MO have left the B12? Would the B10 still be at 11 or would they have added RU or UMD as #12? Which one? Would the P12 still be the P10?
It easy to blame the B10 because Delany mentioned expansion, but the B10 didn’t make the first actual move.
LikeLike
I blame the Irish! 😉
LikeLike
Blame Canada!
LikeLike
What does one expect from an ESECACCPN paid columnist? It’s the big, bad, B1G who’s to blame! Frankly, Eamonn, I don’t give a damn!!!
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/52416070/
This was an article linked in the Brennan article. Long, but worth a skim at least. Good discussion of O’Bannon. Good fit with the original post here by FtT.
LikeLike
It easy to blame the B10 because Delany mentioned expansion, but the B10 didn’t make the first actual move.
I believe Delany himself has conceded that the Big Ten made a mistake by announcing that they were looking at expansion: they should have just kept their mouths shut until they found #12. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there was eventually going to be a #12.
The way they handled #13–14, with not a peep until the eve of the announcements, is the way they should have handled the Nebraska move, and the way they’ll likely handle any future expansion.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I believe Delany himself has conceded that the Big Ten made a mistake by announcing that they were looking at expansion: they should have just kept their mouths shut until they found #12.”
He said that in hindsight because he didn’t like the frenzy it set off. The B10 made the announcement with the best of intentions, not wanting to be accused of being sneaky like the ACC raid of the BE. I don’t think it was a mistake at the time, and I don’t blame the frenzy on the B10. People choose how to react to things, and for whatever reason a lot of people chose to go nuts about this. Remember, the B10 did the same thing a few years earlier and nobody really cared.
“But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there was eventually going to be a #12.”
It had been almost 2 decades since they announced the addition of PSU. Everyone assumed the B10 was waiting on ND. I think the realization that the B10 might consider someone else shook things up because they were no other viable independents out there this time. That meant “raiding” another conference like the ACC did a few years before.
“The way they handled #13–14, with not a peep until the eve of the announcements, is the way they should have handled the Nebraska move, and the way they’ll likely handle any future expansion.”
Yes, but we only think it should be done that way because we saw how people overreacted last time. Many people didn’t respond well to the ACC stealing BE teams out of the blue, and I think the B10 chose to be open about it as a response to that. The end result was a bigger uproar, but they had no way of knowing that.
LikeLike
The ACC raided the Big East…TWICE for a total of 6 schools (7 counting Notre Dame), but the mean ol’ B1G is the sole problem here. ESPN has a bigger agenda than cable news networks. F— the mothership.
LikeLike
Yep. Basically, B1G (Fox/BTN) expansion was/is bad, but nary a mention of the ACC (ESPN) expansion and only a brief mention of SEC (ESPN) expansion and all praise for the survival of the BXII (shared ESPN/Fox).
Agenda much, WWL?
LikeLike
Almost makes you wonder if this article deliberately came out with the one about ESPN losing viewers. Lowering B1G expectations for the 2016 contract negotiations?
LikeLike
Why would the mothership care what the B1G’s expectations may be? They won’t be bidding on expectations but rights value, along with the other bidders. If anything it may show a need to retain/gain broadcast rights to the B1G valuable inventory, especially as that territory has expanded.
LikeLike
Hot off the presses/Twitters! Get yer 2016 and 2017 B1G 9-game conference schedule here:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/071113aab.html
LikeLike
Iowa angle:
http://thegazette.com/2013/07/11/iowa-gets-football-big-boys-in-2016-2017/
The joys of 14 teams:
In 2017, Ohio State visits Kinnick Stadium for the first time since 2010
The Hawkeyes will go five years between trips to Michigan State (2012-2017) and Penn State (2011-2016)
Not too surprising, but good news:
Both years Iowa closes against Nebraska on Black Friday
PSU rotation as some here wanted:
Michigan State and Penn State face each other (as does Maryland-Rutgers) in the regular-season finale in 2016, but Penn State plays Maryland and Michigan State meets Rutgers in the 2017 closer. All other season-ending series — Michigan-Ohio State, Iowa-Nebraska, Illinois-Northwestern, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue — remain in place.
LikeLike
@Greg: It would not surprise me at all if MSU, PSU, Rutgers, and UMD rotate amongst themselves during the final week of the season going forward.
PSU would be thrilled with either Rutgers or UMD, whereas neither MSU or PSU truthfully care all that much about the Land Grant Trophy.
Rutgers and UMD are simply thrilled to be here, and will play whomever they are told with a big ol’ smile.
Personally, I think PSU-Rutgers on the Friday night of Thanksgiving weekend, at MetLife Stadium, would sell out very quickly, as well as give the BTN/ESPN/Fox a decent primetime game. The negative to this, of course, is the MSU-UMD matchup (which not even Sparty himself would care much about). Hence why these 4 teams will keep rotating rivalry week opponents.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“PSU would be thrilled with either Rutgers or UMD, whereas neither MSU or PSU truthfully care all that much about the Land Grant Trophy.”
A lot of MSU fans care greatly about playing PSU rather than RU or UMD, though. They may not value the LGT or that specific rivalry highly, but many of them loathe the idea of ending the year against RU or UMD.
LikeLike
I don’t think Rutgers or Maryland will move future conference games off campus. The only reason the Terps’ game with PSU in 2015 is at FedEx is because it’s replacing an ACC game with Virginia Tech slated there that year.
LikeLike
I think UMD’s AD mentioned doing it once every few years (maybe it was RU’s AD).
LikeLike
In 2017, Ohio State visits Kinnick Stadium for the first time since 2010
The Hawkeyes will go five years between trips to Michigan State (2012-2017) and Penn State (2011-2016)
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me wish the NCAA would allow for large conferences (12 or more members) to dissolve their divisional lineups but still allow for a conference championship game between the top two teams in the league standings.
Ohio State shouldn’t go seven years between visits to Iowa. In the ACC, where there will 14 teams and an 8-game conference schedule, teams from opposite divisions that aren’t permanent crossovers will play each other once every six years and visit each other on average once every 12 years. That’s just absurd.
Here is what my plan for the ACC would be if CCG’s could be allowed without divisions: Each team plays three opponents on an annual basis. Each team would also play five other teams for two years, home and home. The following two years, each team would play the remaining five other teams. In this setup, every ACC team would have played every other ACC team at least twice in four years, including at least one time hosting and one time visiting.
Florida State, for example, could play Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech every year. (GT because they’re the closest ACC school to FSU and Atlanta has more FSU alumni than any city outside of Florida.) For two years, the Seminoles would play Wake Forest, UNC, Louisville, Pitt, and Boston College. Then those five schools would rotate off, and the following two years FSU
would play Duke, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Syracuse.
For conferences like the SEC and ACC, where teams like Florida and Alabama will average six years between games against one another, the divisions are truly going to start feeling like two separate conferences.
This may not be as necessary for the Big Ten because of the nine-game schedule, but it could make some sense nonetheless. Without divisions, Ohio State could play Michigan, Penn State, and Illinois every year. It could play six of the remaining ten teams in any given year, and likewise, the Buckeyes would face each Big Ten team six times in ten years.
Perhaps just as importantly, the conference’s top two teams would play in the championship game instead of the winner of a lousy division vs. the winner of a stacked division. In 2012, the ACC could have been a top 15 matchup of FSU vs. Clemson instead of FSU vs. GT (6-6). In 2011, the SEC championship could have been Alabama vs. LSU (sparing us an all-SEC matchup in the NCG) instead of LSU vs. Georgia.
LikeLike
Noone wanted to see LSU/Alabama again. It would make no sense in a ccg either. And who would you have last year? Alabama/Florida instead of Alabama/Georgia?
I think this is a horrible idea. CCGs with divisions at least have a purpose. CCGs without divisions have NO purpose other than generating $.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Last year, sure, it would have been Alabama/Georgia because they had the two best records in the SEC; Georgia would win a tiebreaker over Florida because they won head-to-head.
Figuring out the two teams for a conference championship game would require tiebreakers. Sure they would not be without controversy. My argument is that every effort should be made to have a league’s two best teams in the CCG.
In 2008, when the Big 12 had Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma all finish 11-1 (7-1 in league play), each with a loss to the other, only one of those teams could go to the CCG. Meanwhile, Missouri sat at 9-3 (5-3 in league play) got to participate in the game with an inferior record to all three teams. Missouri, in fact, would have finished fifth overall in the Big 12 that year because Oklahoma State, which was 5-3 in ’08, beat Missouri head-to-head.
Moreover, I do not understand why there is an insistence that the College Football Playoff have the four best teams, whether they’re conference champions or not. Yet when it comes to CCG’s, the argument is flipped: whether it’s the best two teams in the league or not, just make sure that it’s a game between champions of two [arbitrary] divisions.
“I think this is a horrible idea. CCGs with divisions at least have a purpose. CCGs without divisions have NO purpose other than generating $
What is the point of conference tournaments in basketball? League teams all play each other at least once, oftentimes twice, in a 16- to 18-game conference season. The team that finishes with the best record should be the conference champion, hands-down. Right? No need for a conference tournament to sort out who’s the best team when it’s already been sorted out. Yet there are conference tournaments for doing exactly what you’re saying: generating money.
What purpose do CCG’s with divisions serve? An opportunity for a team that finishes 5-3 in conference play to upset the best team in the league, while a team that finished 7-1 in conference play sits on the sidelines? Nope. Sure, there are many years where a conference’s two best teams are in a CCG, but that is reliant on the hope that the best two teams are in opposite divisions. At least in a scenario where a conference has no divisions, the CCG will showcase a league’s top two teams based on their conference records in comparison to the entire conference, not just in comparison to their division
.
LikeLike
Right, I always laugh when @bullet and @ccrider55 refer to it as “a money grab,” conveniently ignoring the fact that the revenue sports are organized, through and through, for precisely that purpose. It’s a bit like walking into a casino, and saying, ” I am shocked — shocked— to find that gambling is going on in here!”
LikeLike
You forgot my calling it also a beauty contest invitational, at the expense of a season long “bracket” (divisions=bracket halves) elimination process. If you want in the CCG, win your division.
LikeLike
@Michael
Florida and Georgia played, but neither played Alabama. Maybe it would be a Florida/Georgia rematch. Most likely it would be decided on strength of conference schedule when Florida would have been #1 in the SEC.
LikeLike
Well with one-armed bandits there’s no skill. At least with poker and horse racing there’s some skill.
They could just let everyone play extra games if it was purely about money (yes, I know they’ve done that). I can’t think of anything they’ve done that is ONLY motivated by money. There is some competitive purpose, some student benefit, even if money was a major or even primary factor. Even the 12th game had to do with equity, everyone getting it, not just the ones who got invited to the preseason classics. A conference championship game without divisions has no purpose. Would you really make an 8-0 team play a 6-2 team for a 2nd time when the 6-2 team hadn’t won anything?
LikeLike
I can’t think of anything they’ve done that is ONLY motivated by money. There is some competitive purpose, some student benefit, even if money was a major or even primary factor.
The NCAA basketball tournament expansion was motivated ONLY by money. No team lower than an 8th seed has ever won it (and that happened only once); so no one could say with a straight face that any more than 32 teams was needed to identify the best team in the land.
As @Michael in Raleigh pointed out, the conference tourneys in basketball are entirely redundant from a competitive standpoint, as every team in the league has already played all the others in the regular season — and most have played each other twice.
Would you really make an 8-0 team play a 6-2 team for a 2nd time when the 6-2 team hadn’t won anything?
That’s exactly what the Big Ten did last year, when Nebraska had to try to beat Wisconsin a second time, when Wisconsin hadn’t won anything. Even had OSU and PSU been eligible, Nebraska had already played them too.
LikeLike
They aren’t making any noticeable amount of money from the latest expansion. They (particularly the ADs and coaches who wanted to keep their jobs) wanted more teams to participate, particularly Big 6 conference teams who were far better than a number of conference champs. They went from 52 to 64 in large part because the teams getting byes were getting upset by teams who had already gotten the butterflies out of their system. Hardly anyone cares about #1 vs. #16 or #3 vs. #14.
LikeLike
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me wish the NCAA would allow for large conferences (12 or more members) to dissolve their divisional lineups but still allow for a conference championship game between the top two teams in the league standings.
You are 100 percent correct, but blaming the wrong people. The NCAA merely enacts and then enforces the rules that its members choose. If the three 14-team leagues were united in wishing to change this, it would change soon enough.
LikeLike
Nah, I’m not blaming the wrong people. I’m blaming the NCAA, i.e., the overall membership, for their lack of foresight to allow conferences to determine championships however they see fit. If the ACC wants to have one single conference without divisions and let the top two play a CCG, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be up to the American Conference or the Pac-12 or the Mountain West (or, collectively, the “NCAA”) to determine that the ACC, or anyone else can’t have a CCG unless it does one with divisions like they do.
Conferences too large for a round-robin (i.e., 11 or more) should be allowed to set up their conference schedules and championship format however they see fit. If they want divisions and division champions to play in the CCG, great. If they want divisions for scheduling purposes but for the league’s two best teams to play in the CCG, great. If they want no divisions at all and for the teams with the two best records to play in the CCG, more power to them.
LikeLike
Until there is a split 42 votes isn’t enough.
LikeLike
If the ACC wants to have one single conference without divisions and let the top two play a CCG, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
I think the current rule is an artefact of an era when the NCAA was micro-managing all sorts of things. Remember, these are the same clowns that came up with the bagels-and-cream-cheese rule. I think there’s a different tone now, but to my knowledge none of the 14-team leagues has actually suggested changing this. For all I know, they may agree with @ccrider55 that it’s truly a bad idea.
Until there is a split 42 votes isn’t enough.
I wasn’t referring to the math. I was making a pragmatic statement that if this is what the Big Five leagues decide they want, then they are probably going to get it one way or another.
LikeLike
“…for their lack of foresight to allow conferences to determine championships however they see fit.”
They can now. They can draw cards if they choose. The NCAA is only limiting the number of allowed games and providing specific circumstances in which a single extra game is allowed.
LikeLike
“…if this is what the Big Five leagues decide they want, then they are probably going to get it one way or another.”
So…it appearently isn’t what they want.
LikeLike
If the ACC wants to have one single conference without divisions and let the top two play a CCG, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so?
The existing rule was enacted in a different era, when the NCAA thought it should micro-manage everything. These are the same clowns that came up with the bagels-and-cream-cheese rule.
At the moment, we don’t even know if there’s any league that wants to eliminate its divisions. For all we know, the ACC may agree with @ccrider55 that the rule is just dandy the way it is.
Until there is a split 42 votes isn’t enough.
I wasn’t referring to the math. I was making a pragmatic statement that if the Big Five leagues want this, they’re going to get it, one way or another.
LikeLike
They can draw cards if they choose.
Why do you keep throwing out that strawman? Unless it’s a serious option that a conference could adopt without being laughed at, it’s no option at all. Another way of putting it is: unless you can truly say that you would recommend it to your fellow members if you were an athletic director, then you’re just joking around.
LikeLike
“Why do you keep throwing out that strawman?”
Its as a true response to the false claim that the NCAA dictates how conferences decide championships. Even the absurd is not prevented. It does not require an extra game to arrive at a result. You simply want an extra game for a conference that isn’t large enough to have difficulty reasonably deciding it within the regular season, or to circumvent the logic used to competitively justify needing another game for large conferences (basically dividing into two smaller RR conferences and having a post season game).
LikeLike
….false claim that the NCAA dictates how conferences decide championships.
Of course they dictate it, by removing certain possibilities from the discussion. When the rules allow only one non-joke option, I’d say they’re dictating it, wouldn’t you?
Even the absurd is not prevented.
If the only options are the absurd ones, then there really aren’t any options…are there?
LikeLike
They remove nothing.
What part of ANY option, even the absurd, is limiting.
Do you complain that ND isn’t allowed an extra game to decide who is the best ND team is?
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t force conferences to have championship games. They don’t force conferences to play 8 games or 9 games or even the same number of games within a conference. They don’t tell them what tiebreaks to use. They do limit conferences to 12 total games. They limit a ccg, which is an exception to the 12 game rule, to cases where a conference plays in 2 divisions and plays a round robin. But even that rule is a fluke not intended for FBS. And conferences could decide champions in the ridiculous way you want to do it. They just would have to use 12 games instead of getting an extra 13th game. They could leave the last weekend open and play 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc.
LikeLike
They remove nothing.
They remove the option presently under discussion…don’t they? In fact, there are many options they remove, such as organizing in three divisions and having a two-week, four-team playoff (with a wild-card team) after the 12-game regular season.
What part of ANY option, even the absurd, is limiting.
I’d have loved to be there when they said, “Our rules are so permissive, even the absurd is allowed!!”
Do you complain that ND isn’t allowed an extra game to decide who is the best ND team is?
Once again…absurd.
The NCAA doesn’t force conferences to have championship games.
True enough, but no one has ever suggested with a serious alternative — one they could recommend with a straight face, as being a better option, if they were a commissioner or AD. When all other options are clearly worse, absurd or non-serious, I’d say they are (in essence) mandating it.
The discussion of whether it’s actually a good idea is an interesting one. It’s the discussion we ought to have. But all you seem to be interested in are these various jokes. This is a sports site, after all, and no one is required to be serious. But you might as well just admit that you’re joking.
LikeLike
No. You’re saying the requirements that would allow for, and the implementation of, an allowable thirteenth game should be changed. Until that happens it is not an option for those not qualified. The rule isn’t intended to find the two best teams for a “post season” game. It is an extension of the regular season to help large conferences better decide THE champion. The runner up is inconsequential.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Of course they dictate it, by removing certain possibilities from the discussion. When the rules allow only one non-joke option, I’d say they’re dictating it, wouldn’t you?”
That’s patently not true. The major conferences currently use multiple ways to decide a champ:
1. B12 – a full round robin and the standings determine the winner
2. ACC, SEC, B10 (for now) – 8 game conference schedule with division winners meeting in a CCG
3. P12, B10 (later) – 9 game conference schedule with division winners meeting in a CCG
LikeLike
Looks like the B10 is going with the format that I predicted with 1 permanent cross-over over a 6-year stretch and the other 6 schools rotating. For the first 6 years of the 9-game schedule, the permanent crossovers will be:
OSU-Nebraska
Michigan-Wisconsin
PSU-Iowa
MSU-Northwestern
Rutgers-Illinois
Maryland-Minnesota
IU-PU
In other words, done exactly by rank of historical success (with IU-PU always protected).
We’ll find out if the next 6 year cycle will also be parity-based.
Will it be:
OSU-Wisconsin
Michigan-Nebraska
PSU-Northwestern
MSU-Iowa
Rutgers-Minnesota
Maryland-Illinois
IU-PU
?
LikeLike
Maybe, maybe not. It seems unlikely to me that Nebraska will play OSU six years in a row.
Until we see years 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the nine-game schedule, we can’t be sure what they are doing.
For what it’s worth, the year 1 and 2 schedules (2016, 2017) are consistent with my prediction of 5/9 parity matches for the top three teams in each divison while the lower four teams play each other 6/9.
LikeLike
For the lower four teams, the crossovers look like this:
2 matches annually against lower four teams
1 match annually against a top three team
For the top three teams, the crossovers looke like this:
1 match annually against a top three team
1 match annually against a lower four team
1 match triennially against a lower four team
2 matches triennially against a top three team
Thus, over a three year period, the top teams have five crossovers versus the top three teams and four crossovers versus the four lower teams (one per team).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Hot off the presses/Twitters! Get yer 2016 and 2017 B1G 9-game conference schedule here:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/071113aab.html”
I’m not thrilled with them (shocking, I know), but there are some good things.
1. Why won’t the B10 explain in detail how their parity-based scheduling is supposed to work? How often will each school play the others? Why is this being kept secret?
2. Conference games in the opening week stink. No fan base should have their Rose Bowl dreams crushed in Week 1. Every team should have time to iron out a few kinks before playing a game that really matters, IMO. If they have to do it, it should at least be a crossover game.
3. I’m glad they dropped the mirror concept (playing home and homes in all series) in order to make sure you’ll play every school at least once every four years.
4. It’s also good that every team in the division has the same number of home games and that the B10 made sure road games are spread out equally.
5. It’s probably the right call to rotate the pairings of PSU/MSU/RU/UMD for the last game, but I’m a little surprised the B10 actually did it. PSU gets MSU for the first 3 years, but then switches to UMD.
6. OSU got screwed, especially in 2016. So did WI.
2016
OSU – NE, WI, NW
MI – WI, IL, IA
2017
OSU – NE, IA, IL
MI – WI, PU, MN
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/07/ohio_state_football_will_play.html
Also, OSU will only have 6 home games in 2017. A pre-existing OOC game @UNC prevents OSU from having 7 home games.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told The Plain Dealer in a text message that Ohio State is willing to go with just six home games in 2017 as part of what Smith called a “transition year” in conference scheduling.
LikeLike
Very surprising to me. I figured the North Carolina series would be removed/altered.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was hoping they could just switch home games, but maybe UNC faced the same issue. Perhaps the buyout was too large to pay, but only playing 6 home games sounds dumb to me. Typical Gene Smith.
LikeLike
So 2018 will almost certainly* be
OSU: UNL + PU + Minny
Michigan: Wisconsin + UNL + NU
Big advantage to OSU that year.
* Yes, the B10 could be using a more screwy type of parity-based scheduling than the mechanism I predicted, but I doubt it as every school plays one and only one other school in the other division in both 2016 & 2017.
LikeLike
Of course the getting screwed will rotate around. I just pointed out who got screwed in the new schedules.
LikeLike
No chance Ohio State has Nebraska or Michigan has Wisconsin in 2018. They are disproportionately putting the top teams together, but they don’t have annual crossovers. Ohio State will probably end up with Iowa or Wisconsin again in 2018.
LikeLike
We’ll see.
I think it’s very likely that they will have annual crossovers. These are the people who thought “Legends” and “Leaders” were good ideas as division names.
Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn’t mean there’s no way it happens.
Plus, this makes scheduling much easier.
LikeLike
I could understand that, but it goes against everything they have announced. They specifically said that Indiana/Purdue is the only locked crossover. They’ve never contradicted that. I don’t see a reason to think they’d secretly put in locked crossovers later.
LikeLike
IU-PU _are_ the only permanently locked cross-overs.
Playing a school 6 years consecutively doesn’t make them a permanent lock & just because a school isn’t a permanent lock doesn’t mean the B10 won’t schedule a cross-over opponent 6 years in a row.
LikeLike
Few other thoughts on the schedule:
1. My bet is we see 2 years with Penn State ending one year against Michigan State and the other vs. Maryland or Rutgers and then repeat the next 2 years (flipping Maryland/Rutgers). This will give Michigan State more games ending against Penn State than the other two (sometime they probably very much want given no history vs. the other two), but still gives us a rotation. Later they might open it up more fully as Rutgers/Maryland integrate.
2. I really don’t like parity based scheduling.
3. I hate starting the year with a conference game. I don’t want any conference games before non-conference games are over, but if we have to, I hope these 3 rules are followed:
a) no more than per team in the first weeks of the year,
b) no expected big divisional games in September (can’t do this perfectly, but can to an extent), and
c) (least important, but still a good idea) no week 1 conference games.
The reason for these rules are examples from other conferences. The SEC had Georgia in the title game at around November 10th last year (and it would have been a week earlier if Florida had lost their game vs. Missouri). A year or two before that, Georgia lost 3 conference games in September. They rebounded and played very well the 2nd 2/3s the year, but had lost the chance to play for a title very early. Meanwhile, last year, Clemson played Florida State sometime in mid/late September. They both easily finished at the top of the division and there was a lot less excitement as the pure stakes were a lot less clear early in the year.
LikeLike
I’m with you.
LikeLike
Is it a Frank the Tank rule that every post must include an argument about the CCG rule?
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Is it a Frank the Tank rule that every post must include an argument about the CCG rule?
That, and the relative merits (demerits) of pods and the likely pod/division structure if the Big Ten expands again.
LikeLike
Another rule is that someone has to question how the B1G forces ND to join, or how UConn would be the best possible add.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that something in at least one thread for all of FTT’s posts has to get construed by “someone” in a paranoid way as a slight towards a school that rhymes with “Pizzuri.”
LikeLike
Shhhh…
LikeLike
Haven’t seen it posted here, but what are your thoughts on the YES Network airing ACC basketball and football games, Frank?
Looks like it will be up to 10 football games and 23 basketball games.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-07-11/yes-network-broadcast-acc-games
Here’s a link.
The YES Network, the New York Yankees’ cable channel, will televise up to 10 Atlantic Coast Conference football games and as many as 23 ACC men’s basketball games this season.
YES announced the agreement with Fox Sports Media Group to show ACC sports on Thursday.
The deal also includes the rights to some ACC women’s basketball and Olympic sports.
YES has an agreement with the Big East to televise up to 10 basketball games from the reborn basketball-focused conference that includes Georgetown, Villanova and Butler.
I suppose they need something to show when it isn’t baseball season. Considering how few people in their footprint get YES, I wouldn’t think it’s all that great for the ACC.
LikeLike
YES carries Brooklyn Nets’ games. It’s not like MASN, which has no pro sports to carry once the Nationals and Orioles are done.
LikeLike
“YES announced the agreement with Fox Sports Media Group to show ACC sports on Thursday.”
I thought ESPN owned the ACC, lock, stock, and barrel?
LikeLike
Under the ACC deal, ESPN has to sell Raycom (where Swofford’s son works) the games they don’t want to show. Raycom has sold the rights for a number of these games to Fox. Fox has now made a deal with YES.
Complicated enough that you wonder how the ACC would ever get out from under all of these deals to get a cable network going.
LikeLike
As of right now (July 12 at 8:45 PM), the si.com college football page has a link that leads directly to Frank the Tank. It’s towards the bottom of the page under “College Football Team Pages,” listed under Notre Dame: “Talking conference realignment with…” You click on it and it goes to ND’s page, and the first headline is “Talking conference realignment with Frank the Tank.”
Frank’s done a great job at providing intelligent insight the past several years. At some point, I can’t help but wonder if he’ll monetize it in some way. He’s clearly getting attention.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9471461/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-sues-louis-freeh
Penn State’s former president Graham Spanier initiated a libel and defamation case Thursday against Louis Freeh, the former FBI director who a year ago produced a report for the school that was highly critical of Spanier’s role in the child sex abuse scandal involving longtime assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
LikeLike
Waste of time. There’s no way Spanier has enough proof of intent to make this stick.
LikeLike
Probably trying for discovery of his discussions with board to find info to defend himself in the suits brought by Sandusky’s victims. Also forces him to admit the leaps of faith he took in his opinions about what happened. Kind of like the NCAA and Miami in those bankruptcy cases.
LikeLike
In 2016, just after facing conference rival Northwestern for the 6th time, in their 43rd B1G game Nebraska will face Indiana for the first time.
LikeLike
This only occurred because of structural changes to the B1G schedule.
First, the schedule was revamped to accommodate Nebraska. Then, three years later, it was revamped again to accommodate Maryland and Rutgers. And yet again, two years after that, it is revamped for the nineth conference game.
Each of these changes required completely new timetabling structures:
(1) partial round robin (ended in 2010)
(2) divisions (frontloaded for Nebraska) 2011-2013
(3) new divisions (frontloaded for new teams) 2014-2015
(4) extra game with parity bias (2016- )
As a result, the scheduled rotations of teams were terminated arbitrarily (in 2011, 2014 and 2016) and new rotations established. Unfortunately some matchups (like Nebraska-Indiana) fell in gaps.
I am confident that the new schedule (from 2016) will match up teams with greater regularity. We have been promised that every team will play at least once in four years, but I think it will be better than this. Extrapolating from the 2016-2017 timetables, it appears to me that all teams will be played in just three years.
LikeLike
However, a 3-year cycle all the time is (I believe) not possible unless the annual crossover game is kept on forever (which is the case for IU-PU but no one else). There will inevitably be some opponents that are played with a 3-year gap in between when switching between 6-year cycles.
LikeLike
@StevenD. Thanks for your various posts. From the tone of them, you sound like you work for the B1G in the scheduling department (or have some inside info). If so, thanks for providing the information.
You said above:
“StevenD says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:06 pm
For the lower four teams, the crossovers look like this:
2 matches annually against lower four teams
1 match annually against a top three team
For the top three teams, the crossovers looke like this:
1 match annually against a top three team
1 match annually against a lower four team
1 match triennially against a lower four team
2 matches triennially against a top three team
Thus, over a three year period, the top teams have five crossovers versus the top three teams and four crossovers versus the four lower teams (one per team).”
Is that your guess/extrapolation? Or is that something more concrete that you have from the B1G HQ?
LikeLike
It started as a guess several months ago, when I suggested it here. It was based on snippets of information released by the B1g.
However, now that the 2016 & 2017 schedules have been released, it is possible to confirm my guess. Not only are the 2016 & 2017 schedules completely consistent with my guess, but I am also able to project the 2018 schedule precisely.
It is like a Sudoku. I have some numbers (the 2016 & 2017 schedules) and from those I fill in the rest of the numbers (the 2018 schedule).
When you complete a Sudoku, you don’t need someone to confirm that it is correct. You know it’s correct because all the numbers fit. It’s the same thing with the 2018 schedule: everything fits perfectly.
I urge everyone who enjoys timetabling (or logical puzzles) to give it a try. Take the 2016 & 2017 schedules and extrapolate the 2018 schedule.
Here is a hint: divide the 14 teams into three groups and analyze the timetable for each group separately.
The first group is Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa. The B1G has announce that these teams will play each other more often (parity scheduling).
The second group is Indiana and Purdue. The B1G has announced that they will have a special annual crossover.
The remaining six teams are the third group (who play each other more often because of parity scheduling).
LikeLike
Sudoku has strict rules: in every row, column, and 3×3 grid, each of the numbers 1–9 can occur only once.
The Big Ten schedule is not so tightly constrained. There are many ways to write the schedule, while still complying with the known rules.
LikeLike
That’s very true.
Known:
1. All schools will be played at least once every 4 years.
2. Parity-based scheduling will be used, pitting (OSU, MI, PSU) vs (NE, WI, IA) more often.
3. IN and PU will play annually.
With only 2 years of the schedule out, many patterns could fit those rules.
Assuming that IN and PU will play everyone 33% of the time makes for an easy rotation.
An easy pattern that fits this would be:
#1. Locked opponent from the same tier for 3 years
#2. Equal rotation of the other 2 teams of that tier and IN/PU
#3. Equal rotation of the teams of the other tier
EX. OSU
2016 – NE, WI, NW
2017 – NE, IA, IL
2018 – NE, PU, MN
2019 – WI, IA, MN
2020 – WI, NE, NW
2021 – WI, PU, IL
2022 – IA, NE, IL
2023 – IA, WI, MN
2024 – IA, PU, NW
This makes a 9 year rotation that results in:
3 teams played 5 of 9 years
4 teams played 3 of 9 years
Another easy pattern that fits the original rules (but not the assumption) would be:
#1. Locked opponent from the same tier for 2 years
#2. Equal rotation of the other 2 teams of that tier
#3. Equal rotation of the teams of the other tier plus IN/PU
EX. OSU
2016 – NE, WI, NW
2017 – NE, IA, IL
2018 – WI, NE, MN
2019 – WI, IA, PU
2020 – IA, NE, NW
2021 – IA, WI, IL
2022 – NE, WI, MN
2023 – NE, IA, PU
2024 – WI, NE, NW
…
This makes a rotation that results in:
3 teams played 4 of 6 years
4 teams played 1 of 4 years
I don’t see how we have enough info to nail it down definitively.
What annoys me is that the B10 could easily explain their methodology but they choose not to.
LikeLike
Right. Locking an opponent for 6 years would also fit.
Without knowing the 2018 schedules, it’s pretty much impossible to surmise what the scheduling algorithm is.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m not sure that locking an opponent 2 & 3 years can guarantee the alternating 5-4 & 4-5 H/A structure that the B10 wants for each division.
LikeLike
Locking an opponent or 6 years would make satisfying the 4-5 & 5-4 H/A structure trivially simple.
Come to think of it, that means 3-year locks could also work (because 3 year locks are just 6 year locks with the halves of the 6 year locks moved around). Moving around the 6 year lock halves may violate the every_school_at_least_once_in_4_years rule, however.
What I’m very confident in is that Steven’s schedule is almost certainly not going to be what’s implemented.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Right. Locking an opponent for 6 years would also fit.
Without knowing the 2018 schedules, it’s pretty much impossible to surmise what the scheduling algorithm is.”
Exactly. I just used 2 examples to show how easy it was to fit multiple patterns to the two years of schedules. 2018 could prove him right, but it couldn’t distinguish between locking for 3 years or 6. What we need are a lot of years or for the B10 to just explain themselves.
“BTW, I’m not sure that locking an opponent 2 & 3 years can guarantee the alternating 5-4 & 4-5 H/A structure that the B10 wants for each division.”
Well, they eliminated mirroring as a principle, so allowing 2 games in a row at one site isn’t a big leap. That would make it easy to balance the games.
“Locking an opponent or 6 years would make satisfying the 4-5 & 5-4 H/A structure trivially simple.
Come to think of it, that means 3-year locks could also work (because 3 year locks are just 6 year locks with the halves of the 6 year locks moved around). Moving around the 6 year lock halves may violate the every_school_at_least_once_in_4_years rule, however.
What I’m very confident in is that Steven’s schedule is almost certainly not going to be what’s implemented.”
The only thing I’m very confident about is that we don’t know for sure what the B10 has in mind. I’m also pretty confident they won’t tell us for a while.
LikeLike
I agree that it is possible to give every team a locked (parity) crossover for three years. That leaves two crossovers to cover the remaining six teams.
Then after three years, the locked crossover goes to a different parity oppponent (except for Indiana-Purdue).
This works for 2018, and it is consistent with the existing 2016 and 2017 schedules. So, yes, it is possible that the B1G is using this algorithm.
However, I don’t think the B1G wants to lock the schedule this way (even for a three year period). There is more flexibility and more variety by allowing the crossovers to rotate fully.
Isn’t it better for Nebraska to do home/away with OSU (2016 & 2017), PSU (2017 & 2018), and Michigan (2018 & 2019) rather than three games with OSU and single games with PSU and Michigan?
LikeLike
StevenD,
The one thing I know is that using logic or common sense to predict what decisions the B10 will make is a fool’s game. They may do what seems smart and natural to someone, or they may go Leaders and Legends.
LikeLike
Steven:
However, does only having locked-crossovers for 2 years keep the H/A rotation between opponents and still rotate between 4 & 5 home games every year? For example, if Iowa is only going to play Michigan twice in 6 years, they most definitely don’t want both of those games to be at Ann Arbor, making a visit by UM to Iowa City something that happens after a decade.
LikeLike
In 2016, just after facing conference rival Northwestern for the 6th time, in their 43rd B1G game Nebraska will face Indiana for the first time.
In 2016, Michigan and Wisconsin will meet for the first time in six years(*); and those two have a lot more history than Nebraska and Indiana.
(That’s unless they face each other in the CCG.)
LikeLike
Frank;
That 1991 article you linked was rather prescient:
” Now, besides Notre Dame, which is almost a super conference unto itself, there are four emerging power groupings: the expanded SEC; the Big East-ACC, a sort of unofficial Eastern cartel; the Big Ten-Pac-10 alliance; and the Big Eight-SWC, a potential Midwestern entity.”
On many of the rest of the discussions, the schools are still having those same discussions.
LikeLike
Here’s an SI article from a year earlier than the one Frank linked to.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136685/1/index.htm
They were a little early on their predictions (they thought all this would be occur by the mid-90’s but they got a lot of basic points right)
In a dominolike sequence of changes that is part power grab, part defense mechanism and at least part greed, a number of sprawling superconferences are expected to be created sometime from five weeks to five years from now. Most, if not all, of the superconferences will get rich. Some traditional conferences will merge, shrink or eventually become defunct. Some bowls (Rose and Sugar, most likely) will prosper, and some (probably Cotton and Orange) will go into decline. And the inevitable arrival of a national-championship playoff game will be hastened.
…
For example, the ACC could expand to a 12-team, two-division format. Miami is also being eyed for that one.
…
Division I-A football could be transformed by quicky divorces and hastily arranged marriages. The day after Arkansas raised the possibility that it may not be a member of the Southwest Conference much longer, that conference’s executive committee met to map out contingency plans—foremost among them a merger with the Big Eight. Of course, by the time that union could be arranged, Colorado might have bolted to the Pac-10.
…
What’s next, an alliance of Atlantic powers from Miami to Boston?
LikeLike
Also a reminder of how quick things can change. This was before Fox became the 4th network. And of course, before ESPN became the WWL and started driving the networks out of the TV sports business.
“”The ’90s are predicted to be moving in the direction of three superconferences, each with a major network,” says Arkansas athletic director Frank Broyles. Some would quibble with Broyles’s arithmetic—the outlines of at least four super-conferences have appeared on the horizon—but there’s no missing the gist of his message. Super-, maxi-, mega-, cosmic-conferences are the wave of the future.”
LikeLike
Hilariously, the only part that Murphy got right in the opening scenario was the one he dismissed: Beanbag chairs _were_ back in vogue in the ’90’s.
LikeLike
B1G cross-division games 2018
Michigan — Nebraska___Iowa_______Northwest
Ohio State – Wisconsin__Purdue_____Minnesota
Penn State – Illinois___Wisconsin__Nebraska
Indiana —- Purdue_____Minnesota__Iowa
MSU ——– Minnesota__Nebraska___Purdue
Rutgers —- Northwest__Illinois___Wisconsin
Maryland — Iowa_______Northwest__Illinois
Iowa —— Maryland____Michigan____Indiana
Nebraska — Michigan____MSU_________Penn State
Wisconsin – Ohio State__Penn State__Rutgers
Purdue —- Indiana_____Ohio State__MSU
Minnesota – MSU_________Indiana_____Ohio State
Illinois — Penn State__Rutgers_____Maryland
Northwest – Rutgers_____Maryland____Michigan
LikeLike
Sorry about the formatting. I can’t figure out how to make this thing do columns.
LikeLike
StevenD: you guessing or do you have some inside info?
LikeLike
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2013/7/11/4514336/conference-realignment-sec-winner-big-12-loser
Part 2 of Frank’s Q&A on Burnt Orange Nation.
LikeLike
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2013/7/12/4514440/conference-realignment-texas-longhorns/in/4278445
And Part 3, where Frank predicts the future.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/eye-on-sports/22685324/best-in-college-sports-which-school-had-the-best-year-in-sports
Because we haven’t had this argument enough lately, here’s CBS’s attempt to determine the best overall AD for the year. Their method is simple:
1. Football is triple valued
2. MBB is double valued
3. All other sports are treated equally
4. Combine scores from FB, MBB, WBB, baseball and 1 wildcard sport
5. Wildcard options – softball, wrestling, M hockey, M lax, M soccer, W soccer, W gymnastics
Personally, I think their formula would be better if they used 2 wildcards and didn’t mandate baseball since that is regionally dominated. I’d make it one of the wildcard choices instead.
While this approach is terrible at measuring depth, it should jive with the casual fan’s perspective of who had the best year.
For 2013, I’ll be shocked if UL doesn’t win by a mile:
#13 in FB – about 185 pts
#1 in MBB – 200 pts
CWS in baseball – 73 pts
#2 in WBB – 90 pts
Elite 8 in M soc – 73 pts
Total = 621 out of a possible 800
Current top teams:
4. OSU – 484.5
5. MI – 458
5. OU – 458
7. ND – 446
8. AL – 420
9. FSU – 409.5
10. UNC – 408
LikeLike
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/07/12/3685816/penn-state-football-coach-bill.html
PSU is at least considering proposing to the NCAA a modification of their punishment. At least BOB stressed that these individual lawsuits hurt the team and the school.
LikeLike
I never understood the logic of the original punishment, so I’m probably the last guy to judge the likelihood of them modifying it.
But I do think that when the NCAA punished Penn State, they thought they had public opinion overwhelmingly on their side. My totally unscientific impression is that most people, even outside the state of PA, think the NCAA over-reached—for a variety of reasons: because they didn’t go through the usual enforcement process, because the penalties were arbitrary; because they fell entirely on innocent people, because the NCAA’s jurisdiction was dubious to non-existent; or because the school and others responsible were already penalized sufficiently in other forums.
Partially reversing the sanctions could be seen as righting a wrong: they could cover their actions with a fig leaf, by saying that Penn State has implemented all of the Freeh recommendations much faster than expected.
On the other hand, re-opening a settled issue would be yet another reminder of just how arbitrary the NCAA is. And of course, there were some people who thought the sanctions were correct, or not severe enough, so any such change risks a new round of criticisms.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Partially reversing the sanctions could be seen as righting a wrong: they could cover their actions with a fig leaf, by saying that Penn State has implemented all of the Freeh recommendations much faster than expected.
On the other hand, re-opening a settled issue would be yet another reminder of just how arbitrary the NCAA is. And of course, there were some people who thought the sanctions were correct, or not severe enough, so any such change risks a new round of criticisms.”
Just from a legal standpoint, it seems like standing by the sanctions would be the wise course. Besides, if you reduce them for one school why can’t other schools get a reduction for fixing their issues?
LikeLike
Just from a legal standpoint, it seems like standing by the sanctions would be the wise course.
To be clear, I would be surprised if it happened. But for argument’s sake…
Besides, if you reduce them for one school why can’t other schools get a reduction for fixing their issues?
NCAA sanctions usually have a proportionality to the offense that is being punished. For instance, Ohio State won a bowl game while playing ineligible players, so they got a one-year bowl ban. Michigan (under Rodriguez) allowed players to practice more time than the rules allowed, so they were required to forfeit practice time.
Whether you agreed with those penalties or not, they at least had a relationship to the alleged offense. Not here: how many bowl games or athletic scholarships compensate for the rape of a child? It’s basically unanswerable.
Most NCAA penalties also have a deterrent effect: if breaking the rules were without consequence, they’d be broken a lot more often than they already are — which is a lot. That’s not the situation here. No one has suggested that NCAA enforcement is what’s standing in the way of the next Jerry Sandusky: college sports had never seen anyone quite like him before, nor likely will again.
So, while I do not think Penn State will get a break, there are ways — given the unprecedented and likely unrepeatable nature of the case — to do so without setting a new standard applicable to the more garden-variety NCAA sanctions.
LikeLike
I am perhaps the biggest Nittany Lion fan posting on this Board, and I can tell you the best thing from a Penn State perspective, the NCAA can do is nothing. As much as I detest the sanctions and think they wanted to make an example of Penn State ( probably because of the “Cult of Personality” that Paterno rammed down our throats ( in addition to Sandusky’s actions)), and as much as I think Rodney Erickson and the Board of Trustees were gutless weasels in accepting the sanctions, the point is we did, and what is done is done. I am a believer in Penn State overcoming this, and one day contending for National Championships. But that means standing up, taking our punishment ( even if it is excessive), and not feeling sorry for ourselves. Keep this in mind: it could be worse, we could be Cub fans, at least we still have our National Championships.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“NCAA sanctions usually have a proportionality to the offense that is being punished. For instance, Ohio State won a bowl game while playing ineligible players, so they got a one-year bowl ban.”
No, the bowl ban was for the second set of violations by the players (alleged overpayment for jobs, etc). A bowl ban is just a standard punishment for a certain level of offense. So are scholarship losses, fines, probation, etc. What punishment is proportionate to a Lack of Institutional Control?
“Whether you agreed with those penalties or not, they at least had a relationship to the alleged offense. Not here: how many bowl games or athletic scholarships compensate for the rape of a child? It’s basically unanswerable.”
So is the length of a prison sentence versus a crime, but we developed a structure for that.
“Most NCAA penalties also have a deterrent effect: if breaking the rules were without consequence, they’d be broken a lot more often than they already are — which is a lot. That’s not the situation here.”
It isn’t? The NCAA claimed that PSU violated the NCAA’s By-Laws, just not in one of the more typical ways. The NCAA didn’t punish PSU for what Sandusky did, but for PSU’s actions around that.
“No one has suggested that NCAA enforcement is what’s standing in the way of the next Jerry Sandusky: college sports had never seen anyone quite like him before, nor likely will again.”
Unfortunately, college sports probably has seen people like him before and will again. Hopefully they get caught more quickly in the future.
“So, while I do not think Penn State will get a break, there are ways — given the unprecedented and likely unrepeatable nature of the case — to do so without setting a new standard applicable to the more garden-variety NCAA sanctions.”
There may be, but saying “They fixed the problems so we reduced the penalties” isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
“NCAA sanctions usually have a proportionality to the offense that is being punished. For instance, Ohio State won a bowl game while playing ineligible players, so they got a one-year bowl ban.”
No, the bowl ban was for the second set of violations by the players (alleged overpayment for jobs, etc). A bowl ban is just a standard punishment for a certain level of offense. So are scholarship losses, fines, probation, etc.
The bowl ban wasn’t a standard punishment, because at the time the NCAA had no standards. (They’ve been trying to rectify this.)
The point is that the bowl ban is related to the offense itself: ineligible players were used to win ball games, so the school loses the right to play a game it would have otherwise played.
What punishment is proportionate to a Lack of Institutional Control?
All penalties have in common the fact that the institution knew — or ought to have known — about the infractions. I don’t think any school has been punished if there was no way they could conceivably have known, and if they acted promptly as soon as they knew.
The NCAA has developed various terms of art to describe the severity of the institution’s complicity and/or willful blindness, with “Lack of Institutional Control” being the worst. “Failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance” is another. The penalty is related to what they lost control of.
For Ohio State, it was extra benefits that made the players ineligible. For Michigan it was practice time. For Oregon, it was recruiting.
“Whether you agreed with those penalties or not, they at least had a relationship to the alleged offense. Not here: how many bowl games or athletic scholarships compensate for the rape of a child? It’s basically unanswerable.”
So is the length of a prison sentence versus a crime, but we developed a structure for that.
As you say, there is a structure for prison sentences. Judges don’t just make them up out of nowhere. The NCAA had, and still has, no structure for this type of case, because it’s not the type of case they ever considered before.
“Most NCAA penalties also have a deterrent effect: if breaking the rules were without consequence, they’d be broken a lot more often than they already are — which is a lot. That’s not the situation here.”
It isn’t? The NCAA claimed that PSU violated the NCAA’s By-Laws, just not in one of the more typical ways.
True, it did claim that, but the by-laws in question are vague enough that they could be stretched to mean almost anything.
The NCAA didn’t punish PSU for what Sandusky did, but for PSU’s actions around that.
I entirely agree, but I was referring to deterrence. There’s a good argument that the potential of losing their eligibility deters players from breaking NCAA rules. There’s a good argument that the potential of a bowl ban deters schools from playing ineligible players.
I can’t see any plausible argument that the NCAA sanctions against Penn State deter anything, because there is no ongoing problem. The whole reason that Emmert had to go outside his enforcement division, is the fact that he had no mechanism for dealing with it.
And the reason he had no mechanism is because it’s a non-problem.
“No one has suggested that NCAA enforcement is what’s standing in the way of the next Jerry Sandusky: college sports had never seen anyone quite like him before, nor likely will again.”
Unfortunately, college sports probably has seen people like him before and will again. Hopefully they get caught more quickly in the future.
Well, you can’t name anyone, can you?
And if you could, do you imagine anyone would ever say, “We’d better report this guy, because if we don’t the NCAA is going to come after us.” All four of the people who knew about Sandusky were promptly fired; two of the three who are still alive are under indictment. I suspect that matters to them far more than the NCAA penalties.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The bowl ban wasn’t a standard punishment, because at the time the NCAA had no standards. (They’ve been trying to rectify this.)”
Yes, they did have rough standards. It generally took LOIC to get a bowl ban, etc. You can look through their recent history and see. They have it more codified now.
“As you say, there is a structure for prison sentences.”
And there is for the NCAA, too. You don’t have to have punished that offense before to come up with a proportionate response.
“True, it did claim that, but the by-laws in question are vague enough that they could be stretched to mean almost anything.”
So what? Does that change the fact that it deters people from violating those bylaws?
“There’s a good argument that the potential of losing their eligibility deters players from breaking NCAA rules.”
Not based on the number of players that take money or gifts secretly there isn’t.
“I can’t see any plausible argument that the NCAA sanctions against Penn State deter anything,”
Some behavior needs to be punished regardless of whether or not anyone else is deterred.
“because there is no ongoing problem.”
Well, so we all hope.
“The whole reason that Emmert had to go outside his enforcement division, is the fact that he had no mechanism for dealing with it.”
No, he did it for speed. The normal process would have taken years to investigate and process. Nobody wanted that.
“And the reason he had no mechanism is because it’s a non-problem.”
I’m sure the victims will be thrilled to hear that.
“Well, you can’t name anyone, can you?”
I can’t name most sexual predators, especially those that haven’t been caught. That proves absolutely nothing. I know several swimming and diving coaches have been busted in the past few years, I just don’t know names or details..
“And if you could, do you imagine anyone would ever say, “We’d better report this guy, because if we don’t the NCAA is going to come after us.” All four of the people who knew about Sandusky were promptly fired; two of the three who are still alive are under indictment. I suspect that matters to them far more than the NCAA penalties.”
And yet they didn’t consider firing a sufficient deterrent to not do it. Maybe adding another potential penalty will deter someone.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Interesting that you say that a lot of people that you’ve talked to think that the NCAA overreached. Outside of this forum, which is both Big Ten-focused and more savvy about NCAA compliance issues than the general population, and Penn State forums, the main disagreement that I’ve ever heard about the Penn State sanctions were that they weren’t enough (i.e. the fact that their football program wasn’t shut down entirely was too lenient in their eyes). The general feedback that I’ve seen is about less than zero sympathy for Penn State. That’s not how I personally feel, but that’s what I’ve seen among the more detached people that I’ve talked to (as in people that don’t watch much college football or even sports in general).
Here’s the thing: as college sports fans, the concept of NCAA overreach is something that bothers/scares us in the way that, say, the NRA sees every additional gun rights restriction (no matter how small) as another way for the federal government to overreach. The general population, though, simply doesn’t feel the same way, so there’s a disconnect in terms of the feelings on the subject.
Also, the Penn State case was never a “just a sports story” like the SMU scandal of the 1980s or the current Miami investigation (just as the OJ Simpson case wasn’t ever “just a sports story”, either). I remember watching the Penn State case leading every national network newscast for the better part of three weeks strongly and even on shows like “Meet The Press” (despite being in the middle of the run-up to the Iowa caucus). Whenever we have a decade retrospective of the 2010s many years from now, I’m fairly certain that the Penn State case will be included in the same way that you can’t have a complete history of the 1990s without referencing OJ. For the NCAA to come up and say that they couldn’t do anything about Penn State with a clear connection to child rape when they just got one of the most successful coaches of this generation fired over a bunch of tattoos at Ohio State was NEVER going to work with the entire world (not just sports world) paying close attention.
The general public would have negatively questioned what the purpose of the NCAA’s existence would be if they just passed on making any judgments on Penn State on technical reasons or that there weren’t explicit rules on the books to address the situation. Once again, they could give two craps about the SMUs of the world. Child rape, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
There was no chance of the NCAA looking at this in a strict legalistic manner (and I’m surprised that anyone outside of the most hardcore Penn State partisans expected otherwise). They were going to take as wide of an interpretation of concepts like lack of institutional control to nail Penn State here. Once again, those of us college sports fans that worry about NCAA overreach might get bothered by this, but the NCAA ruling wasn’t about pleasing us. It was about pleasing the general public.
LikeLike
I do get that, and expect nothing less in a lot of different institutions. That said,it still doesn’t make it right. Pleasing anyone shouldn’t have been the goal. They are supposed to be a fair arbitatrator with very specific things they control; they are not an institution with unlimited power over the schools on anything they (most the member schools) want to have it with in particular case.
LikeLike
@Eric – Agreed. I guess it goes back to what the NCAA actually controls. Do they only have control over what they explicitly have regulations on? Do certain provisions (i.e. lack of institutional control) give the NCAA a lot of latitude to step in when there’s a unique situation like Penn State? The NCAA has always had the power to institute postseason bans and scholarship reductions along with vacating wins, so in that sense, they do have “control” on those matters.
Most courts are going to look at the NCAA compliance rules in a similar manner as the corporate policies in a workplace: the absence of a rule or policy addressing an issue doesn’t preclude the organization from taking action on such issue in its discretion. This is much different than, say, the government trying to punish someone for an action when there isn’t any law on the books that applies.
So, regardless of whether one thinks that the NCAA’s sanctions on Penn State were either too harsh or too lenient, they ultimately do have more authority beyond the letter of the rules that they had in place at the time as a private organization. No one is going to get that far trying to challenge that the NCAA didn’t have the authority to do anything here. They decided that they had the authority in the same way David Stern and Roger Goodell, for better or for worse, have stepped in to take actions even when their respective leagues haven’t had rules addressing certain issues. (This is in contrast to Bud Selig, who is often paralyzed by the MLBPA.)
LikeLike
So, regardless of whether one thinks that the NCAA’s sanctions on Penn State were either too harsh or too lenient, they ultimately do have more authority beyond the letter of the rules that they had in place at the time as a private organization. No one is going to get that far trying to challenge that the NCAA didn’t have the authority to do anything here.
I have to disagree. The NCAA has a contract with Penn St. By directly empowering Emmert to sanction PSU instead of going through the COI the NCAA violated its own bylaws (and therefore) its contract with PSU. That was the main reason (at least in my opinion) that the NCAA required PSU to waive its right to appeal the sanctions.
They decided that they had the authority in the same way David Stern and Roger Goodell, for better or for worse, have stepped in to take actions even when their respective leagues haven’t had rules addressing certain issues. (This is in contrast to Bud Selig, who is often paralyzed by the MLBPA.)
That just further gets to my point. Stern and Goodell get away with it because the league’s contract with the players’ unions allows them to. The NCAA’s contract with PSU almost certainly requires it to comply with the organizations bylaws when it comes to sanctions, but they also knew that the Penn St. would have no choice but accept the sanctions since the PR damage the schools would have incurred from fighting them would have been far worse than the sanctions themselves.
LikeLike
Legally I agree Frank. It’s a voluntary organization and Penn State was free to quit and leave so overstepping its bounds here is probably not going to be anything illegal. I’m one who thinks set procedures/methods/proper authority are actually far more important issues than any specific rules/law/etc though so had a big problem with the NCAA going past the point it seemed its power has gone too (for similar reasons, I adore a ton of federal court cases over the years, going back a long way, even though I agree with the general moral sentiment in them) .
Penn State football not getting directly (the school will be by lawsuits regardless) may or may not have been OK. Even if it was a travesty if it wasn’t though, the member schools using the NCAA beyond its established scope was a far worse problem to me (as it strengthens mob rule and weakens the chance for justice in any setting where popular opinion is a factor).
LikeLike
@Eric
We seem to be trending more towards acceptance of mob rule and belief that the ends justifies the means. Its a dangerous threat to liberty. The NCAA’s actions with Penn St. are a small sample of what is going on in broader society, socially as well as politically.
LikeLike
frug,
“By directly empowering Emmert to sanction PSU instead of going through the COI the NCAA violated its own bylaws”
According to you. The NCAA clearly disagrees. I know of no legal authority that has found that the NCAA violated anything in regards to PSU. Everyone has opinions, but that doesn’t mean everyone is right.
LikeLike
@Brian
The NCAA clearly disagrees.
Based on what? If anything the fact the NCAA required PSU to waive its right to appeal is an indication they knew their actions wouldn’t be upheld if challenged.
I know of no legal authority that has found that the NCAA violated anything in regards to PSU.
If I do 90 on the freeway and don’t get a ticket doesn’t mean I didn’t violate the law.
LikeLike
The NCAA clearly disagrees.
They also disagreed that the schools had the right to sell their own TV rights. The University of Oklahoma sued, and won.
I know of no legal authority that has found that the NCAA violated anything in regards to PSU.
Understandably, and for very good reasons, Penn State elected not to test that. It took Oklahoma years of litigation to defeat the NCAA, and it was by no means certain they’d win. But had they lost, all it would mean is that schools couldn’t control their own football broadcasts. And in the meantime, the program sailed along under the old rules, with no adverse effects while they waited and waited for the NCAA to finally lose. It was a good risk for Oklahoma to take, with the cost of the litigation itself being the only downside.
In contrast, had Penn State lost, they’d no longer have a football program at all. And even had they won, litigation would have left the program in limbo for many years. (Pragmatically, it didn’t help that the public wasn’t on their side.) I probably wouldn’t have taken that risk, if I were them. Waiting years to find out if they still had a football program would probably have been worse than just accepting the sanctions, wrong as they were.
But the fact that the NCAA thinks they could do this means nothing to me, and ought to mean nothing to the rest us. When a thief holds a gun to your head, and says, “Your money or your life,” the fact that you hand over your money doesn’t mean the thief is right.
LikeLike
frug,
“Based on what?”
Based on them levying sanctions. They wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t think they had the authority to do it.
“If anything the fact the NCAA required PSU to waive its right to appeal is an indication they knew their actions wouldn’t be upheld if challenged.”
Not at all. It could easily be a way to just get it over with faster. If PSU really thought the NCAA was wrong they could have said no and taken their chances.
“If I do 90 on the freeway and don’t get a ticket doesn’t mean I didn’t violate the law.”
Apples and oranges. If you do 90 you know you are breaking the law. I’d say this is more gray area like allowable tax deductions. Feel free to point out 1 court that has determined that the NCAA broke the rules here.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“They also disagreed that the schools had the right to sell their own TV rights. The University of Oklahoma sued, and won.”
I never said the NCAA was right. PSU wasn’t willing to challenge it in court so the NCAA is right until proven otherwise.
“But the fact that the NCAA thinks they could do this means nothing to me, and ought to mean nothing to the rest us.”
The fact anyone else thinks they couldn’t do it means nothing to me. Why should I value a lay person’s opinion over the NCAA’s?
“When a thief holds a gun to your head, and says, “Your money or your life,” the fact that you hand over your money doesn’t mean the thief is right.”
When a criminal plea bargains down from murder to manslaughter, it doesn’t mean they didn’t murder someone.
LikeLike
@Brian
“If anything the fact the NCAA required PSU to waive its right to appeal is an indication they knew their actions wouldn’t be upheld if challenged.”
Not at all. It could easily be a way to just get it over with faster.
You could apply that logic to literally every single case in which the NCAA has issued sanctions, yet PSU was only one that has every had to agree to waive its right of appeal or face even more severe punishment.
If PSU really thought the NCAA was wrong they could have said no and taken their chances.
Except that the PR damage from fighting the sanctions would have radically exceeded the cost of the sanctions themselves. While I believe that PSU would have beat the NCAA in court, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory and the NCAA knew that.
I’d say this is more gray area like allowable tax deductions.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Feel free to point out 1 court that has determined that the NCAA broke the rules here.
Never said I could, but like I said failure to have been caught doesn’t mean an individual or group didn’t break the law.
LikeLike
frug,
“You could apply that logic to literally every single case in which the NCAA has issued sanctions, yet PSU was only one that has every had to agree to waive its right of appeal or face even more severe punishment.”
Not true. OR tried for an expedited resolution and was told no because they and the NCAA didn’t agree on the facts. They got punished more. Besides, the NCAA denied that they had already decided to use the death penalty if PSU said no. They may well have mentioned it was a possible outcome, but none of us actually know what the result would have been if PSU said no.
“Except that the PR damage from fighting the sanctions would have radically exceeded the cost of the sanctions themselves.”
That doesn’t mean they didn’t have the option, it just means they were accused of something terrible. Is the NCAA not allowed to punish horrible behavior now because either way the school will suffer?
“While I believe that PSU would have beat the NCAA in court, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory and the NCAA knew that.”
Life’s tough. Sandusky had the same basic choices as PSU and chose to fight it. PSU chose not to fight it.
“Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
I don’t agree to that.
“Never said I could, but like I said failure to have been caught doesn’t mean an individual or group didn’t break the law.”
Nor does it mean they did break the law. You are assuming the NCAA broke the rules with absolutely nothing but opinion to back it up.
LikeLike
Not true. OR tried for an expedited resolution and was told no because they and the NCAA didn’t agree on the facts. They got punished more.
Seeking an expedited resolution to avoid a COI hearing isn’t the same as thing as appealing sanctions. Oregon could have appealed the sanctions it was eventually given and would not have faced further punishment if they had.
Besides, the NCAA denied that they had already decided to use the death penalty if PSU said no.
Well Penn St.’s president begs to differ and (to the best of my knowledge) the NCAA has never directly denied his allegations. Is it possible that Erickson is lying? Sure. But I doubt, especially since (as I said) the NCAA has never actually denied his allegations.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t have the option, it just means they were accused of something terrible.
No, but it does mean the NCAA knew PSU wouldn’t use said option. Once they happened the NCAA could pretty much do whatever it wanted to.
Is the NCAA not allowed to punish horrible behavior now because either way the school will suffer?
I never said the NCAA couldn’t punish PSU. In fact I know they can punish PSU as evidenced by the fact they did punish PSU.
I said if challenged in a court of law the punishment wouldn’t be upheld.
“Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
I don’t agree to that.
Ok. I’ll agree. You can do what you want.
You are assuming the NCAA broke the rules with absolutely nothing but opinion to back it up.
No. I have used a combination of opinion and circumstantial evidence. Admittedly nothing direct (mostly because I don’t have access to the contract that PSU has with the NCAA), but it’s convincing enough for me. Sorry I didn’t meet your burden of proof.
LikeLike
frug,
“Seeking an expedited resolution to avoid a COI hearing isn’t the same as thing as appealing sanctions.”
It’s the same general concept. OR could have agreed to what the NCAA charged and taken the punishment with less fuss, but they chose to fight it. PSU had the exact same choice.
“Oregon could have appealed the sanctions it was eventually given and would not have faced further punishment if they had.”
We have no knowledge that PSU would have suffered worse if they had said no. They could have fought it and demanded an appeal, and the appeal could have reduced the punishment. We’ll never know because they didn’t choose that option.
“Well Penn St.’s president begs to differ and (to the best of my knowledge) the NCAA has never directly denied his allegations.”
http://nittanyextra.com/oregon-state-president-death-penalty-wasnt-threatened/
Then your knowledge is incomplete. The head of the NCAA’s executive committee denied it a month after the sanctions were announced.
“Is it possible that Erickson is lying? Sure. But I doubt, especially since (as I said) the NCAA has never actually denied his allegations.”
Yes they have, and he has every incentive to lie. All the PSU people wanted his hide, so he shifted the blame. I don’t think he intentionally lied, but I do think he misrepresented what the NCAA actually did and said based on how he received it. Being told the death penalty was still an option if PSU didn’t agree isn’t a threat, but he may have taken it as one or chosen to represent it as one.
“No, but it does mean the NCAA knew PSU wouldn’t use said option.”
Just because an option is unpalatable doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The choices tend to be bad when you’re in trouble.
“I never said the NCAA couldn’t punish PSU. In fact I know they can punish PSU as evidenced by the fact they did punish PSU.”
No, you said it was unfair to punish them harshly because the NCAA “knew” that PSU wouldn’t challenge them. So how light of a slap on the wrist would be OK before the choices became untenable?
“I said if challenged in a court of law the punishment wouldn’t be upheld.”
I guess we’ll never know.
“Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
I don’t agree to that.
“Ok. I’ll agree. You can do what you want.”
It’s a Simpsons quote. Lighten up.
“No. I have used a combination of opinion and circumstantial evidence.”
And there is at least as much evidence for the other side.
“Admittedly nothing direct (mostly because I don’t have access to the contract that PSU has with the NCAA), but it’s convincing enough for me. Sorry I didn’t meet your burden of proof.”
To me, any action gets the benefit of the doubt until it’s proven to be illegal. Until a court or the NCAA says the NCAA overstepped, they haven’t overstepped.
LikeLike
Then your knowledge is incomplete. The head of the NCAA’s executive committee denied it a month after the sanctions were announced.
I’ll admit I hadn’t seen that quote, but it is worth noting that Erickson and Emmert are still sticking to their version of events. Erickson might have a reason to lie but not sure why Emmert would.
Just because an option is unpalatable doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
But the outcomes (which is what is important) are the same. Whether PSU couldn’t or wouldn’t challenge the sanctions doesn’t really matter from the NCAA’s perspective. The key was there would be no legal challenge freeing the NCAA to do whatever it wanted.
No, you said it was unfair to punish them harshly because the NCAA “knew” that PSU wouldn’t challenge them.
No I didn’t.
I guess we’ll never know.
True.
LikeLike
@Frank: Those are some very good points. Most of what I read on the subject was by national sportswriters (not PA homers), many of whom are very hostile to the NCAA. (It’s not that I don’t follow the general media — I do — but I don’t expect them to know much about a subject that is so far off their beat.)
I realize that non-sports-savvy people would look at the Penn State case, and say, “Golly! Something has to be done!!” I look at it, and say, “Something was done.” Four people lost their jobs, two Penn State administrators were indicted, and for all I know, perhaps Paterno would’ve been indicted too, had he lived. Sandusky himself, of course, won’t leave prison outside of a casket. Beyond that, Penn State is probably going to pay civil settlements in the tens of millions.
So it’s not exactly as if, without NCAA action, the perpetrators were going to get off scot free. I wouldn’t expect the general public to know that.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Oh, I’m all-in on the hatred of the NCAA. Their recruiting rules are anachronistic and their enforcement of such rules is haphazard to make it even worse. Still, it would have been disingenuous for the NCAA to say that they couldn’t do anything. People getting fired and lawsuits are par for the course. What the general public wanted was for the football program *specifically* to get punished, which only the NCAA could really do. Like I’ve said, it’s tough for the NCAA to say with a straight face that Ohio State was getting a one-year bowl ban and its head coach effectively kicked out of the sport while claiming that they couldn’t take any action against Penn State.
LikeLike
@Marc
I think the NCAA seriously over-reached and inappropriately violated their own procedures, but I think I’m a small minority. I haven’t seen any lessening of anger at Penn St.
LikeLike
What I have perceived is a change in media attitudes about the Penn State sanctions. For me, that IS a change in people’s opinions.
Back in February, there was this ESpin opinion piece. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8996230/time-reduce-penn-state-nittany-lions-football-sanctions-college-football
With respect to the American People, their opinions are provided by the media, particularly in areas not of specific concern. That is, if I personally don’t care much about national energy policy, then I am ~~ generally speaking ~~ willing to go along with various media opinions that I read cursorily re: energy policy. (And by “read cursorily” I mean “read only at the headlines.”) If I have a high-level of interest in some area, my opinion is not so easily given to me by the media.
I think that for those not very interested in sports, those people are ~~ generally speaking ~~ willing to go along with the opinions put out there by the sports media. Consequently, when the media said that PSU enabled Sandusky, that was what everyone came to believe. The sports media also presented a monolithic opinion that the NCAA sanctions were justified and, consequently, that is what everyone came to believe.
If, conversely, the media begins saying something more nuanced (e.g., that PSU deserves parole), then I think “public opinion” will follow that new media narrative. What is heard around the water cooler is a lagging indicator.
FWIW, it has been a long time since I heard anyone suggest that the sanctions were too light. This is partly because over the past year, we have actual information about how harsh the sanctions really are.
My guess is that, as the events of November 2011 and the Freeh Report recede in time, the harshness of the sanctions will seem more and more unjustified.
This is an eight year story and I think most people will be tired of hearing about it long before the end. Three more years of bowl bans, so we’ll hear about that for 4 more years. The scholarship limits will start next season and go for 4 more after that. So we have at least six more years of stories about how the scholly limits are hurting PSU, about how the PSU coach is trying to overcome them, etc. etc. etc. The “public” might accept a parole for PSU just so they don’t have to hear about it anymore.
As for PSU petitioning for modification: as with most things, it depends on what modifications are requested. What is really hurting PSU are the scholarship limits, both the 65 total and the 15 recruits per year. My guess is that PSU would only seek modification of those. If that is the case, that is an “easy sell” in my view. NCAA says, “in light of PSU’s actions/good behavior, we agree. we recognize that current student-athletes had nothing to do with events that took place prior to 2010 … yadda yadda yadda … our goal was not to punish, but to redeem and ensure no repeat of what happened. we welcome back our lost wayward member …. blah blah blah.”
In my view, if in, say, 2015, the NCAA lets PSU off with “time served” and relents on the scholly limits, I think that most people will not care.
Finally, any PSU parole depends on Emmert. HE will say “no.” But, if Emmert is replaced, then the new NCAA regime may have good reason to revisit the PSU sanctions.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“What I have perceived is a change in media attitudes about the Penn State sanctions. For me, that IS a change in people’s opinions.
Back in February, there was this ESpin opinion piece.”
They’ll do anything for clicks/ratings.
“FWIW, it has been a long time since I heard anyone suggest that the sanctions were too light. This is partly because over the past year, we have actual information about how harsh the sanctions really are.”
1. I still hear it regularly online.
2. Only the most vocal people still talk about the PSU case at all outside of PSU fans. Of course you hear more about reducing the penalties than increasing them.
3. How harsh they are? PSU was 8-4 last year and could well be again this year. They have yet to really show any impact on the field from the 65 limit. It should start to have an impact.
“This is an eight year story and I think most people will be tired of hearing about it long before the end.”
Most people were tired of it a few days after it came out.
“The “public” might accept a parole for PSU just so they don’t have to hear about it anymore.”
Only the CFB fans hear about it now and that’s only because ESPN runs all stories into the ground. Fans of schools that have been punished recently (USC, OSU, etc) feel no sympathy for PSU. Sex abuse victims feel no sympathy for them. Most fans don’t really feel sympathy for them, either.
“As for PSU petitioning for modification: as with most things, it depends on what modifications are requested. What is really hurting PSU are the scholarship limits, both the 65 total and the 15 recruits per year. My guess is that PSU would only seek modification of those. If that is the case, that is an “easy sell” in my view.”
PSU had 67 players lat year and did just fine. We have no evidence that the 65 limit will actually hurt them much. That makes it a tough sell to me.
“NCAA says, “in light of PSU’s actions/good behavior, we agree. we recognize that current student-athletes had nothing to do with events that took place prior to 2010 … yadda yadda yadda … our goal was not to punish, but to redeem and ensure no repeat of what happened. we welcome back our lost wayward member …. blah blah blah.””
In light of OSU firing Tressel and implementing a new compliance department, would they have gotten their bowl back?
“In my view, if in, say, 2015, the NCAA lets PSU off with “time served” and relents on the scholly limits, I think that most people will not care.”
I think moany fans would have a fit, actually. Why should PSU be the only school the NCAA ever gave parole?
LikeLike
@ Brian:
You make good points. If I had to predict, I say there will be no parole and I predict a segment of the PSU fan base will keep up the fight for another 4-5 years.
LikeLike
Those would be my guesses too, but I know better than to think I have any insight into what the NCAA will do.
LikeLike
In light of OSU firing Tressel and implementing a new compliance department, would they have gotten their bowl back?
They didn’t fire Gene Smith, and the slumbering compliance department was on him. Besides that, the missed bowl game was (in essence) “an eye for an eye,” to make up for the BCS bowl the school likely wouldn’t have attended, if Tressel had followed the rules in the first place.
And finally, if there were no NCAA-imposed consequences for Ohio State, then there would be none at all. In contrast, the costs to Penn State for the Sandusky scandal run to nine digits. As I said upthread, no one could say with a straight face that, absent NCAA action, Penn State was getting away with it for nothing.
The remaining sanctions (the bowl bans and the scholarship reductions) fall exclusively on entirely innocent people.
LikeLike
I am of the opinion that the NCAA overreached. My biggest issue with their punishment was the way the NCAA extorted money out of a state institution to fund a new non-profit. If I were a PA taxpayer, I would find that most troubling.
Further, I disagree that the NCAA is now a pure voluntary organization. Legally that may be true, but practically it is not. PSU has no other option than the NCAA. Contrast that with conferences. If the B10 had imposed those sanctions and PSU didn’t like them, it would have had the option to seek a better conference (getting around any contractual issues). Also contrast this with professional sport leagues that are basically for-profit enterprises and with a much smaller number of responsive constituencies.
The NCAA is an effective monopoly in which PSU is one of hundreds (?). It is state institution. It has no practical choice but to belong to the NCAA if it wants to have a major sports program.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
So basically, nobody but PSU would ever qualify for this special treatment. Convenient.
“And finally, if there were no NCAA-imposed consequences for Ohio State, then there would be none at all.”
So what? No group should mete out discipline based on how many other groups might also punish them. Criminal courts don’t worry about civil liability and vice versa. The NCAA shouldn’t be interested in what the courts do to PSU employees.
“The remaining sanctions (the bowl bans and the scholarship reductions) fall exclusively on entirely innocent people.”
You mean like most other times the NCAA assesses those sanctions?
LikeLike
So basically, nobody but PSU would ever qualify for this special treatment.
There’s never been a case like this one; I think all parties acknowledge that. Obviously, if you set a precedent, you need to be prepared to adhere to it if such a case occurs again. The Penn State case can be distinguished in about a dozen ways from every other NCAA case I am aware of.
“And finally, if there were no NCAA-imposed consequences for Ohio State, then there would be none at all.”
So what? No group should mete out discipline based on how many other groups might also punish them. Criminal courts don’t worry about civil liability and vice versa.
Sure they do. Where criminal guilt is found, usually there is not a civil suit afterward. Where both the state and federal governments have laws prohibiting the same conduct, usually both don’t prosecute. It is technically possible, and it happens sometimes, but it’s not the norm.
“The remaining sanctions (the bowl bans and the scholarship reductions) fall exclusively on entirely innocent people.”
You mean like most other times the NCAA assesses those sanctions?
Exactly: it’s the worst part of the enforcement process. But in this particular case, the actual parties responsible had already paid (literally and figuratively) heavily. The argument for punishing the innocent is therefore weak.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Sure they do. Where criminal guilt is found, usually there is not a civil suit afterward.”
That’s because most criminals are dirt poor. Wrongful death suits are common against convicted killers from means. There just aren’t many killers that fit that description. They’re already talking about Aaron Hernandez being sued, for example. Here’s a case from OK just to show it happens to real people.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-man-ordered-to-pay-9.6m-in-wrongful-death-suit/article/3860974
Or consider white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff. They get sued all the time.
“Where both the state and federal governments have laws prohibiting the same conduct, usually both don’t prosecute. It is technically possible, and it happens sometimes, but it’s not the norm.”
That’s because they would waste taxpayer money retrying the same person who just got a lengthy sentence. That doesn’t stop civil suits, and criminal vs civil is what I mentioned.
“Exactly: it’s the worst part of the enforcement process. But in this particular case, the actual parties responsible had already paid (literally and figuratively) heavily. The argument for punishing the innocent is therefore weak.”
No, it just shows that the PSU case is no different from most NCAA cases in this regard. Nobody got relief in those other cases from innocents suffering, either.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/9467890/big-ten-releases-conference-schedules-2016-17
LikeLike
“Highlights include cross-division games between Ohio State and Nebraska and Michigan and Wisconsin in both 2016 and 2017, Wisconsin versus Ohio State in 2016 and Nebraska at Penn State in 2017.”
And the highlights in 2018 will include cross-divisional games between Michigan and Nebraska and between Ohio State and Wisconsin and Penn State will play at Nebraska.
LikeLike
With the new parity scheduling there will be 4.7 king-vs-king matches yearly. If you add Wisconsin as a highlight team, then this makes 6.3 highlight matches yearly.
LikeLike
Steven, I love how you make s**t up with absolutely no basis for what you say.
In fact, I would bet heavily that OSU-Wisconsin and PSU-UNL do not occur in 2018 if it wasn’t for the fact that I have no confidence that you have the means or willingness to pay up if you’re wrong.
LikeLike
What is so strange about Nebraska playing PSU in 2018? Nebraska plays OSU (home and away) in 2016 & 2017. It is natural to play PSU (home and away) in 2017 & 2018.
As for Wisconsin-OSU, Wisconsin needs to play two kings in 2018 (parity scheduling). Wisconsin has already played Michigan twice (in 2016 & 2017), so it will play the other two kings: PSU and OSU in 2018.
I suggest you sit down and work out the entire 2018 schedule. It fits together perfectly.
LikeLike
According to you.
Not if the B10 has 1 set cross-divisional rival for each school every 6 year cycle, which is what it looks like with each school having one and only school in the opposite division that it plays in both 2016 & 2017.
LikeLike
What it looks like is home/away matches (which is the norm for cross-divisional matchups).
There is no reason to think those matchups will be fixed for six years.
LikeLike
Steven,
Feel free to work out the schedules for the first 6-12 years using your scheduling philosophy. If you can keep the H/A alternation going even for non-locked games, let me know.
LikeLike
A perfect H/A rotation is not possible because there are only five available parity games in a three year period. A perfect H/A rotation would require six games per three years.
The reason there are only five parity games is because the other four crossover games are needed to play the four non-parity opponents.
Nevertheless, even with five games, it is possible to schedule H/W games for most of the parity matchups.
LikeLike
A perfect rotation is possible if you have 1 fixed cross-divisional foe for each 6-year period (and rotate the other 6).
That’s one of the reasons why I believe the B10 will go with my scheduling arrangement over yours.
LikeLike
The problem with fixing one crossover game is that a complete H/A rotation of the remaining six teams will take six years.
The B1G promised that every team will play in four years or less, so they won’t be doing a H/A rotation with one of the crossovers fixed.
LikeLike
The two are not incompatible.
You play 2 sets of schools in years 1 & 4.
Play another 2 sets of schools in years 2 & 5.
Play last 2 sets of schools in years 3 & 6.
You play every school at least once in 3 years. Both home and away.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9473998/penn-state-university-board-authorizes-settlements-several-jerry-sandusky-victims
Penn State could soon be paying out millions of dollars to victims of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky after disclosing Friday it had tentative agreements with some of the young men who say he sexually abused them.
The school does not plan to comment on specifics until the deals are made final, which could happen in the coming weeks.
LikeLike
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sOdP8b1bIY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9sOdP8b1bIY
Oops…
LikeLike
The Big Ten has approved a rule to eject players for targeting. The penalty can only be overturned with conclusive video evidence.
I support safety, but I could see this rule’s enforcement getting messy at times.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22757312/lsus-miles-must-stop-hiding-behind-system-boot-talented-troubled-hill
Alan, what has the fan reaction been to Jeremy Hill’s issues at LSU? How about to Doyel’s column?
LikeLike
i don’t know. with clowns like Doyle (and Dodd and Wetzel), it is difficult for me to take what they write at face value. Are they giving me the actual facts or are they making assumptions and inferences to fabricate righteous indignation to up their page views and drive site traffic?
in this case, if true, what Hill did is deserving of punishment.
but beyond describing Hill’s crimes, what remains of this article is huffing and puffing at the imaginary future. Doyle insinuates that LSU alumni judges will give an LSU player a break because those judges care more about LSU football than about justice. What proof does Doyle have? Doyle insinuates that Les Miles is just waiting for the right time to reinstate Hill. But, again, what proof does Doyle have that Miles won’t dismiss Hill permanently?
As things stand, Hill is suspended. Miles and LSU have said they are waiting for the legal process to finish. Until something changes, LSU and Miles have done the right thing.
this article seems premature. if August 16 is the court date, how about waiting until the court date?
my other problem here is that Doyle has a perfectly good article just on the Hill facts alone. (assuming those facts to be true). from the video, Hill clearly sucker punches the other guy and the attack is unprovoked. Doyle, how about you write an article calling for Hill to be permanently suspended on this video alone? Start the article by referencing the Rice/Rutgers video; wax with faux indignation about conduct not becoming of a student athlete; discuss Blount and the Oregon/Boise State punch, etc. etc. Why insinuate things about Miles and the judges? (Btw, Blount was suspended for the whole season, later reduced to a 10-game suspension.)
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“i don’t know. with clowns like Doyle (and Dodd and Wetzel), it is difficult for me to take what they write at face value.”
I never trust them and rarely read them. I just was curious how angry the LSU fans were at him about this one.
“but beyond describing Hill’s crimes, what remains of this article is huffing and puffing at the imaginary future. Doyle insinuates that LSU alumni judges will give an LSU player a break because those judges care more about LSU football than about justice. What proof does Doyle have?”
Past history, possibly? I don’t know. Maybe LSU athletes have a history of getting away with things. Lots of alumni judges all across the country have let athletes skate where another person would get treated differently.
“Doyle insinuates that Les Miles is just waiting for the right time to reinstate Hill. But, again, what proof does Doyle have that Miles won’t dismiss Hill permanently?”
What’s Miles’s past history with booting players for legal issues? That would be the only reasonable basis, I’d think.
“As things stand, Hill is suspended. Miles and LSU have said they are waiting for the legal process to finish.”
He’s already been convicted and sentenced for the most recent crime. The only thing left is to see if he’s sent to jail for violating his probation from his first conviction. That only matters if he isn’t kicked off the team for the two convictions. To me, the relevant legal process is already done.
“Until something changes, LSU and Miles have done the right thing.”
I disagree. Anyone convicted of a violent or sexual crime should be kicked off the team. He’s been convicted of both. Whether or not the second conviction violates his probation should be irrelevant.
LikeLike
@ Brian: you wrote: “I disagree. Anyone convicted of a violent or sexual crime should be kicked off the team. He’s been convicted of both. Whether or not the second conviction violates his probation should be irrelevant.”
I agree with you actually. That’s why (in my view) Doyle’s article is such horses**t. There is a very powerful argument to be made (both moral and logical) that Hill should be dismissed from the team right now. But Doyle wussed out and muddies the water talking about things in the future that may or may not happen sleazily maligning people based on his imaginings of what they MIGHT do. Think of the one-two punch. Today an highly impassioned article saying Hill needs to go now; then in mid-August an article lambasting Miles and/or the Judges if Hill is reinstated.
i stand by my statement that Miles and LSU have done the “right thing” as of now. As things stand, Hill is suspended. That is the substance. The form (suspended vs. dismissed) is symbolic and, while symbolism is important, I am willing to take a wait-and-see stance. Let’s revisit this in a week or two.
LikeLike
Brian – fan reaction has been mixed. Bar fights happen every week. Most criminal defense lawyers I know don’t think Hill will serve any time. Not because he’s an LSU football player, but because people usually don’t go to jail for simple battery and carnal knowledge.
I’m not sure how to begin with the Doyel column. While I’ve met Miles several times, I can’t say that I really know him, other than his public persona. He is more well thought of in Baton Rouge as a person than he is as a football coach. When player discipline has been warranted and made public, his decisions have appeared to be deliberate and fair. There’s a reason why players play so hard for him. Players love him and love to play for him. While Miles is definitely a “players coach”, during his tenure at LSU he dismissed the top nation’s rated quarterback recruit in 2005 who was scheduled to be LSU’s starter in 2008, and a Heisman trophy finalist last year. Both moves had nothing to do with legal matters, but failure to adhere to team rules. Kicking Ryan Perilloux off the team killed the Tigers’ 2008 season (8-5), and kicking the Honey Badger off the team last year may well have cost LSU the national championship (three losses by a combined 12 points). I can’t think of another coach in America that’s kicked off the best player on his team, not once but twice. That’s why I give Miles the benefit of the doubt. He knows more about this matter than Doyel.
I have known district attorney Hillar Moore and Judge Mike Erwin for more than 20 years. While I don’t practice any criminal law, their reputations are tough, but fair. They are both bigger baseball fans than football, but I wouldn’t expect them to pull any punches for any LSU athlete. I don’t know Judge Bonnie Jackson, but she has a sterling reputation. The DA’s office is very pro-victim. The victim’s wishes are strongly considered when making charges, and no judge in the 19th JDC is pro-criminal.
The DA probably accepted a carnal knowledge plea because a rape couldn’t be proven, or the “victim” ultimately admitted that the oral sex was consensual. If the girl’s parents wanted to pursue a rape charge, I believe Moore would have convened a grand jury. I know several parents of kids that attended high school with Hill. Those parents all say that Hill was a good kid from a good middle class, two parent household. They also say that the girl was bragging about the act, and the charges only came to light when it got back to her father.
Regarding the battery caught on video, I’m not sure that it speaks for itself. We can’t see what happened prior to the punch. Something must have happened to prompt the videographer to take out his phone an film the incident. Rumors are that the victim of the battery was using racial slurs all night in the bar directed toward Hill and his friends.
I don’t write any of this to defend the acts committed by Hill, but to give you all the background stories that I have heard. Ultimately, based on personal relationships, reputations, and past actions, I trust Miles, Moore, and Judges Jackson and Erwin to do the right thing, whatever that is. They all know much more about the situation than we and Doyel do.
LikeLike
Alan,
Thanks for the response. Just to be clear, I’m not supporting Doyel or blaming Miles here. As an OSU fan, I’ve had plenty of experience with the media distorting things and even making things up just to get clicks. I figured the LSU fans would have a better sense of whether or not this guy is a problem child than a national writer would and would be more familiar with Miles’s track record with discipline. That’s why I asked.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/
A lengthy article about the cost of sports on cable TV and it being a bubble. Aereo and a la carte are mentioned prominently, too.
LikeLike
Hmm. Not a convincing argument for a bubble (unless he’s talking about a bubble in cable carrier and network profits).
Here’s the thing: The cable networks would be hurt severely in an a la carte world, but would the content providers? Let’s look to the music industry for guidance. The record labels have been hurt severely by a different music delivery mechanism, but a lot of musicians aren’t doing worse or are doing better in the new world (in part because the contracts the musicians were forced to sign when record labels had the power were so awful from the artists’ perspective).
Right now, the cable networks have a nice fat 50% profit margin. In an a la carte world, the middle man would be cut out, and while casual and non-fans may not pay up any more, die-hard fans would be willing to pay more than they are doing now to follow their favorite teams.
So Nate Silver’s rough’n’ready analysis is a bit rough, but he shows the B10 having almost 19M (football) fans. Add a few million more to that for basketball & other stuff (those fans that can’t live without IU, PU, or UMD basketball but are lukewarm about their football) to get to 21M. Say that $100 a year gets you all the B10 programming. Say only a third of that 21M are die-hards willing to pony up $100 a year (which would be far less than what people now pay for cable). That’s 7M paying $100 a year for $700M a year. That’s a heckuva lot more than the B10 gets now. OK, maybe 7M willing to pay for B10 sports is too high. The B10 had 4,4M alumni before adding UNL, RU, and UMD (so it should be well over 5M now). True, not all of them are fanatics willing to pay $100/year (though a ton are). However, the powerhouse programs like UM, OSU, and UNL football & IU basketball have a ton of t-shirt fans. So do schools like Iowa, MSU, & Wisconsin. Even if it’s $5M, that’s $500M a year. Split over 14 schools, that’s $35M/school in TV money.
In short, I don’t think the B10 (and SEC) would be hurt by a la carte. Who would be hurt are those teams/leagues that have a ton of population in their footprint but shallow support.
I’m looking at you, Pac12, Angels, and Rangers.
LikeLike
PSU football as well. they slipped my mind. They also pump out a bunch of alums each year. More than any other BCS school, right?
LikeLike
You’re only figuring the smallest fan base being customers. I always suspected the B1G/PAC collaboration would result in some form of joint marketing of the two conference networks, eventually. How about those who will purchase access to college sports nation wide, not simply there alma maters? As you said, there may be a bit of an adjustment period but the live content is not going to lose value simply because of broadcast or billing method.
A la carte has been right around the corner for decades. It will happen when the promise of nuclear power producing electricity too cheap to meter is realized…
LikeLike
It doesn’t need to be a la carte that destroys the current model. It can simply be enough people using alternative methods. And then the conferences with networks will have to find other ways to cash in as a big source of revenue will have disappeared. The BTN and SEC Network may still be best sellers, but generate a fraction of what they did before.
LikeLike
bullet:
I’m using a la carte as shorthand for “alternative methods”.
Unless people can somehow steal/watch the content for free, the content providers will get paid. It’s also far from clear that the conferences with the most die-hard fans (B10 and SEC) would do worse (at least on relative terms) with alternate methods of delivery. As was pointed out in the article, the cable companies have very fat profit margins now (50%). The B10 and SEC could even do better than the other conferences if the landscape changes.
LikeLike
The Big 10 was first and is getting the most right now, so has the most relatively to lose. 3 years ago, except for the Big 10, SEC and Kansas, hardly any schools were getting anything for the TV portion of their Tier 3.
Its inevitable that alternative methods will replace what we have now. Its not clear how long that will take-5 years, 30 years? And its in the transition years when some do well and many lose their shirt, or at least get a lot less cash than they were.
LikeLike
Bullet:
The B10 gets the most from their tier 3 not only because they were first but because they and the SEC have the most die-hard fans.
It also does not logically follow that because an entity was first in one platform, they would not be first in a newer platform nor does it logically follow that because an entity would have most to lose in an older platform that they would not gain the most in a newer platform.
As things stand now, the B10 and Pac are leading the pack in terms of providing access via streaming. Technologically, the B10 has not been a laggard, and you’d need some basis for your contention that they would be some how in some new platform.
LikeLike
BTN was not first. The Mtn. launched a year earlier, suggesting the value of the inventory is primary regardless of the distribution method. If you have a critical mass of value you’ll have markets. Mtn. had inventory that lacked value. Currently the LHN has value, but only a few weeks worth of inventory.
LikeLike
Richard;
You seem to be missing the point. Let’s use assumed numbers. Assume the Big 10 is making $10 million a year and the Pac 12 $3 million a year. If the forced carriage market collapses, it will be hard to replicate that $10 million. Let’s say for example they all lose 2/3 of their revenue. The Big 10 would be making $3.3 million and the Pac 12 $1 million. The Big 10 would be the biggest loser. They would still make more than the Pac 12, but their advantage will be smaller and their drop bigger.
LikeLike
Uh, bullet, I think _you_ are missing the point. If the forced carriage market collapses, a new economic model will emerge. The content providers (the conferences) aren’t simply going to throw up their hands and say “well shoot, we might as well give away games for free now”.
In any case, relative revenue is what matters in the arms race. Someone is still going to win and someone will lose every game played on the field (and court).
LikeLike
You are still missing the point. I understand what you are saying. It just doesn’t make economic sense. If you have 100 people paying forced carriage at $1 that’s $100. There’s no guarantee (and not much likelihood) you will get 5 to pay $20. Otherwise, we would still be in some sort of pay per view model.
LikeLike
@ Brian. Really good article. Worth a close read. Lots of current information on the BTN and technology trends. Thanks for linking it.
That being said, I agree with Richard that the article’s doom and gloom is overstated, at least concerning the various networks. Maybe doom is approaching for the cable/sat. providers, but who really knows.
Personally, I think streaming is a bigger threat than a la carte cable/sat. I am currently willing to pay Netflix about $100 a year for streaming of various not-quite-current movies and tv shows ($7.99 a month). I would probably pay ABC/ESpin that for their content and would also pay the BTN.
In any event, I think the BTN and PTN have both recognized this and are positioning themselves 4 the streaming world on the horizon.
LikeLike
By the way, some of the links in the posted article are well worth a look. For example, this one from June about the BTN. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130618/BLOGS04/130619800/big-ten-network-strives-for-national-reputation
LikeLike
Good WSJ article on pay TV networks struggling to get on cable systems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578595571950242766.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
(Note: if you are not a WSJ subscriber, copy and paste the headline into Google, and click on the article in the search results. You should be able to read it in full. News Corp. and Google have a deal to allow a viewer to get up to 5 articles a day using this method).
LikeLike
Notable: “Aside from the National Football League and the biggest games of the year in a handful of other sports, such as Tuesday night’s Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the TV audience for sports is tiny, amounting to about 4% or less of households on average, according to media-research firm Nielsen’s data provided by a major media company. Less than 3% of households with television in any given market, on average, will tune in to watch their hometown National Basketball Association teams play, and less than 2% will watch their National Hockey League teams.
Yet in the average market, sports channels such as ESPN and regional sports networks account for 19.5% of fees paid by cable and satellite operators, …”
LikeLike
Because, unlike non-sports programming, sports can capture young viewers (especially young men, which is the hottest demographic for advertisers since they are otherwise hard to reach) & force them to watch ads.
LikeLike
I know a la carte and streaming are the issues everyone is talking about in regards to television and conferences in the future, but I think there is no threat there. Sports are the only televised event people make it a point to watch live, so networks and advertisers will continue to pay for that content. Even in an a la carte world, there won’t be as many subscribers but each subscription will be more to make up the difference. The big issue facing conferences is the effect of the coming playoffs.
Here is a link to last seasons television ratings per game.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/
This has been posted before but it illustrates the point I am about to make: the BCS system has inflated television ratings. If you look at the television ratings, the BIG ratings were fairly steady thru-out while Oregon, Notre Dame, and the SEC exploded as the season went on. The BIG had no matchup that would influence the BCS title pretty much from week 4 or 5 on. The SEC had a bunch as did Notre Dame. The question is will these bump in ratings decrease with more teams eligible for the playoffs instead of just two. Does the Alabama versus LSU matchup has as much national appeal even if both teams would still be eligible to get into the playoffs instead of the winner take all that it is usually marketed up to be? I think you will see College Football become a little more like College Basketball. The expanded playoffs will decrease the regular season appeal and the sport will end up being more regionalized. I don’t think you will see the levels like basketball due to the magnitude of the teams in the tournament but I do think you will see a decline in ratings. Right now college football fans will tune in on the winner take all games, but I think they will gravity now to those that impact their possible league representative.
LikeLike
Clay Travis of Outkick the Coverage fame will join Erin Andrews and Eddie George on FS1’s college football pre-game show.
http://outkickthecoverage.com/oktc-joining-fox-sports-college-football-television-coverage.php
LikeLike
Well today the ACC and Big XII commissioners both endorsed a new division, “D4”, for the Big 5.
I think this is inevitable and it has far reaching consequences. The upper mid-majors may consider being classified as D4 Independents, and meet the requirements. That is BYU, SMU, Tulsa, maybe UNLV, Cincy, and a half dozen others who have the funding to pay stipends. These guys will sue their conferences as no longer playing at the highest level and try to get out free. TV contracts will fall apart at this level. A major shake out.
It will ht Basketball too, as the Big East, Gonzaga, half the A-10 a few others will pay the Stripends and move to the D4 level. So you’ll have maybe 70-75 Football and almost 100-110 Basketball schools in D4. That will impact the NCAA Tournament and where TV money goes.
It wouldn’t shock me if the MWC, AAC, MVC, WCC, and MAC don’t get major shakeups.
LikeLike