I’ve been trying to write about topics other than conference realignment lately, but our favorite blogging crack habit has been buzzing in my ear like a hit summer song that you can’t avoid (see “Blurred Lines” now and “Call Me Maybe” last year)*.
(* For your perusing pleasure, Billboard put together a list of the top 10 songs for each summer since 1985. I can’t help but smile at some of the memories of these songs, particularly from my junior high years of 1991 and 1992. Sir-Mix-A-Lot!)
Big Ten expansion: It isn’t done. That’s about all I can say. Hint: The conference will begin negotiating on a new TV deal next year. The current contract expires in 2016. Definitely stay tuned.
This of course got the blog and message board world humming again with apocalyptic tales of the Big 12 and/or ACC imploding along with the Big Ten adding anywhere from 2 to 10 schools. To be sure, the chatter actually did produce something of value in the form of a West Virginia(!) an Ohio State fan procuring a copy of the Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement, which we’ll take a look at in a moment.
Joe Schad of ESPN then Tweeted this quote from Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione yesterday:
Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione on Sirius XM College: I don’t believe realignment is over.
— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) August 7, 2013
This is plausibly relevant since OU is one of those schools that could be in the mix if all of this starts swirling again. Of course, the quote ignores the context of the conversation, as it appears that Castiglione also said that such realignment would be over the next “10 to 15 years” as opposed to immediately.
What does this all mean? Like Castiglione, I’m still thinking nothing at least in the short-term. Further consolidation among the power conferences is possible, but it continues to seem more likely to occur in the 2020s at the earliest. If the Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement is substantially similar to what the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC have in place (and there isn’t much reason to believe that there would be much deviation), it makes little sense to believe that more realignment is imminent.
The Big 12 Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) states that each school will grant to the conference its applicable media rights (in this case, first and second tier tights for football and men’s basketball) for the duration of the term of the agreement, regardless of whether such school is a member of the conference or not. As we’ve noted here previously, this means that even if, say, Texas were to leave for the Big Ten or Pac-12, the GOR mandates that the Texas first and second tier rights would still be owned by the Big 12 until the GOR period ends in 2025.
What’s most instructive about the GOR contract is what it doesn’t say. There isn’t a termination provision. There isn’t a liquidated damages clause. There isn’t any mechanism to calculate potential damages for a member leaving early. In fact, there isn’t any procedure at all about what would occur in the event that a member leaves the conference other than a couple of flat statements that the GOR is in effect for such member until 2025 no matter what. The Grant of Rights agreement is intentionally ambiguous.
As someone that served some hard time in the slammer of a large corporate law firm, fighting over ambiguous contracts can rack up mountains of billable hours more than virtually any other type of litigation. When you have a 200-page contract that covers every single scenario possible, that document might have been complex to draft but it’s usually a fairly straight-forward process in terms of applying it. However, when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, as there are in the GOR agreement, and it’s covered by a 4-page contract that is a simple grant without any termination or dispute resolution procedures, that in and of itself is a massive deterrent to anyone challenging the agreement. It’s almost impossible to determine the legal and financial exposure that a school that is contemplating leaving a GOR arrangement would have. There could be no exposure at all or it could be a large enough amount to literally bankrupt a school, and there’s very low confidence in assessing what’s more likely. In contrast, a school dealing with an exit fee understands its exposure immediately and can balance whether the worst case scenario (i.e. Maryland having to pay the full amount of its $50 million exit fee to the ACC) is still worth risking a defection over.
To be sure, there are plenty of theoretical arguments to challenge the GOR. As Jason Hutzler argued at Outkick the Coverage earlier this year, if a TV network decides to keep paying a conference with one or more defections as much or more than what it was paying prior to such defections (as was the case with the Big 12 over the past 3 years), then a school trying to break the GOR could argue that the conference didn’t suffer any damages at all and, as a result, shouldn’t have to pay a dime upon leaving. I don’t quite buy this argument as fully working, as virtually every school that has challenged any exit fee in this latest round of conference realignment has attempted to argue this in some form and has had little-to-no success, but it’s certainly a starting point when there isn’t any type of liquidated damages clause. A school could also attempt to argue that the GOR taken together with the Big 12 Bylaws that states that a withdrawing school will not receive any revenue arising out of the GOR (see Section 3.1 of the Bylaws) constitutes an unconscionable agreement (as the member would not be receiving any media revenue despite it still being subject to the GOR). That’s a tough argument, though, as that defense is typically used by parties that don’t have much bargaining power or were victims of fraud (which wouldn’t be applicable here).
Regardless, most lawyers could probably think of numerous ways to break a GOR arrangement on paper, but the practical problem is that none of them are high confidence lines of attack. As a result, a school that attempts to break a GOR would be heading into a situation where there is unknown and unlimited legal and financial exposure, which is a horrible position to be in. For every argument out there that there aren’t any damages to conference that suffers a defection, there’s a counterargument that such conference is entitled to the fair market value of all of the TV rights for the school that’s leaving. That FMV for a marquee program like Texas could easily run into the hundreds of millions of dollars (remember that ESPN is paying Texas an average of $15 million per year for its leftover third tier rights for the Longhorn Network, much less its top football and basketball games), which eliminates any financial incentive to leave no matter how much a new conference might be promising in terms of more revenue. You don’t want to jump into a lawsuit in those types of circumstances, especially with the amount of dollars that are involved in connection with power conference media deals. The proof is in the pudding with the amount of weight that the conference commissioners have assigned to these GOR agreements and the fact that similar arrangements are enforced in entertainment industry all of the time. Believe me – when Disney bought Marvel Entertainment in 2009, the Mickey Mouse conglomerate (which also happens to be the primary beneficiary of these GOR contracts via ESPN) employed armies of lawyers to try to figure out how to get out of all the long-term or even perpetual licenses that the comic book company granted to other competing movie studios when it was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 1980s and 1990s and they came up empty. Thus, Sony (via Columbia Pictures) continues to have the movie rights to Spider-Man* and Fox has the full suite of X-Men characters at its disposal despite Disney having paid $4 billion for Marvel.
(* Prior to the string of hit movies over the past decade, the Spider-Man movie rights had been passed around Hollywood like a doobie. James Cameron was actually in line to write and produce a Spider-Man movie in the early-1990s. Later, in the midst of litigation between Columbia Pictures and MGM over who actually could produce Spider-Man movies, the film companies ended up with a novel settlement: Columbia would drop all of its own claims that it could produce James Bond movies (which MGM had lorded over since the 1960s). Essentially, Spider-Man was traded in Hollywood for James Bond, which has ended up working out incredibly well for both of the studios involved. Sports fans have distinct memories of lopsided trades, such as Brock-for-Broglio, but I can’t think of a trade involving two legit superstars (the equivalent of Spider-Man and James Bond) that worked out for all parties.)
So, the GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been. That makes it a great moot court exercise for people like me and other writers in the peanut gallery, but a dangerous contract to challenge in real life. Lawsuits that are brought on principles other than money, such as constitutional challenges filed by the liberal ACLU or conservative American Center for Law and Justice, can afford to tackle these types of ambiguous arrangements. However, conference realignment is almost entirely about money, which means that the great risk of trying to challenge the GOR (even if there are viable legal arguments against it in theory) is likely going to be enough to dissuade any school from leaving a conference that has that type of contract in place. As much as I’d love to sit here and say that the Big Ten ought to add, say, Kansas and Oklahoma to its western division, without a prescribed course to challenge GOR agreements or a university president with the cajones to risk everything (who I’ll grant might be out there), power conference realignment is stopped dead in its tracks.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from NewsOK)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go Hawks!!!
LikeLike
Loyal Strong and True. Go Cougars.
LikeLike
Go Big Red!
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
B1G expands to 25 by adding 7 Big XII schools, the 3 northern ACC schools & Cincinnati from AAC.
1 – Boston College. Syracuse. Rutgers. Penn State. Maryland.
2 – Pittsburgh. West Virginia. Ohio State. Michigan. Michigan State.
3 – Cincinnati. Indiana. Purdue. Illinois. Northwestern.
4 – Wisconsin. Minnesota. Iowa. Iowa State. Nebraska.
5 – Kansas. Kansas State. Oklahoma. Oklahoma State. Texas.
SEC expands to 25 by adding all 10 southern ACC schools (not named Wake Forest) & Baylor from Big XII.
1 – Miami. Florida. Florida State. Georgia Tech. Georgia.
2 – Clemson. South Carolina. North Carolina. NC State. Duke.
3 – Virginia Tech. Virginia. Kentucky. Louisville. Tennessee.
4 – Vanderbilt. Auburn. Alabama. Mississippi. Mississippi State.
5 – Louisiana State. Arkansas. Missouri. Texas A&M. Baylor.
When this happens, conference expansion will finally be done! AAC will want to replace Cincinnati with Wake Forest. PAC may want to expand with some combination of Texas Christian, Texas Tech, Brigham Young & Boise State. Or continue being smart & stay at 12. Choice is theirs.
LikeLike
25 members? I don’t think the Southern Conference was that big before the SEC (and later ACC) split.
LikeLike
Here’s a way that conferences get to 25+. NCAA DivIA breaks into two divisions: those schools willing to go with some sort of “Olympic model” and those schools unwilling to do so. Call them the Semi-Pro division and the Amateur Division.
Plausible scenarios can be imagined given the confluence of O’Bannon case, increased public support for allowing players to make money via autographs and endorsements and given the expected structural changes in the NCAA.
Now the interesting question is which conferences and schools opt for the Semi-Pro division vs. the Amateur Division? Assume the B1G votes to stay in the Amateur Division and SEC goes for the Semi-Pro. Are there any schools that break off? Does tOSU change conferences? or Vandy?
(Btw, this assumes the O’Bannon players lose that part of the case where they are claiming some right to the TV royalties. If that happens, all bets are off.)
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd is speculating. Conference realignment will probably never be over and, at some point, we may even see conferences kicking out lagging members. It would seem to me, though, that if the B1G is expecting the top TV contract here in a couple years, that it would behoove them to wait until after their TV negotiations to add another school (or six). If they can show the rest of the college landscape that they will make 5-10 million more per school/year, then schools may start to look for ways to get out of their GOR. Besides, it’s easy for the B1G to throw in a clause in their TV contracts to open it up for renegotiation if they add more members.
All this being said, I read grumblings about the Big XII and how UT and OU fans don’t care much for the schedules in their conference anymore. I think that most of the power conference schools want to see how the new four-team playoff works for a couple of years before they make any decisions on expansion or jumping ship, though. As always, we wait, see and speculate.
LikeLike
“…at some point, we may even see conferences kicking out lagging members.”
Why? It has happened only once, in a questionable power conference, and that school got back in.
Do you not think the strength/value of a group is greater than the sum of the parts?
LikeLike
Kicking out a member leaves you vulnerable to being kicked out. For decades, Kansas State was the nation’s worst major college football program, perennially finishing in the Big Six/Seven/Eight cellar. (If that conference had been the National League before franchises began moving, K-State usually would have been the Phillies, with Iowa State in the next-to-last role of the Boston Braves.) But K-State was never booted from the league and now, with the right coaching, it’s shown it can compete with anybody; so has Oklahoma State, and so could Iowa State as well if it struck gold. And unlike Temple in its first Big East football go-round, all three of the aforementioned schools have shown healthy fan support. There’s no justifiable reason to boot them from a conference.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Absolutely tremendous article Frank. Might be one of your best.
regards,
Dennis Kelly
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:36:18 +0000 To: lions113@hotmail.com
LikeLike
Hail to Pitt
LikeLike
Welcome to the ACC!
LikeLike
Thanks! Excited to be there.
LikeLike
Hail to the Victors!
LikeLike
Most likely scenario is that realignment is done until the 2020s.
However, there is more stability now and it opens the door for a more managed process.
It is still hard to escape the reality that there are 10 Big12 schools and exactly 10 open spots in an “optimized” 4×16 scenario.
It would only take about 8 entities to agree on a scenario that fits all their needs which would allow them to then sell/cajole/force the rest of the schools/conferences to work with them on the legal stuff.
The 8 entities:
ESPN
Fox
B1G
SEC
Pac12
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
LikeLike
It is still hard to escape the reality that there are 10 Big 12 schools and exactly 10 open spots in an “optimized” 4×16 scenario.
Unless there were some non-Big 12 shifts (e.g., ACC to Big Ten) as part of the process, conferences such as the B1G or Pac relent on some of their academic standards or Texas A&M allows a second Texas school to join the SEC, here’s how it could go:
To Pac: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
To SEC: Kansas State, West Virginia
Yes, I would be shocked if ISU would up in the B1G, but the only alternative I could see happening would be
To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State,Oklahoma, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
To SEC: Oklahoma State, West Virginia
Don’t see that, either.
LikeLike
Yeah, exactly. It isn’t easy which is why 2020s is most likely.
To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor
Pac gets to expand into 3 new states
B1G gets two prizes that fit in every way.
ACC gets much improved Football AND two schools that also have good basketball brands.
SEC gets to solve their geographic oddities, enters new markets
ESPN rids itself of the LHN albatross and gains complete control of Oklahoma and WV.
Fox gets to turn BTN into a “national” network.
Some plusses but probably lots of reasons folks say no too.
LikeLike
Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.
Even if they split, there’s no benefit for the conference that doesn’t get them. Kansas isn’t enough for any of the 3. Tech doesn’t carry enough of Texas to justify the Pac 12 taking them and causing the divisional difficulties that would ensue.
LikeLike
Could be. The more I think about the scenario I posted above the more I think a slight tweak might make it much more palatable.
To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State
To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor
Pac:
Two new states and everything about their current model still works. Kansas basketball is a big addition, partners with UCLA to give the conference two of the sports marquee names. A presence in Texas helps offset a big issue in that only California had a big talent pool.
SEC:
The big advantage for the SEC is you get off the #14 number and you solve your geography problem. You are diluting the football a little but you also add Baylor to the aTm package to help you get more value out of the SECN in the state of Texas. WV isn’t a bad add for SECN purposes either. B1G taking Iowa State makes it more palatable since the Cyclones is a net negative to revenue generation to conference.
ACC:
Seems like they would jump for joy here. Replace the Big12 as SEC champ partner for Bowl lineup, add a King without too much dilution to basketball. Geography and dilution of academic side is only real issue here but I would have to think the guys in Tallahassee would think this is the best idea they’ve seen in a long time.
B1G:
Nets the big prize and take Iowa State to make the deal work. Purdue slides back over to East so geography works well. Get off #14 number.
Kansas:
Talent pool expansion to include West Coast. You get to take Kansas State with you and you make more money…I would think they would take this particular since the alternative is really only a decade or so of safety.
Oklahoma:
As long as ACC and Texas agree to let me keep my traditional game with Texas I don’t see why this wouldn’t work. Takes long term risk off the table, solves OKieState problem and gets you access to Florida. I think the Sooners would be up for this.
Texas:
If I get to keep my annual tilt with Oklahoma in Dallas this might work. I get align myself with academic peers who have similar approach to all-sport programs. Research bonanza with access to East Coast and Chicago. BTN isn’t a perfect replacement for LHN but its the best alternative. Great alternative for my women’s sports programs. Baseball is a concern but the B1G is investing heavily here and Indiana just went to CWS. B1G bowl lineup is very attractive; Pasadena, San Diego, Orlando, Tampa, New York. I free myself of all my many appendages and I shackle aTm with Baylor to boot.
ESPN:
Gets rid of LHN issue and helps every so slightly with SECN distribution in Texas. Gets 100% control of a King brand it currently shares. Gets 100% control of two very good college sports states; Oklahoma an WV and probably helps drive more value for its already sizable investment in ACC rights. Could help block NBC from getting in on bidding for B1G rights.
Fox:
Gets BTN in Texas but loses regional rights to OKlahoma and Kansas. Could help block NBC from getting in on bidding for B1G rights.
All Entities above:
Everyone of them probably benefits by some stability in the landscape and getting to 4×16 would probably go a long way to achieving that for a much longer period than the current 8-10 year window they’ve all bought.
LikeLike
“To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State”
Kansas appearently wasn’t willing to be, or an acceptable replacement for aTm in the P16 with CU, UT, OU, TT, and OkSU.
The B1G doubling up in Iowa?
LikeLike
I go back to outthinking your opponent and expecting the following pairs in the SEC is the epic of foolishness.
vp19 says:
To Pac: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Iowa State, Kansas
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
To SEC: Kansas State, West Virginia
Agree with your PAC 4
Agree with your B1G 2 (KSU is brand and ISU is AAU)
Agree with ACC 2 (most reasonable place for privates to land)
Disagree with KSU and WVU as neither adds SEC market, neither are AAU, neither are cultural fits, and neither have secondary sports support (SEC is baseball, T&F, M&W CBB, gymnastics, and softball) and ESPN wants turn key programming. With MU the SEC got a big market on their border, and TAMU got the SEC a solid foothold inTX.
To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State,Oklahoma, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
To ACC: Baylor, Texas Christian
To SEC: Oklahoma State, West Virginia
Disagree with PAC 4 as too much chaff to work
Agree with B1G 2 but can not see it happening as too lopsided
Agree with ACC 2 as home for private schools
Disagree with SEC 2 as Slive & Co want markets and AAU not these 2
.
…
.
ChicagoMac says:
To Pac: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Kansas, Texas
To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor
Disagree on PAC 4 as too much chaff and a TX religious school
Agree on B1G 2 but it will not happen
Disagree on ACC 2 as being too far away with no cultural fit
Disagree on SEC 2 as neither offer what SEC wants
.
…
.
bullet says:
Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.
While I agree on 1 and 2 my thought is there can be a truce between the B1G and SEC if neither gets them. That means the PAC lands them and the other 2 have to settle for “lesser” schools that still fit. B1G gets Kansas as their “brand” deal and add Iowa State because it fits the AAU requirement. The bigger issue is FOX adds KU to the BTN which is what these deals are really about.
.
…
.
ChicagoMac says:
To Pac: Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
To Big Ten: Texas, Iowa State
To ACC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
To SEC: West Virginia, Baylor
Interesting PAC 4 except for TCU and long term cultural fit
Interesting B1G 2 in getting a jewel with anchor as balance
Disagree ACC 2 for reasons stated above
Disagree SEC 2 for reasons stated above
.
…
.
Now I propose a different view based on moves in relation to FOX and ESPN. First off tho here are some non starters :
#1 B1G or SEC adding UT and OU is a non starter because move is too powerful
#2 WVU is not in the SEC consideration pool. All those rumors of WVU to the SEC were started by “the dude” and his cohorts trying to make WVU look attractive to anybody that would take them. Small state, bad academics, no strong secondary sports, and a host of other issues meant the B12 was the only landing spot. I can not see any options for WVU besides the ACC.
#3 BU and TCU will not have a home in the B1G, PAC, or SEC. As small private religious schools I can not see such a move no matter what folks say, just like I can never see BYU in the PAC even tho on paper they look like a perfect fit. ACC is the only hope for these 2 schools based on size, fit, and footprint.
#4 Just because you want your enemy to get the worst schools of the lot does not mean it will actually happen. The BIG and SEC are the apex predators and asking either to take 2 “meh” schools is not only dreaming but not smart. If the B1G prides itself on smart people why allow dumb thinking?
Now here are moves based on FOX and ESPN not losing major value to their biggest competitor.
PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State
#1 Neither UT or OU wind up in the B1G or SEC
#2 Because of geography the PAC is “pair” friendly
#3 FOX is already lead dog in PAC and B12 so no major asset shifts
B1G + Kansas and Missouri (if trade works) or Iowa State if not
#1 All are AAU and Kansas is an ELITE brand and #1 in Kansas
#2 If MU deal can not be worked at least ISU is AAU
#3 FOX maintains KU control and gets some value from one of the other
SEC + Virginia Tech and NC State
#1 ACC gets deal from B1G and SEC for no more raids
#2 UNC, Duke, and UVA all stay together with SEC as “protector”
#3 Both schools are already ESPN and this opens up the ACC for B12 “stragglers”
#4 ESPN keeps both even after conference move while creating to more ACC vs SEC OOC rival series to strengthen both ACC and SEC brands:
Since ESPN has both side of the equation they get :
Florida State vs Florida
Georgia Tech vs Georgia
Miami vs Florida
Louisville vs Kentucky
North Carolina vs NC State
Virginia vs Virginia Tech
While not perfect for anybody but the PAC, it really does reallocate without the B1G or SEC feeling threatened enough to pass 16 member schools. The ACC can then build to 16 and you have your 4th (and final) super conference and major realignment is done for quite some time to come. The beauty of the ACC is letting go the lesser children allows them to expand to new markets and they have no problem accepting private schools. This could put all private schools in the south and southwest in play with those rising to the top having a new ACC home.
Rice, Tulane, Baylor, TCU, BYU can all have a shot for the 2 slots vacated by Virginia Tech and NC State and the final slot (total of 3) to take the ACC to 16.
here is a possible pool for 3 ACC adds to debate
Rice = AAU and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
BYU = Notre Dame Lite and solid numbers
Tulane = AAU and another ACC / SEC “pair” with LSU
TCU = Texas and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
Baylor = Texas and another ACC / SEC “pair” with TAMU
Kansas State = #2 in KS and Louisville “partner”
West Virginia = #1 in West Virginia and Louisville “partner”
Cincinnati = #2 in Ohio and Louisville “partner”
Connecticut = #1 in CT and basketball
Loki, the upside is the ACC would covet the AAU and might put Rice ahead of both Baylor and TCU for the TAMU “pair” because of it.
LikeLike
duffman,
Here’s why there will be no “managed dissolution” of the Big 12.
1) Texas and Oklahoma are not going to the SEC.
2) Texas and Oklahoma are likely to go together since Texas isn’t going to want to be split from both OU and A&M.
3) There’s no benefit in working together for the conferences that don’t get Texas and Oklahoma.
“While I agree on 1 and 2 my thought is there can be a truce between the B1G and SEC if neither gets them. That means the PAC lands them and the other 2 have to settle for “lesser” schools that still fit. B1G gets Kansas as their “brand” deal and add Iowa State because it fits the AAU requirement. The bigger issue is FOX adds KU to the BTN which is what these deals are really about.”
What is the B10’s incentive to do this? They are better off with UT and OU in the B12 than in the P16. Besides, there is no reason to take ISU. The B10 already owns the state and ISU is an anti-brand. KU adds a little something, but not nearly enough to cover for ISU. If the block of 4 do go west, the B10 is better off at 14 than adding KU and ISU.
—
“Now here are moves based on FOX and ESPN not losing major value to their biggest competitor.
…
B1G + Kansas and Missouri (if trade works) or Iowa State if not
#1 All are AAU and Kansas is an ELITE brand and #1 in Kansas
#2 If MU deal can not be worked at least ISU is AAU
#3 FOX maintains KU control and gets some value from one of the other”
1. KU is an elite hoops brand, but an anti-brand in football. That reduces their value significantly.
2. MO is not leaving the SEC after just joining them and the B10 is not doubling up in Iowa.
“SEC + Virginia Tech and NC State
#1 ACC gets deal from B1G and SEC for no more raids
#2 UNC, Duke, and UVA all stay together with SEC as “protector””
Why on earth would the B10 agree to let the SEC into VA and NC and keep themselves out?
LikeLike
Besides, there is no reason to take ISU. The B10 already owns the state and ISU is an anti-brand.
Ames, Iowa: In the eyes of the world, an athletic leper colony.
LikeLike
@vp19 – Now, now. Iowa State actually has a pretty good fan base that will travel and buy tickets to bowls. They just bring zero TV value to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Iowa State actually has a pretty good fan base that will travel and buy tickets to bowls. They just bring zero TV value to the Big Ten.
I see so many realignment scenarios where ISU winds up in the Mountain West, Mid-American or somehow outside the “big five” conferences. It’s in a very vulnerable position, not because of lack of fan support or poor academics (it is an AAU institution), but because its most logical destination if the Big 12 collapsed– the Big Ten — has no need for it, ISU has no in-state conference “big brother” to latch onto, and it’s been relatively weak in football (with slightly more success in men’s basketball). Perhaps the only BCS conference that might take it in if the Big 12 went under would be the ACC (Ames isn’t all that far away from Louisville and South Bend), and that only if the B1G and/or SEC raided several current ACC members and it needed to replenish. Iowa State’s played big-time competition for more than a century, and to see it unable to find a seat in intercollegiate musical chairs would be unfortunate (and could lead to some political furor).
LikeLike
vp19,
“I see so many realignment scenarios where ISU winds up in the Mountain West, Mid-American or somehow outside the “big five” conferences. It’s in a very vulnerable position, not because of lack of fan support or poor academics (it is an AAU institution), but because its most logical destination if the Big 12 collapsed– the Big Ten — has no need for it, ISU has no in-state conference “big brother” to latch onto, and it’s been relatively weak in football (with slightly more success in men’s basketball).”
Location, location, location. ISU is #2 in a small state and has no brand power. If IA wasn’t in the B10, ISU still wouldn’t be attractive. The only good things about it for the B10 would be AAU membership and proximity to NE, MN and WI.
“Perhaps the only BCS conference that might take it in if the Big 12 went under would be the ACC (Ames isn’t all that far away from Louisville and South Bend), and that only if the B1G and/or SEC raided several current ACC members and it needed to replenish.”
There’s no way the ACC would take ISU. There are better options for them in the Go5.
“Iowa State’s played big-time competition for more than a century, and to see it unable to find a seat in intercollegiate musical chairs would be unfortunate (and could lead to some political furor).”
I agree it would be a shame, but it’s the reality of the situation. Proximity used to be the key thing. Now markets and brands are the top criteria.
LikeLike
“There’s no way the ACC would take ISU. There are better options for them in the Go5.”
That’s debatable.
UConn is a smallish school with even less football support than ISU in a small state.
Cincy is 2nd in their own city with even less football support than ISU.
I’m not saying that ISU would be favored over those 2, but they’re not a definite cut below.
Anyone else?
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s debatable.
UConn is a smallish school with even less football support than ISU in a small state.
Cincy is 2nd in their own city with even less football support than ISU.
I’m not saying that ISU would be favored over those 2, but they’re not a definite cut below.
Anyone else?”
His premise was the ACC losing a bunch of teams to the B10 and/or SEC. Presumably that might include GT, FSU and/or Miami. That gives value to USF and UCF. If they lose hoops brands, then UConn gains importance. Potentially they could need ECU to stay visible in NC.
ISU distance to nearest ACC schools:
ND – 420 miles
UL – 610 miles
Nobody wants to go that far to the middle of nowhere with no recruiting and no markets.
LikeLike
If you believe any of this is plausible – and I’m not sure that it is for a host of reasons mentioned below – it is plausible due to everyone focusing on managing their risk.
So, look at it from the perspective of the biggest risks each of these entities face in 2022:
Texas – A&M continues to take advantage of the SEC recruiting pitch and lands more and more of the elite talent in Texas. More SEC schools tap into the state, using the pitch. Texas starts losing to the 3rd place SEC team annually in their “new” Sugar Bowl. The LHN network loses more and more money and ESPN opts out. The only saving grace is that Stoops keeps losing to SEC schools as well.
Oklahoma – Same issues as above but Oklahoma has neither the markets nor the Academic reputation for security as they face the unknowns in the 2020s.
SEC – Comcast, Disney and Fox enter into a bidding war for B1G rights in 2016, driving up the rates, which along with the continued success of the BTN, means the B1G gets separation from even the mighty SEC when it comes to revenue. Ohio State wins the inarguable College Football Playoff National Championship beating Florida and Alabama in consecutive weeks. Texas and Florida State announce they will join the B1G in 2026 and Fox and NBC join together to pay even more money to the B1G.
B1G – SEC wins 20 straight National Championships. Texas and UNC surrender and join which causes ESPN to triple the SECs TV Revenue. The new SEC Commissioner makes Slive look like Dan Beebe and he’s ruthless to boot.
ACC and Pac – See above. Neither has any cards to play to remain competitive.
Realignment has very much been an optimization exercise to date. Conferences and Schools looking to optimize based on all the factors Frank has written about over the years. Its been ruthless in a lot of ways, old partnerships and old rivalries died as there was a strong sense of every ‘man’ for himself.
Maybe the next round is less about optimization and more about stabilization. Maybe this time cooler heads prevail the powers that be act before the ACC/Big12 GORs expire in the 2020s?
LikeLike
Get a grip! The Pac-12 is only interested in Texas and OU. It will take Texas Tech and OSU, but only as the price to be paid to get Texas and OU.
LikeLike
agree 100%
LikeLike
They SEC isn’t taking Baylor and they already turned down WVU once. I’d say the SEC’s wish list is:
1. North Carolina
2. Virginia
3. Duke
4. Oklahoma
5. Virginia Tech
6. Florida State
7. NC State
8. Kansas
9. Pitt
10. Oklahoma State
11. West Virginia
12. Kansas State
13. Iowa State
14. Louisville
15. Cincinatti
16. Baylor
And looking at that list, I doubt they’d agree to anyone below 4 as a 15th school and probably 8 or 12 as a 16th school. Baylor is out of luck, and they’ve always known this. That’s why they sued to keep the BIg 12 together.
LikeLike
Heck, I’d put a UCF or USF ahead of some of those. Not that those schools are amazing, and I know this gets said a lot with not much yet to back it up, but those schools have lots of potential. Those schools are just so darn big that the alumni, as they get older and into prime earning years, will eventually have the financial ability to support a major program. Their location only serves to help them, at least for recruiting.
But that’s all moot, anyway. The SEC isn’t adding anyone for the next 12+ years.
LikeLike
64 isn’t a magic number. Conferences aren’t going to add schools that make no sense to them just to fit some fanboys’ intellectually masturbatory ideal of 16X4.
LikeLike
16 is as big as a conference can get before it becomes ridiculous. But 10, 12, or 14 work just fine. I suspect we won’t see any 16 team conferences for a long time.
LikeLike
Richard, While it may not be the magic number it does mean 4 conferences and not 5. Simple economics here from the side of the networks.
Say end deals are this :
ACC = 20 million per school
B12 = 20 million per school
PAC = 25 million per school
SEC = 30 million per school
B1G = 30 million per school
#1 4 contracts are easier to negotiate than 5
#2 cutting the bottom feeders drawing 20 million each saves money
#3 law of diminishing returns after 16 / 64 model
#4 ESPN and FOX want maximum exposure for minimum cost
#5 realignment is about contraction not expansion (sorry Boise State and others)
LikeLike
However, countering that is a concentration of market power when you go from 5 conferences to 4. That more than outweighs the costs of negotiating an extra contract every 12 years or so. Or even cutting out the bottom feeders, since they add little value now anyway, cutting them out does not save the networks $20M each, but only a few million.
.
LikeLike
Richard:
I agree for the most part. Concentrating power is the conferences goal. It doesn’t benefit the media at all. It weakens their bargaining position, reduces the number of potential options. My disagreement is that the less visible schools in the big conferences are beneficial. It requires lower floors to have a penthouse, inverted pyramids are very unstable, and other silly sayings. NW and Wash St. Have made the Rose and other bowls. Their occasional up years arguably have more impact on the conference brand in those years (media attention, showing top to bottom strength) than the usual suspects doing what is expected.
LikeLike
Richard,
At issue is cost reduction especially when it is cutting out the marginal bottom feeders. By leaving 5 conferences and all 5 trying to get to 16 you have a final pool of 80 teams. If you can limit it to 4 conferences at 16 then you are cutting the pool to 64 which means 16 fewer mouths to feed. If the minimum is 20 million and you multiply it by 16 that saves 320 million a year which can go to making the remaining 64 richer and the networks richer.
The issue with equal revenue sharing is the bottom feeders are getting more and the top are getting less. Say instead of Iowa State being worth 20 million and Texas being with worth 20 million the actual numbers are 5 million for Iowa State and 35 million for Texas. Going back to Franks early premise of 11 + 1 = 13 it is in the best interest of the top 64 to keep fewer slices which mean bigger checks for the big money. The more you cut the least desirable the more you raise the averages. Look at Jack Welch cutting the bottom every year to get rid of the weakest.
Viewed another way, in a 4 conference world the last spaces will be the top
B1G 14 + 2 spots
PAC 12 + 4 spots
SEC 14 + 2 spots
ACC 15 + 1 spot (already counting ND as ACC at this point)
Viewed another way, in a 5 conference world the last spaces will be the top
B1G 14 + 2 spots
PAC 12 + 4 spots
SEC 14 + 2 spots
ACC 15 + 1 spot (already counting ND as ACC at this point)
Big12/6 + 6 spots
To make all 5 work you have to dillute the pool by adding teams after the low hanging fruit is already gone.
LikeLike
If you get rid of all of the weak, who do the top teams play? When do you stop cutting teams? GE cut the bottom, but also rehired new employees, are you suggesting some sort of relegation?
LikeLike
Duff:
The conclusion of your logic is that it is in the interests of the top schools to cut the bottom-feeders. It still is not in the interests of the networks to cut the bottom feeders. Say Texas is really worth $35M and ISU is really worth $5M.
What happens when ISU is separated from Texas? The networks would not save $20M by not paying ISU. They would save, at most, $5M. Meanwhile, power would be concentrated. That means it would cost more than $35M to get Texas now (because they would then essentially be colluding with Michigan OSU, PSU, UNL, etc.). The networks would not save money. Ergo, the networks have no interest in eliminating a major conference.
LikeLike
Might I suggest rather than cutting “bottom feeders” (no one is getting booted from a standing conf) it is simply a matter of the least desired not being able to find a new power conference place being offered when/if their current conference collapsed.
Playing (and beating) lesser conference members is a contributor to the kings value. I don’t think the conference members value, or payment goes up if the bottom goes away. It may free money to be offered to another conference, perhaps to Go5, creating some competition that use to be in house.
LikeLike
My conclusion still holds: despite what Duff asserts, it’s still not in the interests of the networks for top brands to consolidate together and eliminate a power conference.
The B12 is living proof of that.
LikeLike
Richard:
I agree. I was meaning to that existing conferences cutting bottom members would be damaging in the long run. The absorption of the valuable members, or even of all the members, of a disolving conference by the others would strengthen their position. That concentration would cause the net cost to the media to broadcast the exact same total number of games to rise, a net increase. Concentrating control of the broadest number of potentially valuable games (including the occasional big year for bottom dwellers) is power.
LikeLike
Steve says:
If you get rid of all of the weak, who do the top teams play? When do you stop cutting teams? GE cut the bottom, but also rehired new employees, are you suggesting some sort of relegation?
I said all along you will see FBS I and FBS II type of setup. I think the end of FBS I playing FCS schools and those games get replaced by FBS II games is coming. Now here we are on FtT and the topic of the split is openly being discussed by the mainstream. FCS already has a playoff and I think you will see FBS II do the same. You could even see an FBS II playoff champion (where playoff games are played in december) get a slot in a BCS type bowl game to leave a brass ring out there to shoot for.
The issue is the huge sums of money required to play college football at the top level. It takes huge fans from big schools who can travel. If you have 4 team playoff that means 2 big trips for schools that wind up in the championship. If the FBS I goes to 8 or 16 (which I really hope it does not) there was already a discussion on FtT about the cost of fans making multiple playoff game trips. Only the schools with really big fans will fill the seats. Bronco Stadium holds 37,000 which is like Duke and Vandy in the power conferences. Nobody is saying Vandy is winning the SEC CCG and nobody is saying Duke is winning the ACC CCG and those are just stepping stones at a shot at the MNC.
LikeLike
Richard says:
My conclusion still holds: despite what Duff asserts, it’s still not in the interests of the networks for top brands to consolidate together and eliminate a power conference.
The B12 is living proof of that.
Proof of what?
Nebraska is in the B1G, Colorado is in the PAC, and TAMU + Missouri are in the SEC. We were a hairs breath away from (6) B12 schools heading to the PAC. The only thing that saved the B12 at the time was UT’s unwillingness to ditch the LHN to jump to the PAC. 3 schools are probably 80% of the value of the remaining B12 and the other 70% may account for 20%. The day UT and OU decide they are falling behind in the B12 is the day the B12 goes the way of the Big East. The problem is the B12 schools believing schools like Baylor and Kansas State can carry the market load that UT and OU can.
Baylor with RG III had their best team in what 50 years and they still could not sell out a 50K stadium. Of Baylor’s Top 10 attended games of all time 7 were TAMU and 3 were UT. In the Top 20 (3) of the games were Arkansas from back in the SWC days. 13 of the Top 20 games are teams now playing in the SEC and only 5 of those 20 broke the 50K mark. #20 was 45,565 in 1989 against TAMU and 45K will be the reduced seating of the new stadium being built.
If UT and OU stay in the B12 then you will see a B12 + ACC merger and the smaller schools in each getting dropped. The old Big 8 was really just Oklahoma and Nebraska while the old SWC was UT and a rotation team like Arkansas or TAMU.
The base problem of you argument is that you imply the B1G = SEC = PAC = ACC = B12 when the reality is more like B1G = SEC > PAC > ACC or B12.
LikeLike
“The only thing that saved the B12 at the time was UT’s unwillingness to ditch the LHN to jump to the PAC.”
Indeed. And who overpaid to make the LHN possible? ESPN. In order to keep the B12 alive. Thus supporting my point that the networks do not want to see the conferences consolidate. Really, Duff, I expect you to be able to deduce at least a little bit.
“The base problem of you argument is that you imply the B1G = SEC = PAC = ACC = B12 when the reality is more like B1G = SEC > PAC > ACC or B12”
Actually, I imply no such thing. In fact, I agree with you. Amazingly, you don’t see that in such a power structure, there is even less incentive for the networks to want the 2 top dogs to grow stronger and consolidate more while the weakest disappears.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Richard on this point. The idea that the TV networks would somehow save money by having consolidation doesn’t make sense – the amounts that they would save from cutting out what would end up being 3 or 4 current power conference schools that couldn’t get into a 64-team super division would pale in comparison to how much the newly strengthened Big Ten/SEC/etc. could demand in the marketplace.
Think about if the Big 12 implodes. Iowa State, Baylor and Kansas State wouldn’t get paid $20 million per year anymore, but adding Texas and OU to the Big Ten or Pac-12 would raise the per school revenue to waaaay higher amounts that make those savings irrelevant. We’re already looking at the Big Ten pushing $30 million or even $40 million per school per year in the new TV contract with just the Maryland and Rutgers additions. So, the networks certainly aren’t going to be financially better off with consolidation.
LikeLike
Ok, I see. I agree, ESPN was/is able to prevent a super conference. It depends on for how long and the cost they are willing to pay, and the willingness of a few schools willing to continue the overpayment of a couple conferences to delay consolidation.
When/if the consolidation comes you’re saying it’ll be like the formation if B12 2.1. ISU, Wake, etc become Rice, Houston, SMU? The Atlantic Coastal Cornfield Conference.
I just don’t see Tobacco Road and Austin co-existing. UNL had OU as a reason to try the B12.
LikeLike
To The B1G: Kansas and Missouri
To the ACC: Iowa State, Oklahoma State
To the SEC: Oklahoma, WVU, Kansas State
To The Pac12: TxTech,OkSt,Baylor,TCU
Seceding from the system: Texas
LikeLike
To The B1G: Kansas and Missouri
To the ACC: Iowa State, Oklahoma State
To the SEC: Oklahoma, WVU, Kansas State
To The Pac12: TxTech,BoiseSt,Baylor,TCU
Seceding from the system: Texas
LikeLike
None of this could be mandated, but let’s look at each on its merits:
To the B1G: While it might be nice to have Kansas and Missouri together again (and their collective synergy would turn Kansas City into a Big Ten town), that ship has probably sailed.
To the ACC: Iowa State has more value here than is often given credit for (considering its relative lack of success, its fan base is impressive), and its basketball teams more often than not would at least be in the middle of the pack of the ACC. However, if this happened (not very likely), I don’t see Okie State as ISU’s partner. How about K-State or WVU?
To the SEC: Why would the SEC expand to an unwieldy 17? And from the non-Texas choices above, the only possibility would be the OU-Okie State combo (and Norman probably wouldn’t make the SEC an option unless no other one was available).
To the Pac: The conference may be desperate for a Texas foothold…but in Austin, not Lubbock (at least not Lubbock by itself). The other three are non-starters for academic or sectarian reasons.
LikeLike
Oopsie — I just realized the SEC three would bring it to 16 after MIzzou left. Then make it WVU with the Oklahoma combo.
LikeLike
Many realignment proposals suffer from the same flaw: the belief that the four power leagues would — neatly and conveniently — agree to settle on 16 teams as the ideal number, and that they’d make highly sub-optimal moves in order to do so.
This is wrong, because the conferences and schools are in competition with one another. They all move independently, and in their own best interests.
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Big Ten takes Kansas and Missouri, unlikely as that is. The SEC would probably take Oklahoma, and be done with it. In fact, Oklahoma is probably better than Missouri, so they’d consider that a more than fair trade. Why go farther? They’ve already passed on WV, and they certainly don’t want Kansas State.
The ACC doesn’t want the second-best school in Iowa and the second-best school in Oklahoma. Why take them, when they could just stand pat? What do they gain?
The Pac-12 doesn’t want the third, fourth, and fifth-best football schools in Texas, two of which are small religious institutions. If the Pac wants a religious school at all (doubtful), it wants BYU before either of the two you’ve suggested.
If the Big XII breaks up, the only schools the power leagues will want are Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas (AAU + basketball). If Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and K-State get golden tickets, it’ll be only if their more-desirable in-state partners come along. And some leagues, like the Big Ten, won’t take the in-state partner schools at all.
Iowa State, Baylor, and TCU are stone-cold losers if the Big XII breaks up. But they’ll probably have company. It’s unlikely that all three of the TT/OkSt/KSt combo get Big Four bids. West Virginia will probably take care of itself, but even that is not a sure thing. Hello, AAC!
LikeLike
The second-best schools in Iowa, Kansas and/or Oklahoma would have more value to the ACC than the fourth-best school in North Carolina.
LikeLike
And I agree that the AAC — which looks to have more of national scope than the Mountain West or Mid-American and probably would become the #5 conference — almost certainly would take in the unwanted from any Big 12 implosion. Some of the comments that TCU might find itself back in the MWC, this time with Baylor, or that Iowa State will be relegated to the MAC are absurd; none of the Big 12 “losers” would wind up in a conference lower than fifth on the totem pole.
LikeLike
…but 5th might be the MWC or AAC.
LikeLike
The second-best schools in Iowa, Kansas and/or Oklahoma would have more value to the ACC than the fourth-best school in North Carolina.
There are a number of schools in the “Big Four” leagues that probably wouldn’t have been taken, if they were building a brand new league today: Washington State, Mississippi State, Northwestern, and your example, Wake Forest. But leagues generally don’t kick out schools once they’re in. Temple in the former Big East, is the only modern exception, and their expulsion proved to be temporary.
Expansion is a different ball game. When the ACC expands, they’re not asking, “Is this member more valuable than Wake Forest?” New members need to be a net improvement to the whole league, not merely better than the worst team you already have.
LikeLike
…but 5th might be the MWC or AAC.
The only way the Mountain West gains #5 status in a world where the Big 12 implodes would be if Brigham Young rejoined, which looks like a longshot. Unless it makes some crucial mistakes a la the old Big East or some of its members are absorbed into other conferences (the only realistic possibilities are Cincinnati and/or Connecticut to the ACC), the American has more established members in a greater, more populous area of the country than does the MWC.
LikeLike
In order for the schools we are discussing to be at risk of being left out sort of demands that one of the B5 conferences fail, or the ACC/B12 pull a B8/SWC repeat. That leaves the MWC or AACK as #5.
LikeLike
Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying the AACK is clearly above the MWC, the obvious #5? My more western view is that isn’t the case, but I may be suffering reverse ESPN regional bias. 🙂
LikeLike
The AAC has several built-in advantages over the MWC. It plays mostly in the Eastern and Central time zones, so its games are on when people want to watch. It has two Florida schools and two Texas schools. UConn and Cincinnati have been to three BCS bowls between them. The AAC schools also have larger enrollments, and therefore presumably more alumni. Five AAC schools have enrollments above 37,000. The MWC has none.
The MWC has one national brand (Boise), but it really drops off precipitously after that. Mind you, the AAC is not exactly a murderer’s row lineup either, but they’re in a stronger position than the MWC. The sweetheart deal the MWC gave Boise to come back is indicative of that.
LikeLike
Unless the XII is just left with Baylor and TCU, it will remain the #5 conference by reloading from the AAC and MWC. Even those two schools would be in the top third the AAC or MWC. If IA St, WV, and KS St are still around it will be fairly easy for the XII to add Houston, Cincinnati, and S. Florida. I expect that they will actually get back to 12 schools if the XII lost TX and OK. Even after reductions for composition changes, the XII will still have better TV and bowl contracts than the MWC or AAC (might not be enough to offset the Boise deal, but will be better than any other school is getting). Just like the AAC looks a lot like the old CUSA, if a lot of teams leave the XII some may start calling it AAC2, but the XII will retain its place as the 5th conference. The BE had no shortage of CUSA schools wanting to move up when it imploded, and the XII will not have a problem adding members when it will accept schools of a lower stature than FSU or Clemson.
LikeLike
You may be right.
But my western sensibilities(bias) suggests that USU 11-2 (L Wisconsin/BYU by combined 5 pts), SJSU 11-2 (L Stanford by 3, USU) and SDSU 9-4 (beat Boise on the smurf turf. L UWash, SJSU, Fresno, BYU) seem forgotten in the east, cause they’re out there in the “Bronco” conference. Nevada and the ossasionally mentioned as a move up candidate UNLV, too.
I’m not sure the TX schools are a fit, and won’t move the needle as much in the AACK as they would in the MWC. But either way, we are not discussing a new B5 member (assuming a current one disappears) but the next in line behind the new B4.
LikeLike
@Marc
I don’t share your perception. The MWC schools have advantages as well. #1 many of them are flagships. #2 they have more interest in their communities and aren’t the 3rd or 4th or 5th favorite team. #3 They have fewer commuter schools which often have a lot of part time or older than average students who really don’t care about sports. #4 They own the G5 “territory” in their region instead of sharing it with CUSA, Sun Belt and to a lesser extent, the MAC. #5 They have more schools with success in the BCS era. 8/12 MWC schools have been ranked while only 5 of the AAC. The MWC schools have been ranked 16 times, the AAC 8.
LikeLike
@Mack, you’ve nailed it.
And given that conference realignment does NOT work like a group of kids trading baseball player cards, even a near total demolition of the Big12 would move in stages, and after each stage the Big12 would look like a better destination than either the MWC or the AAC for incumbent MWC and AAC schools.
LikeLike
@Mack, what could a new look XII look like
Baylor
KSU
Iowa State
TCU
Cincy
Houston or SMU or Rice
Boise State
South Florida
Colorado State
Memphis
Tulsa
Tulane
Okie State and Texas Tech could still stay, so knock off the teams towards the bottom to make room for the bigger boys.
Who would be the master of this new conference, and would they be willing to maybe move up to 14 to deter problems with dropping below 12 needed.
LikeLike
If the XII keeps WV they go east, and WV is joined by old BE members Cincinnati, UCONN, and South Florida. If more slots are open, UCF and Navy are probably next. If this is 5-10 years out and Temple or Memphis have improved their football programs they could be in the mix.
If the XII just loses TX/OK, the west is set without additions. Air Force makes sense if Navy is in the east; Houston if TT is gone; BYU already has its other sports placed so it could be invited as a football only member, especially if Air Force is in.
Navy, AF, and BYU may believe their current football status will meet institutional goals better, but the other schools mentioned will accept.
The XII already has 2 small private Texas schools, so SMU and Rice add nothing. If the XII loses both OK/OK St. it would be best to exit the state vs. adding small private Tulsa. The Tulane invite broke up the BE. A 4 time zone conference is hard to manage, and there is more in the east than the west, so SDSU and other CA/NV schools are out. Air Force better than Colorado State. Boise State might work as football only, but the XII may not have a west slot if others accept. BYUtv is a potential problem, but for football only no Sunday play is not an issue.
The SEC will take FSU before WV, so WV only hope of getting out of an imploding XII is to snag an invite from the ACC. That will really be academic slumming for the snooty ACC. Not likely unless the ACC was imploding also, very unlikely at the same time as the XII, and if it occurred than there is likely to be a merger of the XII / ACC remnants.
LikeLike
@Mack, what could a new look XII look like
Baylor
KSU
Iowa State
TCU
Cincy
Houston or SMU or Rice
Boise State
South Florida
Colorado State
Memphis
Tulsa
Tulane
Okie State and Texas Tech could still stay, so knock off the teams towards the bottom to make room for the bigger boys.
An all-sports conference in three time zones would be chancy (the late ’90s WAC, proposals to enlarge the Pac by taking in Texas and other southwestern members),such a conference in four time zones (I believe Boise is in the Pacific time zone) is a recipe for disaster. Even if Boise is in the Mountain time zone, it would be logistical folly to have it in a conference with Cincinnati, much less South Florida, for sports other than football. So let’s change the rebooted Big 12’s all-sports lineup to
West
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
Okie State
Texas Tech
Texas Christian
Houston
East
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Connecticut
South Florida
Central Florida
Southern Methodist
Memphis
The Metroplex would become the Big 12 focal point, with all members playing TCU or SMU once a year.
Want to add Boise State and Colorado State? Make them football-only members and shift Houston east.
LikeLike
I agree. This is one of FtT’s best posts. I still think they will be sitting at 16 come contract time.
On a cultural note,
Despite the implausible ‘cheat’ of having Hank conveniently find Walt’s (spoiler redact) on the crapper (unless he purposely did it to get caught) can’t wait for the final eight! In honor of this final stretch, here’s a just released ‘blooper reel’ of the show. Awesome.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/breaking-bad-gag-reel-season-5_n_3723306.html
LikeLike
“I agree. This is one of FtT’s best posts. I still think they will be sitting at 16 come contract time.”
How/who?
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Great stuff. I can’t wait for the final episodes of Breaking Bad, either. I’d put it right next to The Wire as the most TV show that has most consistently delivered from episode-to-episode – there are truly no wasted scenes (whereas even some of the greatest shows in history, such as The Sopranos and Mad Men, have had entire episodes that have turned out to be filler material). Tying into my last post about the future of TV, Breaking Bad is the perfect show to binge watch on Netflix if you haven’t done so already.
LikeLike
The only other show (currently on) that I think is as consistently great as ‘Breaking Bad’ is the Elmore Leonard show ‘Justified’. ‘Homeland’ is another good show (as is its doppelganger ‘The Americans’). Couple these with GoT, Mad Men, Dexter and Downton Abbey and that pretty much sums up my disparate tastes.
LikeLike
The GOR won’t block realignment regarding B12 schools if:
1. the conference votes to dissolve itself. Meaning at least 8 of the current 10 have to have new satisfactory homes in the other power conferences.
or
2. all the current schools agree to allow a school (or multiple) to leave in some kind of swap or a suitable replacement (cough, BYU, cough) can be brought in and the TV partners also agree to sign off on it.
So if the P12 wants to allow Texas to bring 5 or 7 friends (there is zero incentive for Texas to only join as a 4-pac to 16, ain’t happening), or OU and the B1G somehow pull off a Yalta conference (unlikely), or the B1G settles for KU+UConn (slightly more likely, if B1G can convince ESPN to not reevaluate the B12 basketball contract) or if the ACC isn’t as solid as it looks right now (unlikely) than change could happen in the B12.
But I wouldn’t count on any of that happening.
I do expect the A$M MoneyBadger story to continue to entertain. Love seeing another SEC cheating scam exposed (autograph laundering, though also found at a lot of the usual suspects of dirty schools, among others.)
LikeLike
than=then
Blog needs an edit function
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
So if the P12 wants to allow Texas to bring 5 or 7 friends (there is zero incentive for Texas to only join as a 4-pac to 16, ain’t happening)
OK, let’s examine those scenarios. Who goes along for the ride in a Pac-18? Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, Kansas and K-State? Makes sense. But what about a Pac-20? Iowa State would be #19, but West Virginia is too far away and I don’t see Baylor or Texas Christiian passing the Pac test. Could all four wind up in the ACC and/or SEC? Doubtful; the ACC would become too big to play an 8-game football schedule and satisfy its Notre Dame requirements, and unless Missouri really wants to revive the Telephone Trophy game, ISU isn’t SEC-bound. (WVU could find a home in either conference.) Through no fault of its own, Ames gets screwed again.
LikeLike
OK, let’s examine those scenarios. Who goes along for the ride in a Pac-18? Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, Kansas and K-State? Makes sense.
Um, no. You’re not thinking of it from UT’s perspective, and they are who would be pursued, not the other way around.
I don’t see Baylor or Texas Christiian passing the Pac test.
Then I guess the Pac doesn’t want UT enough to make the compromises necessary to provide the Horns with a situation better than they have now. UT likes, prefers, and created the current B12, and they aren’t going to backstab schools like WV and TCU that helped them save the conference. Well, not unless OU does first by defecting, but most likely we’d work to find a safe harbor for all or as many B12 schools as possible.
OBTW, anyone wanting a bellyache of laughs should check out:
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/133799-Money-Badger-photoshop-thread
LikeLike
“UT likes, prefers, and created the current B12…”
Umm, no. The SWC was disintegrating and the Big 8 collaborated in rescuing some (TCU not included).
“they aren’t going to backstab schools like WV and TCU that helped them save the conference.”
Was WV essential? no others available (say, a Kentucky school soon to be in the ACC)?
TCU – See above.
LikeLike
Deloss Dodds of Texas and Donnie Duncan of Oklahoma basically created the Big 12. That’s the reality.
LikeLike
Yes, but not without the acquiescence of rest of the Big 8.
LikeLike
Grasshopper, stop and ask yourself why I put the word ‘current’ in front of ‘B12’….
LikeLike
12-T P:
Ok, point taken. However, what was the alternative having already passed on the P16? It was shore up as best you can, or collapse.
LikeLike
So you need 8 to dissolve? Dang. I was trying to sort out a scenario where a majority split to go to other conferences. I don’t see 8 having good homes. I see 5 as max finding better homes.
I was thinking, if Big10 took Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma, and somehow extracted Missouri from the SEC. The SEC would back fill with West Virginia, even maybe take Oklahoma State, though who #16 would be is way beyond me. No one but teams from the ACC would be acceptable.
I don’t see the Pac or ACC picking up any of the leftovers, all would have to go to a lesser conference, or build a new one with a combination of MWC and AAC members.
LikeLike
@Frank- Great article, but you don’t mention the disincentive for most conferences to poach schools in that all the majors (except the SEC) have their own GoR, and wouldn’t want to indirectly create litigation that could result in the successful challenge to a GoR.
Example: B1G entices Texas to join, much like the conference did with UMD. The Big XII sues Texas to enforce the GoR. Neither party settles and at trial, Texas wins and joins the B1G. On the surface, this is a win for the B1G (BTN in Dallas! and Houston!). But a triumphant Texas creates legal precedent (persuasive, not binding) on the legality or limits of GoR’s, as well as a legal strategy to successfully challenge them. Since the B1G, and BTN, are based entirely on such GoR’s, the conference has no incentive to indirectly attack and defeat those agreements.
LikeLike
The way I read that GOR agreement is that it is contingent on the TV contract existing. The schools agreed to grant their rights to the B12 to fulfill the TV requirement. They do not grant rights to the conference should the TV contract be terminated. Doesn’t the TV contract become void should the B12 lose a certain amount of members?
If several teams left for the SEC, P12, or B1G wouldn’t that allow the rights to go back to the schools and not the B12? Can’t the P12 take OU, Okie St, KU, K St and kill the GOR? That allows Texas to go to the B1G. The B1G needs a cupcake and ISU is in the AAU so they can add them to get to 16. That would make the B1G/P12 continuous and reach all but the Southeast.
Which leaves TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and WV all alone. The SEC would need two more to get to 16 with their choices being TCU, Baylor, WV, ECU (assuming they cannot raid the ACC).
LikeLike
Yes, that is the key ~ the entire specification of which games the conference owns live copyright to is leveraged off the specification of the current broadcast agreement, with a term that unanimous consent of current members is required to agree to more restrictive terms.
The copyright grant over the live games subject to the GOR just exists ~ the school cannot retrieve those rights ex post except by consent. So the crux of the argument would be whether the games of an ex-member are in the scope of the telecast agreement.
And there’s a question that four out of five members don’t want to be answered in the negative, since the promise of stability on the basis of the GOR is the basis for extracting additional money from media companies. And extracting extra money from media companies while sharing as little as possible with the athletes actually performing is the whole point of the venture as a commercial going concern.
LikeLike
“And extracting extra money from media companies while sharing as little as possible with the athletes actually performing is the whole point of the venture as a commercial going concern.”
Commercial venture with a 0% profit?
All of it is spent (we may disagree whether wisely or not) directly and indirectly for the student and athletes benefit. It is reinvested in the scholarships, stadiums, coaches, trainers, facilities, tutors, etc., and in some cases the school at large that is the foundation providing the athletic department it’s existence.
LikeLike
That is the paradox of the not for profit status, that it ensures that the programs have to generate high costs in order to claim the lion’s share of the revenue. As far as whether hundreds of thousands and million dollar salaries for senior administrators and coaches are for the benefit of the student-athletes … its a lot more direct that they are for the benefit of the senior administrators and coaches.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Some programs hold the line although they could raise ticket prices, or make other moves that would maximize income, when budget needs are being met (for a while).
The direct benefit to Sabin (or whatever big name/salary coach) isn’t spent to be a benefit to the players and the school? The increases for coordinators isn’t directly aimed at improving the programs by attracting/retaining an exceptional staff? Now, I’m not saying I argree with the amounts. I think other whole programs could live on one high paid OC’s salary. But I realize it is being spent intending to improve the team and players, and thus the schools standing.
LikeLike
I argued in the past that OU, Tx, KU and likely UConn would end up in the BIG. I was ridiculed : ). I just recovered from the trauma. The fantasy is slightly less at this point.
I do think it’s quite possible that a OU, Tx, KU block may push for one more Tx school – TCU is not as incompatible as many would think. Poor Tx would only have one road trip for fans under 10 hours (Austin as the starting point).
If we go with statement one – football and basketball is addressed for good & we have the flagship in all states within the BIG footprint. We’d have 3 of football’s 5 biggest rivalries: OU-Tx ,OU-Neb & Mi-OSU. The thoughts and excitement of mixing and matching the icons of the BIG West and East = endless. Basketball would be equally exciting for me – KU and UConn have won 4 NC’s in the past 15 years.
I think some of understated reasons the above block (Big 12 schools) are being considered: (1) time zone compatibility & (2) Interstate 35. Of course tv dollars, AAU & flagship status are considred on a greater scale. But cultural compatibility & infrastructure linkages are necessary at this point – the BIG’s last two expansions have ensured such realities – enough PSU fans cried that they were left hanging to the east. It’s pretty expensive for many Big12 schools to think Pac12 – that’s a stretched geography, though KSU, TCU, TTech & OkS could create a nice block with Colorado. You could say the same for a block of OU, Tx, KU to the Big12 – but I want them in the BIG if the Big12 is in fact on the verge of collapse & we go to 4 super conferences : o ).
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I argued in the past that OU, Tx, KU and likely UConn would end up in the BIG. I was ridiculed : ).”
For good reason. UConn has almost no chance of getting in (there’s always a chance). Bad football in a tiny stadium, not quite contiguous, smallish state and non-AAU. That’s a lot of negatives to overcome. OU also has huge academic hurdles to clear in addition to the GOR issue. In addition, there are potential little brother issues for all 3 B12 schools.
“I do think it’s quite possible that a OU, Tx, KU block may push for one more Tx school – TCU is not as incompatible as many would think.”
Yes, it is. TAMU was the only other acceptable TX school. Besides, KU would probably rather have MO than any TX school.
LikeLike
UConn has long term potential & for many, many reasons, esp the fact that their k-12 system produces high quality students. UConn has climbed considerably in academic metrics the past decade. I don’t think AAU would outweigh a guaranteed OU-Tx block, no way. The BIG would never turn down annual matchups of Neb-OU, OU-Tx, Tx-Neb, now throw in PSU, OSU, Mi and Wisky.
UConn is attractive if OU-Tx-KU are quite willing to join the BIG. It absolutely makes the BIG a force in basketball – easily on par with the ACC – easily.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“UConn has long term potential & for many, many reasons, esp the fact that their k-12 system produces high quality students.”
CT is the #29 state in population at 3.6M, just ahead of IA but IA is growing faster lately. They’re obligated to play in a small (40k capacity) stadium 20 miles off campus that’s owned by the state and can’t move home games to neutral sites. They only became I-A in 2002. They have a weak fan base (only drew 34.6k fans on average). They’re in a part of the country that doesn’t much about college football. They’re only football value is being somewhat near NYC, but we already have one of those and RU has 4 times as many fans in NYC according to Nate Silver. How many programs can the B10 expect to build at once in the same area?
In hoops, clearly UConn is a strong brand. That’s a bonus, but not a reason to add a school. The same with them having hockey. Besides, we have yet to see how they do after Calhoun. Their brand may fade without their HoF coach.
“UConn has climbed considerably in academic metrics the past decade.”
That’s easy to do when you start out well down the ranks. ARWU puts UConn at 86-109 in the US, a tier below NE. CMUP puts them outside the top 60 research schools and barely ahead of NE, but with barely half of the research funding. The AAU list had them at #81, ahead of 4 AAU members (not counting NE or Syracuse) and far from the mid-30s where the most recent invitees are ranked. USN&WR ranks them higher, perhaps indicating a stronger focus on undergrads than the B10 wants. Remember that the COP/C supposedly told Delany not to come back with another school as weak as NE. UConn is at best on par with NE.
“I don’t think AAU would outweigh a guaranteed OU-Tx block, no way.”
1. Like me, you aren’t a B10 president so your opinion on that is meaningless.
2. The B10 has refused to add a lot of non-AAU members over the years. That starts looking like a pattern after a while. We have no way to know who would’ve been willing to join, but none of OU, FSU, VT and UConn got an invite last time.
3. The B10 refused to expand just to add a CCG, which would have been a huge game every year, so money isn’t everything to them.
4. You talked about 4 schools, not just 2. UT and OU as a pair have higher odds than the group of four you named.
5. Culture is important to the COP/C, and I’m not convinced they feel OU fits the B10 academic culture.
“The BIG would never turn down annual matchups of Neb-OU, OU-Tx, Tx-Neb, now throw in PSU, OSU, Mi and Wisky.”
You mean the league that dropped PSU/NE and MI/NE to get PSU/MI? The league that doesn’t have NE playing OSU, PSU or MI in 2014-2015? The league that made unbalanced divisions so that the CCG is much less likely to be king vs king? No, they’d never miss a chance to play a big game.
“UConn is attractive if OU-Tx-KU are quite willing to join the BIG.”
They are? At best they are the least bad choice to be #18. I can think of a lot of non-AAU’s I’d rather have. I’d much rather stay at 16 and not add KU than also have to add UConn.
“It absolutely makes the BIG a force in basketball”
It already is.
” – easily on par with the ACC – easily.”
So what? That’s hardly an important goal. Football is much more important, and KU and UConn both stink at it. The B10 would be just fine as the 2nd best hoops conference.
LikeLike
gfunk, you should still be ridiculed for that idea. Not happenin’. Sorry for your huskies or jayhawks or whatever.
LikeLike
Pingback: ***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0*** - Page 187
Now this brings me to a question: Why go there?
As in: Why would anyone connected to the B1G (like the AD of Michigan State) even float the possibility of further realignment?
I would think that, with assumably very smart lawyers on their end, that the conference would know better than to give the impression that they’re promising something that can’t happen under current conditions. Imagine if, some day, the B1G is forced to play defense, and the yahoos at SEC-land are yapping about taking some football-first schools in the northern footprint. Then we would be talking about the wonders of the GOR all day long. Now, I understand the principle of the aggressor setting the rules but, at some point, some real analysis has to be undertaken.
One can argue that all these B1G expansion could be spun as a symptom of weakness in the B1G itself, not the other conferences, and he wouldn’t be that far off the mark. Look at it this way: we’re supposedly the richest, most tradition-laden conference with the largest number of alumni and, yet, we hear talk about needing to improve the product through optimal additions. What does that say about us if we’re talking like this? What could be done internally so that the conference no longer wish to seek solutions for their competitive issues externally?
Why aren’t the brightest and best universities in the northern states trying to come up with solutions to foster sports participation among the young at the grade and high school level? Maybe I missed it but it doesn’t seem to me that there is any serious effort on that side. We always hear about needing to recruit in areas where the SEC has a natural advantage just by the fact of being there (and going around the rules, with the help of SECSPN). Also, thanks to SECSPN, that conference has much better PR than the B1G does. Young kids are impressionable. This kind of PR for the SEC is much more valuable than all the gold in the world.
It’s like a Catch-22 situation for the B1G. If the conference thinks that it would rather not focus too much on football, in favor of a more well-rounded sports approach, then the football-first donors and alumni start bellyaching about not doing enough for football. If they start focusing more on football, then they run into the possible backlash from academics who feel that sports is taking too much of the resources, not to mention the backers of non-revenue and women’s sports would be heard from. The PAC is much closer to their ideal for a conference. However, the B1G is forced to compete with the SEC for resources in the same time zones. That’s the main difference.
Maybe Frank could give his thoughts on what I’ve just brought up.
LikeLike
“…yet, we hear talk about needing to improve the product through optimal additions. What does that say about us if we’re talking like this?”
It says we aren’t talking about marginal, necessitated by circumstances additions.
LikeLike
I do not think it is a sign of weakest but rather of strength. Forces are pushing for more consolidation at the highest level of college athletics and perhaps in research as well. It don’t think it is a matter of if but when. So why should the BIG be reactionary instead of being proactive and landing a school like Texas, OU, or UNC before another conference does? It is smart business.
LikeLike
Because over the 10-15 year period of the discussion, there’s nothing surprising or controversial about pointing out that its a live possibility? Because after all, over that period, it is indeed a live possibility.
LikeLike
Big12 GOR is only in effect through June, 2018? Is that right? It was signed September, 2012 is there a version that replaced the one linked above?
If this is the current version, any ideas as to why the terms ends in 2018 vs. something like 2024 or 2025 when there TV deal concludes?
Is the story here the terms of the GOR agreements or the term?
LikeLike
I believe it’s until June 30, 2025.
LikeLike
You are correct. Sorry all for the confusion.
LikeLike
An earlier GOR was signed in November 2011. The document linked is the Amended GOR. The original was to expire in 2018; the amended expires in 2025.
LikeLike
The next round of realignment will be among the gang of 5 and will be triggered after the D4 requirements are decided. I expect that some combination of revenue, attendance, stadium size, et. al. will be required for a school to qualify for D4 and the entire conference will qualify if 70%-80% of the schools in the conference qualify. Several Go5 schools, but no Go5 conferences are likely to qualify. That will set off a best of the rest realignment as the AAC, MWC or some new entity tries to hang on to D4.
Even if D4 membership rules are loose enough to allow the AAC and MWC in, there will still be a scramble because at that level some schools in CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt will qualify, so realignment and consolidation will just be on a lower level. However, having membership requirements that loose sort of defeats the purpose of D4. The FBS (CFA + B1G + PAC) had 81 to 84 schools in the first few years. D4 will function well at this number. Back then the WAC was the bottom of the FBS with the MAC and Ivy out.
LikeLike
Frank-Don’t know if you saw this, but its fodder for Division IV. UMass and South Alabama didn’t meet the qualifications for FBS, but they are letting them in anyway.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/august/division+1+schools+reclassify+conferences+added
LikeLike
bullet,
“Frank-Don’t know if you saw this, but its fodder for Division IV. UMass and South Alabama didn’t meet the qualifications for FBS, but they are letting them in anyway.”
Well, letting them in conditionally. Form your article:
Massachusetts and South Alabama were approved but must meet minimum football attendance requirements this season, while Texas State moves into the FBS with no restrictions.
Both UMass and South Alabama failed to satisfy the actual or paid 15,000 attendance requirement over a rolling two-year period for FBS schools. Their move to the FBS will be contingent upon having 15,000 in actual average attendance in the 2013 football season. If the requirement is not met, the schools will receive a notice of noncompliance and enter a 10-year probationary period.
LikeLike
Does that mean 10 years in, but on probation?
LikeLike
That’s what it sounds like. That’s a pretty sweet deal for failing to meet the requirements. On probation, they may not be able to compete in championships or to vote, but I’m not sure. There must be some down side to being on probation. Maybe they don’t get a full share of the NCAA money?
LikeLike
Why not? They’d still be full members of DivI for NCAA basketball tournament purposes.
Anyway, this is the reason why the big programs want to form a Div4; because the rules for being allowed in to FBS are so lax and the penalties for violating them so nonexistent that any riff-raff which wants in gets in.
There doesn’t _have_ to be any significant downside to being on probation. To the big programs, that’s a bug; to the small programs, that’s a feature.
LikeLike
Not all NCAA money is from tournament shares.
LikeLike
Oops, I hit the button accidentally.
I meant to add, it’s also entirely possible there is a punishment for being on probation as a way to encourage schools to meet the rules.
LikeLike
Didn’t see anything about what “probation” means. Probably worst case is no bowl eligibility. Best case is they have to stick a probation sticker on their “I’m FBS” certificate.
LikeLike
PSU
LikeLike
The grant of rights seems awfully dependent on the provisions, terms, and definitions of the “Telecast Rights Agreements” between the Big 12 and ESPN and FOX, respectively. Do ESPN and FOX control the realignment cards? If ESPN and FOX (and the participating school(s)) approve of a realignment move, it seems any move is possible.
Also, even despite an iron-clad GOR, Texas and Oklahoma would hold substantial value to a new conference, even if their home games are unavailable. Texas-USC in LA or Oklahoma-Wisconsin in Madison would not be controlled by the Big 12. The new conference and Texas could give the Big 12 the finger by scheduling Minnesota or Washington State in Austin and playing the marquee matchups away – or may be even some neutral-site conference games in Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.
LikeLike
“If ESPN and FOX (and the participating school(s)) approve of a realignment move, it seems any move is possible.”
And it’s doubtful that they would. There aren’t too many realistic scenarios where a concentration of power by the content providers is in the cable companies’ best interest.
“Also, even despite an iron-clad GOR, Texas and Oklahoma would hold substantial value to a new conference, even if their home games are unavailable”
That’s not the problem. The problem is what’s in it for Texas/OU? So the new conference gets only half of Texas/OU’s games. Will you still give Texas/OU a full share of conference payouts? If so, how would that sit with the fans of OSU or Michigan, giving 100% to the B10 and seeing the new guys get the same despite contributing less. If you give Texas/OU less, how would that sit with their fanbase (and would it be worth moving)?
“The new conference and Texas could give the Big 12 the finger by scheduling Minnesota or Washington State in Austin and playing the marquee matchups away”
Every year? I’m sure Texas/OU fans would be ecstatic to know that they get to host Minny & IU every year while they have to play away at UNL/OSU/Michigan/PSU every year.
“or may be even some neutral-site conference games in Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.”
B12 would likely still own those TV rights.
LikeLike
The ESPN president made it pretty clear he’s tired of re-working deals. ESPN votes no. Fox may be amenable.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing about any likelihood. But ESPN never wants to rework any deals unless forced to or it’s to an advantage for them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9551518/ncaa-shuts-site-jersey-sales-says-hypocritical
NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday said college sports’ governing body would stop selling individual jerseys and other team-related memorabilia on its website, calling the practice a “mistake” and admitting others might view it as hypocritical.
LikeLike
Beyond a mistake. Its idiotic given the O’Bannon suit.
LikeLike
So it seems to me that the GORs won’t be violated. Thus, the only way that anyone will leave the B12 in the near future is if enough schools having landing spots elsewhere to vote to dissolve the conference. How could that happen?
A joint raid of the B12 by 2/3 of the B10/SEC/Pac.
Realistically, it would be the 8 B12 schools in TX, OK, and KS (because Texas, OU, and KU have to take care of their little brothers if they go anywhere, and they have the desirability to make their little brothers palatable). granted, one of the TX privates might be sacrificed for WVU if the SEC is in that game.
I’ll leave the dreaming-up of who lands where to others.
LikeLike
I agree. This is the most likely scenario.
LikeLike
Problem with that is either B1G or PACX would be all for it if they got UT, but not so much if they didn’t, and I think you need both conferences involved to pick up the numbers. Would the B1G take Kansas/OU and let PAC have UT/TTech/KState/OkState? Hard to believe the SEC would want to help out the process by taking anybody other than UT and/or OU and they don’t seem to be interested in the SEC (I guess WVa is a possibility).
The SEC has what they want out of expansion, and I’m not sure the would take anything other than national brands like UT or OU, but the SEC already has national brand value so they are not desparate even there. The B1G is probably is a bit more motivated to extend coverage of BTN, but only if it makes sense culturally, academically, geographically, etc. The PACX is the wild card here. They are more limited in their expansion, and might be more willing to absorb some less desirable schools.
If the PACX was willing to take OU, TTech, Kstate and Iowa St this might go. B1G would take UT and Kansas. SEC would still have to pick up OkSU and WVa. Just don’t think there is enough in it for the SEC. Those schools seem culturally to fit the SEC, and they are new contiguous states, but the population just doesn’t seem to support it.
Maybe for some reason the SEC is motivated to get to the four super conference model and would therefore help the process out, but even then I don’t see it. The SEC is the best football conference in the current scenario, why would they want to facilitiate change?
The only thing I can think of is if 20 is really the magic number. In a previous post I talked about 4 pods of five, playing the other 4 in your pod and all of another pod for 9 conference games, and round robin rotating divisions. If that is the end game, the PACx would be exceedingly hard pressed to get to 20 w/o Kstate, Iowa St., TTech, Ok State, etc., and Larry Scott has shown he would be proactive in getting there.
LikeLike
The PAC already passed on OU/OkSU. They stay at twelve unless the OU/UT package happens.
LikeLike
Possibly/probably with little brothers, too.
LikeLike
But would the Pac pass on OU&OKSt. + KU&KSU?
One football brand + one basketball brand. Remember that for a conference with a network, basketball is pretty important.
LikeLike
Without UT? Yes.
LikeLike
Not saying I agree, but that seems to be the take away from the OU/OkSU rejection (if that is what happened).
LikeLike
I understand that the Pac rejected OU+OkSt.
It does not then automatically follow that they would reject OU+OkSt+KU+KSU.
LikeLike
As long as the Big 10 waited for Notre Dame, you have to ask yourself the question, “Why wouldn’t they wait 10-12 years?”
LikeLike
And the other question, is “Why would UT and OU sign a GOR if they were going to leave 2 years later?”
LikeLike
THIS ^^^^
LikeLike
Pac could use more brands but will not take sectarian schools.
Gets OU, OKSt, KU, & KSU: 1 football brand + 1 bball brand.
SEC would like more of TX for its network but cares about diluting its southern identity.
Gets TTech for more TX exposure and WVU, a football prince.
Texas still want its coterie of TX schools (at least 3 others).
B10 wants to expand in to demographically big/growing areas and brands to help in TV contract negotiations but cares about academics.
B10 adds Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice, ISU, and some eastern AAU school. Baylor & TCU are not AAU but good enough academically (at least on the undergrad level).
Fantasy? Eh. Who knows.
LikeLike
WVU adds nothing to the SEC. They’ve already got plenty of football princes in small markets with poor academics. If they expand it’ll be for something they lack. Markets. AAU schools. Preferably both.
LikeLike
Revised (just for Andy):
Pac takes OU, OKSt, KU, & KSU.
B10 adds Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice, ISU, & MIZZOU.
SEC retaliates by adding CINCY, TTech, and WVU.
LikeLike
Just let SDSU in somewhere.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’d think there are four obvious windows for B10 expansion in the next 20 years:
1. 2013-2015
This is the last chance to grow before signing the three new TV deals (tier 1, hoops and CCG). If you can add a major brand or really grow the fan base, doing it before negotiations is better than going back to renegotiate an existing deal. The obvious problems are the GORs of the ACC and B12 and ND’s recent addition to the ACC. The other issue is that the B10 only has projections for their revenue from 2017 onward. People may not trust those numbers.
I don’t give this window much chance unless the UT lawyers really know something we don’t about an escape clause in a deal somewhere.
2. 2016-2018
This is just after the B10 signs those new deals, so everyone would know exactly how much the B10 will get paid rather than having to trust projections. If the gap is large enough, breaking a GOR may make financial sense.
The GORs still present the biggest obstacle, but they shrink every year. The B12’s goes until 2025 and the ACC’s until 2027.
I doubt this window produces any new additions unless something else happens to change the CFB world. Another 8-10 years of GOR seems like a lot to buy out.
3. 2023-2027
The GORs will be running out, so schools will need to know their options before being asked/forced to renew them. Leaving a couple of years early might work financially. In addition, the TV deals would be ending if they are for 10 years. The B10 could be looking at another jump in money.
This seems like the most likely time to add schools if it’s going to happen.
4. 2029-2031
The BTN deal ends in 2032, so this would be the last chance to add to the footprint before signing a new deal. The other TV deals may also end at this same time.
LikeLike
so, basically, we can all discuss realignment from now until 2018, take a five year break, start up again for three, take a two year break and then start up again. Yay.
LikeLike
Yep. Or basically just take the 5 year break and otherwise talk about it all the time.
LikeLike
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9538380/how-fix-nhl/
A “realistic” plan to fix the NHL. I disagree with some/much of it, but there are some good ideas, too.
LikeLike
The NHL doesn’t need that much fixing. The NHL over-expanded and the talent wasn’t there but it is beginning to catch up. That being said take out the instigator, meaningfully reduce the goalie pads, retroactively punish divers since it is hard to recognize at real speed, and outlaw the trap by having an illegal defense penalty: the coaches clogging up the game are really the enemy of the NHL
LikeLike
@Brian – I saw that article yesterday and the proposal that stuck out to me was the mechanism to stop bad teams from tanking games to get better draft positions. I LOVE that proposal and it could be applicable to all sports. Essentially, the draft order would be determined by how many wins/points a team has AFTER it’s eliminated from playoff contention. Thus, bad teams are still given an advantage (as they get more chances to rack up applicable wins since they’ll get eliminated from postseason qualification earlier), but they have a direct incentive to try to win games at the end of the year. All of the sudden, the games between bad teams at the end of the year start mattering quite a bit (similar to the bottom Premier League teams trying to avoid relegation on the last week of the season). For anyone that says that it’s too complex, it’s at least an open way to determine draft position that provides a disincentive to tank games compared to the clouded NBA lottery system.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the numbers crunched. A really bad team may get eliminated early and still not be able to win much, meaning they don’t even get a top 10 pick. Also, schedules could play a big part in deciding the outcome.
I might try this:
Give the top pick to the best team that missed the playoffs and go down from there. The playoff teams go last, but the top picks go to decent teams so they can get over the hump. The only caveat is that teams move up one place for every consecutive year they miss the playoffs. That means really bad teams can eventually get a top pick, but the team would have to stink for so long that no owner would support throwing games to do it. The downside is that some teams are just always going to stink, but you see that in every sport anyway.
I think the draft is generally overrated anyway. The same pro teams stay on top most of the time regardless of draft changes. The Red Wings, Pats, Lakers, etc never seem to suffer too much from low draft choices.
What I’d really like to see is a rule that forces an owner to sell if the team is too bad for too long. That’ll make sure the decision makers have their eyes on the ball.
LikeLike
@Brian – That’s an interesting idea, too.
I’d say that the draft is generally overrated *except* in the NBA. Having one or more of the top 15 or so superstars means much more than having depth in basketball, so there’s definitely a huge difference between having the #1 pick versus even the #5 pick. A disproportionate number of NBA superstars were top 3 picks. (A superstar like Kobe that was drafted at #13, which is still the lottery, is extremely rare.) Not surprisingly, that’s the sport where tanking is most prominent since it’s considered to be “NBA hell” if you’re a good-but-not-great team that can’t win championships but also isn’t bad enough to be in position to get a top superstar in the draft. Look at how the Sixers and Celtics basically just traded away everyone of any value in an effort to position themselves for a loaded draft class next year.
For the other sports, though, particularly baseball, depth is much more critical (where you’d generally choose several high level non-superstars over one superstar if push came to shove).
LikeLike
Agreed, the top few picks in the NBA draft are really important. But after the top 2-5 picks, most of them are just role players or foreigners designated for years of development overseas.
Imagine if the Jazz got the top pick with Dallas second instead of wasting the first few years of a new star’s career in Orlando, Charlotte or Cleveland. That would make sure everyone plays hard all year, plus the NBA wouldn’t waste star power on poorly run teams.
LikeLike
I don’t think tanking games is really that much of a problem. Is it any worse than NFL teams resting superstars in Week 17?
Maybe just do a staggered lottery. Bottom 5 of non-playoff teams–equally weighted, rather than by record–get first five picks. Remainder in reverse order.
LikeLike
Tanking in the NBA is a big problem. It’s a widespread approach to finishing the year.
Resting starters is an earned privilege, but something the leagues shouldn’t condone.
LikeLike
Frank,
Does a possible move to Division 4 have any affect on the GORs since they were signed under a different set of circumstances? i.e. if you sign a contract for rights of Division 1 football but then play Division 4 football?
LikeLike
@psuhockey – Nope – there’s no potential loophole there. The rights assigned are to the conference regardless of what division it might be in the NCAA structure.
LikeLike
Emory Sports Marketing Analytics with its top 10 CFB brand equity list:
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/08/08/college-football-brand-equity-rankings-the-overall-list/
LikeLike
It’s not just the kings, either.
UT, UGA, OSU, PSU, MI, AL, AU, UF, ND, UW
LikeLike
As a B1G fan, here are my fantasy additions somewhere down the road: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. You could probably finance the Federal Government with those schools added to the existing conference line-up and you could forget about Notre Dame for good (I was never crazy about adding them in the first place, but acknowledge that they would bring in a lot of revenue).
LikeLike
When only 2 teams in the B12 have all the market value, finding viable alternate conferences for 8 of the 10 B12 teams is nearly impossible, Texas and Oklahoma would have to agree to split up and each lead their own posse into an alternate conference.
Since both the SEC and B1G are in positions of relative power, they are very unlikely to compromise and take-on baggage. The ACC and PAC are more likely to accept compromises if they can get a King program.
For example, if UT + ACC + ESPN work out a deal to move UT, TT, TCU & WV to the ACC. ESPN can then guarantee a conference channel, TX would get some special consideration (a la ND); ND can kick-in an extra game per year (all 18 teams play ND 1x per 3 years): blah, blah, $$$$$. The ACC gets the nation’s top football brand and a lot of football first schools while sacrificing its academic bent. The conference can structure football schedules into groups of 3:
UT/TT/TCU
Pitt/WV/UL
Mia/SU/BC
FSU/Clem/WF
VT/GT/UVA
UNC/NCS/Duke
Once UT is separated from OK and off the market, the PAC could better entertain OK, OSU, KS & KS St. The PAC is tailor made for football scheduling in quads; they would get the best overall football team; and their basketball would be dramatically upgraded.
This would work to give 8 out of 10 B12 schools more revenue. The only flaw…UT has a nicer home in the B12 than in a bigger conference…it’s not all about the current TV revenue stream.
LikeLike
BTW – UNC/UVA/Duke would be absolutely against expanding the ACC in this manner and start looking to find a better home.
UVA partners with GT and escapes to the B1G.
UNC partners with Duke and accepts the collegiality of the SEC
ND and BYU see the handwriting on the wall and formally join the ACC
Four perfect 16 team conferences with basically equal revenue streams.
LikeLike
And ISU gets screwed, despite having substantially better football and basketball attendance and more of a fan base than Wake Forest.
LikeLike
vp19,
If the ACC dissolves, then Wake Forest is the most at-risk to not find a better landing.
In the B12, ISU is most at-risk. The small TX private schools are in better markets. Kansas State, Okie State and Texas Tech have some protection from big brother. All six schools could be worse-off with B12 instability, but ISU is the most likely odd school out.
LikeLike
Iowa State v. Wake Forest. That’s like Roseanne Barr v Melissa McCarthy.
LikeLike
“Four perfect 16 team conferences with basically equal revenue streams.”
16 is perfect…why?
And is equal revenue streams for other conferences the goal of the SEC/B1G?
LikeLike
As I said above, why would the Big and SEC cooperate on sending kings to other conferences?
LikeLike
They wouldn’t. Any of these ridiculous scenarios where conferences team up to split up schools like flipping baseball cards has ZERO chance of happening.
LikeLike
16 teams is merely symmetrical…there is absolutely no magical number that represents an ideal conference size.
The above scenario is clearly not in the best interest of the B1G or SEC. As I stated, they are both in power positions (especially in terms of revenue) and don’t need to compromise. The B1G should only focus on the duo of UT and Kansas; the SEC could do very well with any two of UT, OK or Kansas. But what is in the best interest of the B1G and/or SEC would not allow for breaking the B12 GOR…because too many B12 would not find a better home. The B1G and SEC are clearly better off waiting until the B12 and ACC GOR expire. They will each have more leverage to entice the right schools.
On the other hand, the other major conferences (and individual schools not in the B1G or SEC) actually have more options if consolidation can drive more revenue. My example is merely indicating how the ACC & PAC can work with UT & OK to close the revenue gap (obviously ISU and Baylor would be individual losers; BYU would be the biggest winner; all other ACC, PAC & ex-B12 would also gain in revenue).
It’s just revenue maximization based on the theory that consolidation of conferences is still inevitable.
LikeLike
BYU has about the same chance of getting into the ACC as they do the PAC. And I think their desire to is even less. Their future in a conference (if independence fails the purpose that the church is looking for) might be the MWC, if it is D4 and becomes the top Go5.
LikeLike
Interview with Jim Delany: http://www.freep.com/article/20130809/SPORTS07/308090128/jim-delany-big-ten-football
Probably the clearest recitation of the B1G’s philosophy regarding past and future expansion. Note the emphasis on flagship, AAU schools in geographically contiguous states.
LikeLike
*cough* Kansas *cough*
LikeLike
if that’s the criteria then the only available options are:
Virginia then North Carolina
Missouri
Kansas
Colorado
and then if you get rid of the “flagship” aspect, you can add
Iowa State
Pitt
SUNY Buffalo
Vanderbilt
LikeLike
And also, I would take Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, Pitt, and Vanderbilt off of those lists because they’re not looking to change conferences.
Also, if you listen to Kansas fans, who were so outraged at Missouri leaving the Big 12 (but curiously much less outraged at Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving before Missouri), they would never leave the Big 12. Not in a million years. Much too loyal.
LikeLike
Also, if you listen to Kansas fans, who were so outraged at Missouri leaving the Big 12 (but curiously much less outraged at Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving before Missouri), they would never leave the Big 12. Not in a million years. Much too loyal.
The same could be said of Maryland as recently as a few years ago. No one at that time seriously considered College Park as a Big Ten candidate; given the seismic shift of the college conference landscape, the Lawrence community could now feel differently.
In other words, Andy, the rules of the game have changed.
LikeLike
vp, I was being sarcastic. Of course Kansas would kill to be in the Big Ten. They’re hypocrites for criticizing Missouri for doing what they themselves would love to do.
LikeLike
I’m not that surprised, Maryland felt like they were more-and-more of an outlier in the ACC. VT addition made the Virginia rivalry feel like much less of one… In the B10 they’ll immediately have PSU as a rival who they see as a bigger rival than anyone they had in the ACC.
The money difference after the Big Ten signs it’s new TV deal between the ACC and the B10 could be the difference between the Major Leagues and the minors…
While a little surprised at Maryland leaving the ACC, seeing their athletic departments financial issues (which the B10 fixes), I’m not near as surprised as a lot of others.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone criticized Missouri for the act of leaving. It was the way they did it and their denigration (especially the Governor) of Big 12 schools. Kansas just isn’t going to give them the benefit of playing Kansas in basketball. Also, when CU and Nebraska left, EVERYONE else had been thinking about it as well. And CU’s intentions were well known. CU didn’t bad mouth anyone. Nebraska criticized Texas, but that was legal talk to try to reduce the exit fees and wasn’t an “I’m superior” type criticism.
You’re right Missouri generates more negatives than the others, but its not about the leaving itself.
LikeLike
Many Big 12 fans criticize Missouri for publically courting the Big 10 (through their governor) and destabilizing the Big 12, but since these talks go on all the time, IMO the destabilizing factor was really the Big 10’s announcement that it was open season, not the Missouri governor’s comments. When the Big 10 had last considered expansion, they publically said they were looking at Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers and either staying at 11 or going to 12 or 14. That didn’t have the same impact as looking at 10-15 different schools and expanding to an undetermined number of schools.
LikeLike
For all the talk about Kansas to the Big 10, I really don’t see that as a major possibility. From everything that the Big 10 has done (other than take a Top 10 if not Top 5 all-time football power in Nebraska) it seems they want to go East, where the money, population, desired pool of future students, and political power is. I actually think that by far the most likely landing spot for Kansas (If the Big 12 goes kaput after the GOR expires and it can shed K-State) is the SEC. Kansas is actually probably far more valuable to the SEC than the Big 10. For one thing, basketball is extremely important to the value of a conference television network, and Kansas would immediately provide a highly desirable matchup for every team in the SEC. The Big 10 is so stocked with basketball powers at this point that while Kansas would certainly add something, it would be the difference between having 11 good teams vs 10 in the Big 10 (a 10% bonus) and 4 good teams vs. 3 in the SEC (a 25% bonus). Frankly, the SEC has so many football powers at this point that it really doesn’t need any more, and might see more value from basketball schools (which is partly why UNC/Duke are so coveted). While Kansas’ AAU status makes them tolerable to the Big 10, it makes them desirable to the SEC. Given the SEC’s stronger need for basketball programs and AAU schools, I think they would be more likely to overlook Kansas comparatively low population base and less than desirable location than the Big 10 would. I also think that any talk of the SEC only taking Southern schools is way overblown, provided the addition makes at least some geographic and cultural sense, which Kansas would. Although I’m sure Kansas would probably prefer to join the Big 10, if the Delaney isn’t knocking, I think they’d jump at the SEC (again provided they were able to do so).
LikeLike
I think any scneario where KU manages to shed KSU is unrealistic.
LikeLike
I think that depends on what happens to the Big 12. If the Big 12 is viable, I would say that Kansas is probably tied to K-State, because both have a home and Kansas leaving could directly harm K-State. If the Big 12 is no longer viable and both would be left out in the cold, I think it’s a different story. There’s a big difference between preventing one school from damaging the other directly and forcing both schools to suffer.
LikeLike
jeff, you might be right. I don’t think the B1G has much to gain by adding Kansas. The SEC might if they can stomach adding a non-southern school. At least Missouri was partially southern.
LikeLike
I think the Pac adding KU is more likely than either the SEC or B10.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B1G has much to gain by adding Kansas. The SEC might if they can stomach adding a non-southern school. At least Missouri was partially southern.
Remember “bloody Kansas” — after 160 years, that state finally could end up in the southern column. And without slavery!
LikeLike
Andy, I honestly don’t think that the SEC cares about a school strictly being in a Southern state, because the people in charge are smart enough to know that really doesn’t mean anything (IE parts of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois are much more “Southern” than parts of Florida and Georgia). I think the SEC cares about what will add the most value to their network and their conference, with geography playing some role. For example (and this will never happen I’m just using it as an example) if Ohio State and Michigan said they wanted to join the SEC, the SEC would immediately say yes, because those two schools would bring so much to the SEC regardless of them being Northern. If you exclude the North Carolina and Virginia schools (who probably will never join the SEC) I don’t see another school that would add as much to the SEC academically and academically as Kansas that adds a new (however small) market for the SEC network other than Oklahoma (who has allegedly already turned down an SEC invitation and probably is not interested) and possibly Oklahoma State (who is probably tied to Oklahoma). Although SEC academics are much better than some schools seem to believe (I don’t understand how Texas thinks it’s too elite for the SEC but not the Big 12), the academic side of a hypothetical university looking to change BCS/G5 conferences will always prefer the Big 10, PAC 12, or ACC and pull schools in those directions when given the option. If the Big 12 were to collapse, I’m not really sure that Kansas would have another BCS/G5 option other than maybe the PAC and my hunch is that Kansas would prefer the time zone/travel friendly SEC, especially an SEC with hated border rival Missouri, top 3 all-time program Kentucky, and a presence in major alumni state of residence Texas to the PAC.
Which brings another question, Andy, would you rather have Kansas as an SEC rival and get to play them every year (probably twice in basketball) or not get/have to play them at all?
LikeLike
Without Texas or Oklahoma as a Kansas partner I don’t see them going West either.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“Although SEC academics are much better than some schools seem to believe (I don’t understand how Texas thinks it’s too elite for the SEC but not the Big 12)”
Two things:
1. UT is already in the B12. Why move if you aren’t getting a better neighborhood and you know those better neighborhoods are out there?
2. The AD at UT is really worried about how “dirty” SEC recruiting is perceived to be. They don’t want any part of that.
LikeLike
Andy, I honestly don’t think that the SEC cares about a school strictly being in a Southern state, because the people in charge are smart enough to know that really doesn’t mean anything (IE parts of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois are much more “Southern” than parts of Florida and Georgia).
Actually, it means a whole lot. The fact is the SEC’s most valuable marketing has always been (and continues to be) its Southern identity (yes, even more than football success). The SEC takes it very seriously. It’s what allows them to maintain strong support from non-alumni and it is why fans chant “ESS EEE SEE” (and not the name of the school) after big OOC victories.
LikeLike
Jeffery, me personally, I would be happy to take Kansas in the SEC. I liked playing them every year. It was fun. I don’t know why they think it’s a bad thing to play the game.
If I were picking, my wish list would be:
North Carolina
Virginia
Duke
Kansas
Oklahoma
Rice
Tulane
Yeah I know the last two are kind of crazy but I’d like to raise the academic profile of the SEC.
LikeLike
I doubt the Big 10 moves west if it ever expands to 16. I think they are interested in the mid-Atlantic. Missouri and Kansas are more of what they already have, mid-west states growing slower than the national average. Kansas might be a filler at #16 or #18 with their basketball an attraction for the BTN. Things have changed since they were seriously looking at them 15 years ago or so. Basketball is less important and the population trends are stronger than they were.
LikeLike
B10 moves west only if they can somehow land Texas.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I doubt the Big 10 moves west if it ever expands to 16. I think they are interested in the mid-Atlantic. Missouri and Kansas are more of what they already have, mid-west states growing slower than the national average. Kansas might be a filler at #16 or #18 with their basketball an attraction for the BTN. Things have changed since they were seriously looking at them 15 years ago or so. Basketball is less important and the population trends are stronger than they were.”
I agree. I’d add that the B10 is also now committed to the east coast with RU and UMD. It makes more sense for them to pursue UVA, UNC, etc than KU unless UT expresses serious interest.
LikeLike
Obviously the B1G would rather have Virginia and North Carolina than Missouri and Kansas. That’s a no brainer. Trouble is they’re in all likelihood never going to get Virginia and North Carolina so it’s moot. And now they’re in all likelihood never going to get Missouri either.
LikeLike
Note that Delany said that PSU, UNL, RU, and UMD were good fits because they were “proximately located”, not “geographically contiguous”.
LikeLike
not sure what you’re getting at. Georgia Tech and Florida State are not proximately located. Neither is Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Depends on your definition of “proximately located”.
The Pac was willing to add Utah & CU despite the closest of those 2 being farther from the closest Pac school at that time (ASU) than Omaha (or Columbia) is from Fort Worth.
LikeLike
I would say “proximately located” would mean within 500 miles of multiple B1G schools.
LikeLike
Let me rephrase:
Depends on what the B10 presidents’ definition of “proximately located” is.
LikeLike
And seeing as how we don’t know what that is I guess that doesn’t mean much.
LikeLike
Proximately located is vague enough to still consider Texas, which due to no AAU schools in MS, AK, OK, and NM cannot be contiguous. It can also be used to exclude a contiguous chain of AAU public flagships such as CO, AZ, CA, OR, WA (none of those schools has any interest in the B1G anyway). It allows VA-GT if NC is not interested, or a TX pairing with KS or MO. So 6 potential targets comprise the public AAU flagship schools proximately located to the B1G. Delany’s statement sounds like further expansion is 10+ years away.
The AAU universe is limited; only 36 play FBS football, and 13 of those are already committed to the B1G, 6 more are private (no Duke, Vanderbilt, USC, Stanford, Rice, or Tulane), and 3 more are definitely not flagships (IaSt, Pitt, Buffalo). I mentioned every AAU FBS school except TX A&M, UCLA, and FL (3 more schools less likely to join the B1G than Notre Dame).
LikeLike
Of course, while all of the B10 additions in the recent past have fit the description of proximately located public AAU flagships, the last B10 addition before that (MSU) did not.
I think that certain private AAU members may get in: Duke (definitely if it gets UNC, but possibly even if they don’t), Rice (if that’s what it takes to land Texas), and maybe Vandy (assuming they’re interested; big if; I would be against the idea, though).
Also, GTech a flagship? Dawgs may disagree, but eh, OK.
LikeLike
There is also University at Buffalo.
LikeLike
Sorry. Should have read that last paragraph carefully before responding.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Of course, while all of the B10 additions in the recent past have fit the description of proximately located public AAU flagships, the last B10 addition before that (MSU) did not.”
I don’t think 1950 is a useful precedent. The world of college athletics has completely changed since then.
“I think that certain private AAU members may get in: Duke (definitely if it gets UNC, but possibly even if they don’t), Rice (if that’s what it takes to land Texas), and maybe Vandy (assuming they’re interested; big if; I would be against the idea, though).”
Being private isn’t an issue, it’s what often goes with it (small size). USC and Stanford would be a shoo ins if CA was near the midwest. Duke is a strong target with UNC (less likely without UNC). I also don’t see Vandy ever wanting to join, but the B10 would consider them. Clearly ND has an open invitation, and they aren’t AAU. I just don’t see UT demanding Rice.
“Also, GTech a flagship? Dawgs may disagree, but eh, OK.”
If you think of it as a split like IN/PU, you can sort of call GT a flagship. UGA is the big dog, but GT is the better school and the school for engineering.
LikeLike
All he’s really saying is that they’re staying at 14 for the near future.
LikeLike
I think people over-read the things Jim Delany says. In general, the Big Ten seeks “flagship, public AAU institutions that are proximately located to existing members.”
But no one doubts that the Big Ten would have taken Texas, if the Longhorns were interested and didn’t bring along undesired baggage. Texas isn’t proximate to any existing member. No one doubts that the Big Ten would have taken Notre Dame, and still would. The Irish are neither public nor AAU.
The Big Ten is known to have evaluated Oklahoma. The league knew that Oklahoma wasn’t AAU, nor likely to attain that status anytime soon. We don’t know the outcome of that evaluation, but it’s not something they’re likely to have done if AAU membership was a categorical deal-breaker.
The Big Ten took Nebraska, knowing that its AAU status was under review, and that there was at least a strong chance that it wouldn’t be a member for much longer.
It is hard to believe the Big Ten would decline Duke if it were a condition of UNC joining. Duke is not public.
I think the best way of interpreting Delany, is that “flagship, public AAU,” and “proximately located” are objectives open to reasonable exceptions in compelling cases.
@Transic: All he’s really saying is that they’re staying at 14 for the near future.
I don’t think Delany will ever again announce that the Big Ten is on the market for new teams. If you’d asked him right before Maryland and Rutgers joined, he’d have said that they’re staying at 12 for the near future.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I agree with what you’re saying. If the Big Ten could check every box, sure, they’d want a school that adds of ton of athletic revenue that’s also a contiguous public AAU member. However, those schools are few and far between – at this point, only Kansas, Missouri and Virginia are contiguous AAU members and any combo of them might not even necessarily add the requisite athletic revenue in a football-driven marketplace. The commenters are vastly more educated about the academic standings of various schools than the general public (and thankfully so, as I truly believe this is the best commenter group anywhere), but let’s always remember that the “ton of athletic revenue” factor comes first. Jim Delany job is to expand the coffers of the Big Ten for athletic purposes with the CIC as an important side benefit as opposed to the CIC being the driving force for expansion. As a result, I think it’s irrelevant whether Texas is contiguous and that non-AAU member Oklahoma may get more slack than we’re giving the conference credit for (in the same way that non-AAU member Notre Dame would still be invited by the Big Ten IF they’re willing to be an equal member, which is obviously a big IF). We’re not talking about adding West Virginia here – OU and Florida State, for example, aren’t far at all academically from Nebraska or current AAU members Kansas and Missouri, so they’re within the “spectrum of plausibility” in my mind.
LikeLike
And yet even when FSU was clearly looking around, the B10 didn’t show interest. It wasn’t due to lack of value, or weak athletics, or a small population, or too few B10 alumni nearby. It was academics and/or distance that kept them from getting serious consideration.
OU is a slightly bigger brand, but in a much smaller state. OU’s academics are a little below FSU’s. The only way I see OU having a shot is as a partner for UT, and even then I’m not sure the COP/C wouldn’t favor KU for their AAU status.
LikeLike
Rutgers AD makes some changes:
http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/hoopshaven/2013/08/08/telling-gesture-hermann-upgrades-her-coaches
LikeLike
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/10/why-time-warner-cable-can-t-cave-to-cbs-s-demands.html
Somewhat interesting article about the standoff between TW and CBS. The thing that stuck out to me most though was the fact that in March for the first time in history their was a net decrease in the total number of cable/satellite subscribers in the US over a 12 month period.
LikeLike
@frug – What’s interesting is that TWC and CBS aren’t really fighting over the traditional cable subscriber fees at this point. The main point of contention is really how digital rights (i.e. access to on-demand shows) are going to be paid for. The 2008 CBS/TWC deal had the digital rights as essentially a throw-in. TWC wants the same type of low price for digital rights, but CBS wants to raise those fees considerably in line with the increased amounts that Netflix and Amazon are paying for streamed content.
It’s another complexity that’s added on here. I’ve been arguing for awhile that this is more “form over substance” in the long-term – technology will almost certainly have us watching TV via the Internet as opposed to cable in the long-term, but content providers will simply transfer the fee structure from basic cable to the Internet in the way that CBS is trying to do now and ESPN3 has already done.
On a side note, CBS does have the ultimate killer app with NFL games starting next month as leverage against TWC. There will be little-to-no tolerance in the NYC market to losing access to Jets games and TWC will have to cave quickly. (The Mark Sanchez train wreck is just too compelling.)
LikeLike
Cowboys @ Broncos on CBS is week one. Dallas will riot if that game isn’t shown. TWC needs to get this figured out sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
I think the competition will drive down fees (or at least stop the massive increases), certainly in the short run. And everyone has had trouble monetizing the internet. Look at the newspaper deals. The Times sold the Boston Globe for $70 million that they bought for $1.1 billion. Washington Post was $250 million. Simply flipping over to the internet isn’t easy.
LikeLike
Let’s see how Bezos does with his paper. If he can’t find a workable model, the industry is doomed.
LikeLike
The Gor is meaningless. It has been meaningless.
The word is Delany has been in meetings with Texas the last few weeks.
They’ve met several times since the BIGs expansion efforts started in 2010.
The LHN is failing. ESPN is trying to trim the fat. I doubt whether you will see an ACC network.
Especially, that the mother-ship is tied to the SEC and will be bidding to keep the BIG
when bidding begins in less than 2 years.
The old Big 8 mirrored the Big 10. So, its stands to reason that Oklahoma and Kansas would have also talked with Delany in the last year.
I see the Sooners going into the BIG with Texas.
It’s been reported by a BIG inside source, that Texas wants the Sooners with them.
So you add brands like this to the BIG. Rekindle one of the greatest rivalries
in CFB with Neb-Oklahoma. Huge money awaits the BIG.
So, forget about GOR, AAU status, penalties. etc. If a school wants to leave, it will find a way.
Especially, if a school can make 50 mil. per in the BIG.
I agree, that the ACC and B12 may combine but, only after the Big 3 conferences
take what they want.
LikeLike
It’s been reported by a BIG inside source, that Texas wants the Sooners with them.
And what if the Big Ten presidents say “no,” for AAU reasons? Will Texas settle for Kansas as a partner? Will Austin pick up its toys and head back to the Pac for another try at membership?
LikeLike
If Texas told the B10 that we will join the Conference in 2014, but only if Oklahoma is allowed to come along, they will be told “Welcome to the club.” I know Academics and the AAU is important, but getting increased revenue for the Conference is a bigger priority than that (particularly if O’Bannon is ultimately decided for the Plaintiff, and the Individual Schools end up having to pay BILLIONS to former players). Another aspect to O’Bannon could be this: Maybe smaller Schools (such as those found in the MAC Conference) decide the added expenses are not worth it, so maybe it makes sense to shut down the Football Program, and then that extra home game the bigger B10 Schools (Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State & Wisconsin) want, may not be as profitable as before. Why? Simple Law Of Supply And Demand: Supply goes DOWN, then Demand (and of course price) goes UP). But if OU & UT can be added to the Conference, the value of the TV Contract increases tremendously. Although I do not think this will ever happen, because I cannot see ‘Bevo The Bull(y)’ accepting being an equal of Michigan (let alone Michigan State). That would require a “Sea Change” of attitude in Austin, and I don’t see it.
LikeLike
@djbuck – Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).”
ESPN’s current deal averages $100M per year for the B10.
Average:
$104M = $16M * 4 kings + $8M * 2 princes + $4M * 6 others = $8.7M per team
Final year:
$130M = $20M * 4 kings + $10M * 2 princes + $5M * 6 others = $10.8M per team
I can’t guarantee those are correct ratios, obviously, but I used factors of 2 for simplicity. UT gets $15M, but just for 1 tier 3 games and some hoops and other things. It seems like ESPN would get much better value from paying for UT’s tier 1 and not for the LHN. Isn’t value more important than actual cost?
LikeLike
1. Comparing a TV deal that is far from market and will be revalued considerably upward soon to a recent TV deal is fallacious. Especially when that recent TV deal could be considered an overpayment by ESPN to prevent a concentration of market power by the content providers.
2. The correct comparison is between a Tier 1&2 deal with B10+Texas(& others) at current market rates to B10 & B12 Tier 1(&2) at current market rates.
I have already said that I expect B10 TV distributions to be $30-40M/school (total conference distributions of 40M-50M/school by some point) with the new TV deal.
If somehow the B10, Pac, and SEC manage to split up the B12 before then (no likely feat) & the B10 somehow lands Texas, we could see some really insane numbers. $50M/school just in TV money alone would not be out of the question.
LikeLike
1. They’re the only factual numbers out there. Everything else is guesses. Besides, I don’t need the numbers to be accurate to support my point. I didn’t ask whether they’d need to pay more than $15M per year extra, I asked about value.
2. Not quite. You need to calculate the total value in both scenarios, but that includes many things we don’t know. How much different is UT’s value in the B12 than it is in the B10? How much would ratings change for both leagues with that move? What does that mean for ESPN in terms of ad sales? What would happen to the B12 TV deal if UT left? We can try to estimate costs to ESPN, but we’ll never know what value they get for it.
3. The B10’s projections have a basis in knowing the details of the contracts and talking with experts and network people, but are probably optimistic. Your guesses are as irrelevant as any other fan’s. The B10 is projecting the ESPN deal to jump about $7M (50%) with the start of the new deal to $22M (all rough numbers). Only that deal is relevant here. Other increases don’t impact the value equation for ESPN.
LikeLike
“Besides, I don’t need the numbers to be accurate to support my point. I didn’t ask whether they’d need to pay more than $15M per year extra, I asked about value.”
Uh, yeah, you do, since the value that matters to ESPN is surplus value, which is total_value – cost. Even if a Texas move to the B10, say, increases total_value by 10%, en toto, they would not be for it if it increases their total costs by 40%.
“We can try to estimate costs to ESPN, but we’ll never know what value they get for it.”
Uh, there are people who’s jobs are to estimate that. In any case, if you truly believe that “we’ll never know” anything about value, then why did you bring up value as a point? I could say that overall value for ESPN drops significantly if Texas joins the B10, you’d say otherwise, and neither of us would get anywhere since “we’ll never know”.
What we do know is that costs should go up as market power concentrates.
“The B10′s projections have a basis in knowing the details of the contracts and talking with experts and network people, but are probably optimistic.”
“Your guesses are as irrelevant as any other fan’s.”
I love these 2 lines right after another. You essentially dismissed what I had to say about projections, but right before then, you yourself expressed an opinion on projections. If I had to wager, I would wager that they were conservative, but in any case, you yourself actually have no basis for thinking that they are optimistic.
What we do know, however, is that those projections do not include having Texas in the fold. We also know having Texas in the fold should increase those projections (or at least not make them go down, since otherwise, it wouldn’t much sense for the B10 to add Texas).
We also know that when the SEC, B12, and Pac started new deals, their tier1 & 2 payouts jumped by far more than 50% (ACC’s as well, I believe, but would need to check).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Uh, yeah, you do”
No, I don’t. I can never have all the numbers 100% accurate, so I’m not even trying to make an accountants calculation here. I’m only looking at whether it’s obviously a good deal for ESPN, obviously a bad deal for them or might be a toss up. ESPN hides way too many numbers from the public for us to do a true calculation.
“Uh, there are people who’s jobs are to estimate that.”
Which is nice, but they don’t comment here and they have access to numbers we don’t. Thus we will never know.
“I could say that overall value for ESPN drops significantly if Texas joins the B10, you’d say otherwise, and neither of us would get anywhere since “we’ll never know”.”
You mean like almost every discussion on here ever?
“I love these 2 lines right after another. You essentially dismissed what I had to say about projections, but right before then, you yourself expressed an opinion on projections.”
I don’t base my evaluation of the B10’s projections on supposed better knowledge of the numbers but on the fact they were being used to try to sell UMD on joining. Nobody uses their worst case numbers in a sales pitch, and nobody leaks the worst case numbers if there are better numbers to leak.
“We also know that when the SEC, B12, and Pac started new deals, their tier1 & 2 payouts jumped by far more than 50% (ACC’s as well, I believe, but would need to check).”
The SEC added TX and MO, and TAMU is a decent brand. The B12 got bribed to stay together. The P12 had been comically low in their old deals.
Tracking known TV numbers for the B10, you can project where the deals should be by 2017. Assuming modest growth in all the other deals, you thus have a ceiling for the new tier 1 deal. It’s important to remember that the B10 knows exactly what they plan to sell next time. They may be changing the amount of inventory up for grabs or the order of the selections or other rights. They have informed estimates of the value of UMD and RU for tier 1 purposes and we don’t.
LikeLike
“Nobody uses their worst case numbers in a sales pitch”
Being in the business world, I know that is simply not true. It is always better to under-promise and over-deliver than the other way around.
LikeLike
Also, the SEC signed their new deal before adding TAMU and Mizzou. They still got a bump of well over 50%.
LikeLike
@Frank – So how would the Longhorn Network issue get resolved if Texas wanted to join the B1G?
1) Does the B1G have to buy Texas’ third tier rights from ESPN?
2) Does ESPN turn back over third tier rights back to Texas? And then Texas forks it over to the B1G?
3) As part of #2, is there some sort of settlement between ESPN and Texas for the remainder of the 20 year deal?
If FOX outbids ESPN for B1G Tier I and Tier II rights, does that all but kill the chance for Texas to the B1G? As ESPN’s incentive to keep the Big 12 together would never be greater?
LikeLike
@djbuck – Putting aside whether the Big Ten and Texas have actually met, it just makes no sense that ESPN would worry about “trimming the fat” in the amount of $15 million per year on the one hand and then push Texas to the “worst” possible conference for Disney from a financial point of view… the Big Ten that’s about to be in an open bidding war with loose purse string Fox involved at the very least. That line of thinking has always been suspect to me – $15 million per year is a rounding error compared to how much ESPN would have to cough up to retain the Big Ten that adds Texas. Consolidation absolutely, positively, does NOT save ESPN (or Fox) money at all (especially if Texas is the one moving and causing chaos).
@FtT – ESPN’s biggest risk is that NBC comes into the bidding for Tier 1 B1G inventory. Consolidation does not save ESPN money but continuing the Duopoly with Fox does.
LikeLike
A purely academic exercise:
How would CFB change if TV rights were owned by the visiting team? The NFL used to (still?) do it this way. Conference TV contracts wouldn’t change much (since they are valued for conference games only). Would the BTN start contracting with the MAC to show the annual MACrifce games? Would ESPN start driving teams to Texas for the LHN? Could conferences (say the AAC) make additional revenue by selling away game packages to ESPN? How would this change the guarantee game?
LikeLike
The NFL’s TV contracts are all league-wide, and have been that way since forever. When did NFL teams own TV rights?
LikeLike
The NFL controls all TV rights for all regular season games. What I think Mike is referring to is that inter-conference games are part of the visiting team’s conference’s TV package (i.e. a game with an NFC team playing at an AFC team will be part of Fox’s NFC package, while a game with an AFC team playing at an NFC team will be part of the CBS AFC package) unless it’s picked as a Sunday Night Football (NBC), Monday Night Football (ESPN) or Thursday Night Football (NFL Network) game. All of the money from all of those contracts are shared equally by all NFL teams, though.
NFL teams do have the ability to sell the local TV rights to their preseason games and keep that revenue for themselves, although it’s like MLB/NBA/NHL where it includes both home games and road games.
The only comparable situation that I’ve seen to the college sports model of the home team solely controlling the TV rights is with CONCACAF soccer, where the home team controls the TV rights for World Cup qualifiers in *every* country within the federation. So, when the US played at Jamaica this year, the Jamaican National Team had the right to sell that game within the United States (which it did to beIN Sport). Note that this is a drag on promoting soccer in the US (as the US Men’s National Team can’t control where half of its World Cup qualifiers will be on TV in its home country).
LikeLike
UEFA now has centralized the TV rights to their WC qualifiers. CONCACAF doesn’t because for the longest time (and maybe even now), they’re run by kleptocrats more interested in fattening their pocket books rather than something so idealistic as growing the game.
LikeLike
Another ranking of the most valuable college football programs in the country:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/whats-the-most-valuable-college-football-team-it-aint-alabama/266954/
The 10-school B10 had 4 of the top 18 and the the 10-school SEC had 6 of the top 18, more than any other conference. With the expansion of the early ’90s, the B10 and SEC went to 5 & 8, respectively, of the top 18. After the recent round of expansion, the B10 and SEC now account for 6 & 9, respectively, of the top 18. The only schools in the top 18 who are not in the B10 or SWC are now Texas, OU, & ND (while Oregon and UDub are 19th and 20th, so no other major conference is adding them).
ND will remain “independent” forever. The fight over who gets Texas and OU is higher stakes than the fight over who gets UNC/Duke/UVa. The Pac didn’t take Texas & OU (and then only OU), but the Pac presidents have a history of being short-sighted (only their desperation for money, after years of ill-management, made them hire Larry Scott and form a network; they’re really lucky that they are so geographically isolated that neither the B10 or SEC can eat them up).
LikeLike
More comprehensive list:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
LikeLike
Bottom feeders (#55-67) are: B1G (63:Rutgers, 56:MD); SEC (67:MO, 66:Vanderbilt, 55:MSU); XII (62:Baylor, 59:TCU); ACC (65:Pittsburg, 64:Duke, 60:Louisville, 58:Syracuse); PAC (61:WA, 57:CA). Current B1G is 48:IL,
LikeLike
61st would be WSU. UDub tends to rank high (20th).
LikeLike
Colorado is top 25 in value? I need an explanation.
LikeLike
ND will remain “independent” forever. The fight over who gets Texas and OU is higher stakes than the fight over who gets UNC/Duke/UVa.
The emphasis Delany placed on AAU status as part of his recent discussion regarding expansion likely means the Big Ten will cede Texas to the Pac if it insists on having non-AAU Oklahoma as part of any expansion package. Many football-first fans here won’t like hearing that, but from a combined academic/athletic perspective, the B1G/CIC can both be more profitable and wield more clout with Duke/Georgia Tech/North Carolina/Virginia than it can from Oklahoma and Texas (although Texas with Kansas would probably be palatable to conference presidents presuming KU retains its AAU membership)..
LikeLike
Geography is a big issue with UT and the B1G, whereas the PAC12 already deals with it naturally, so it isnt an issue with them. I have a hard time believing that the B1G can peal any of these ACC teams off. GT makes little sense to me, Atlanta is simply never going to be B1G territory. I cant believe that UNC and Duke could ever be separated. The ACC is in a very strong position, and I only can barely see UVA thinking that a move to the B1G would help their brand. That said the last statements out from officials at UVA were very strong about the ACC, although that was during a little crisis the ACC had.
I really see the B1G learning from the early mistakes in announcing realignment and the chaos that ensued. The B1G doesn’t want to totally break the system around itself, and it is going for a managed damage approach. The move to 16 will probably involve schools coming from two different conferences.
LikeLike
The ACC, bringing in less TV money than any other conference, is _not_ in a very strong position. It exists mostly because UNC wants it to exist and a bunch of ACC schools want to be together with UNC.
However, it could offer a ND-style deal to Texas, which would help in the short-run (whether it’s sustainable in the long-run is debatable).
LikeLike
The ACC, bringing in less TV money than any other conference, is _not_ in a very strong position. It exists mostly because UNC wants it to exist and a bunch of ACC schools want to be together with UNC.
However, it could offer a ND-style deal to Texas, which would help in the short-run (whether it’s sustainable in the long-run is debatable).
So each year, five ACC members would play Notre Dame, while five others would play Texas. (Presumably, ND and UT would face each other annually in a non-conference game as part of the deal.) Texas would become the ACC’s 16th member, a nice round number for its men’s and women’s basketball tournaments.
And what of the rest of the Big 12, notably Oklahoma? Without Texas, the league loses a lot of its luster for Norman; it can plead all it wants to the Big Ten, but without AAU status its chances are iffy at best. Unless OU holds its nose and joins the SEC (something it apparently doesn’t want to do), it would have to hope the Pac would change its mind this time around. The rest of the conference (or those that don’t accompany Oklahoma to the Pac) would have to invite the best non-“big five” members available (e.g., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina).
LikeLike
And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games? Does ND want to play UT yearly? Longhorns lose aTm, and now OU (doubt the Sooner’s would schedule them)? Now that the ACC has ND they feel a need to soften their stance toward UT from a couple years ago?
Unless somehow the conference dissolves around them (how?) OU/UT stay or leave together, with siblings.
LikeLike
“And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games?”
That’s not exactly difficult for Texas. Especially if ND wants to play them annually.
I’m quite certain that schools like Houston, Rice, and SMU would be more than willing to play Texas at least half the time. Possibly even as 2-for-1’s. They’d be willing to play the ‘Horn’s late in the year too. Say that 2 games come from there. That’s 5+1+2=8 games already. The Longhorns would only need 4 more early in the year, and I really doubt that they’d have trouble lining up opponents.
LikeLike
Does ND want to play UT yearly?
Probably. ND is making a very hard push to get exposure in the Southwest with its exploding Catholic population. They already have an upcoming six game series with Texas scheduled, are playing Oklahoma in the second half on an H-H this year and are playing Arizona St. this year in Temple and next year in Dallas. Heck, they even played Tulsa 2 years ago.
Longhorns lose aTm, and now OU (doubt the Sooner’s would schedule them)?
I suspect that game stays on the schedule. Unlike the A&M game, the RRS/R was an OOC series for its first 96 years of its existence, so if the OU and UT split it wouldn’t be the same dynamic shift.
More importantly, the RRR is the single most valuable regular season game in all of college football and I doubt either school would be willing to give up that paycheck.
And UT wants to find six or seven OOC games?
Not that hard, especially since ND and OU would likely be annual opponents.
Now that the ACC has ND they feel a need to soften their stance toward UT from a couple years ago?
Makes sense. After all, after the ACC passed on Texas, Swofford also publicly dismissed the possibility of ever adding ND as a partial member.
…
There is also the possibility, that UT would join the ACC as a full member, but be allowed to keep their Tier III rights. Texas doesn’t really mind being in a conference; what they care about is the LHN.
(Of course this is purely academic because I don’t see any chance of it actually occurring)
LikeLike
You may be right, but if OU then lands in the PAC or SEC without OkSU there would be serious bitterness.
I don’t see the ACC doing another special deal. They might as well just put a red light on the porch. FSU and Miami be asking why not them? Another “deal” might deliver to Delany what he covets.
LikeLike
“I don’t see the ACC doing another special deal. They might as well just put a red light on the porch. FSU and Miami be asking why not them? Another “deal” might deliver to Delany what he covets.”
Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it.
You bring up a good point: from the B10’s perspective, Texas and/or OU to the SEC or ACC isn’t all that bad, as that leaves the ACC for the B10 down the road. worst-case scenario for the B10 is Texas and/or OU to the Pac.
LikeLike
Not sure about the PAC. Strengthening the SEC doesn’t directly fracture the ACC. Another special deal involving another super ego might make the B1G look desirable enough in comparison to UVA/UNC. The confluence of COP/C and Delany’s desire (not necessarily Joe FB fan’s). Oddly, what looks like the strongest ACC strengthening move could create the necessary resentment and instability.
LikeLike
ccrider:
My assumption is that the SEC doesn’t want to expand to, say, over 18 schools. If the SEC takes in Texas, OU, and underlings, then, if the core ACC schools ever want to leave, chances are better that they would look north rather than south as the SEC wouldn’t have the capacity.
If the Pac gets Texas, OU, & friends, then the B10 would still have to battle the SEC for UNC and company.
LikeLike
Richard:
The SEC would have taken UT/OU two decades ago, and anytime since. There is no mutual interest. And they aren’t taking the underlings.
The battle always will be over a few specific ACC programs. Where UT lands (if it jumps at all) is almost irrelevant (other than potentially sewing inter conference dissent if its in the ACC with a special deal). And that assumes those ACC schools don’t decide on staying in the ACC regardless.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind is that money is relative. Even the ACC schools, with the playoff and Orange Bowl deals, will be bringing in around $20 million more in 2014 than they were just a couple of years ago. If everything was static with the same relative difference, they might have been more willing to move. They are in a lot better financial position now. Yes, they could be even better in the Big 10, but the pressure to generate more is lessened.
LikeLike
If Oklahoma was willing to come alone (without TX or OSU), they would be in yesterday.
Again. They took Nebraska, knowing its AAU status was kaput. There is no evidence AAU status is a deal breaker for a ‘King’. The CBS article listen OK as one of the five they were seriously considering.
LikeLike
They took Nebraska, knowing its AAU status was kaput.
No they didn’t. The Big Ten had every reason to believe that UNL would survive the expulsion vote. Michigan and Wisconsin had just flipped their votes the Huskers would have (and knowing what they know now I suspect they would change their votes if they had it to do over again).
There is no evidence AAU status is a deal breaker for a ‘King’.
Prior to Nebraska’s admission Jim Delany stated that the Big Ten considered AAU membership part of the Big Ten’s “identity” and Nebraska’s own president has stated that if they weren’t in the AAU at the time of the admission vote they probably would not have been admitted to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between borderline-AAU and far-from-AAU.
In any case, I’m fairly certain that the chances of OU being able to jettison its little brother are about nil, so it’s a moot point anyway.
LikeLike
You can’t seriously believe the Big Ten would cede TX to the Pac if they insisted on bring Oklahoma along. Please tell me you’re not serious. Still waiting to hear how Nebraska skirted this iron curtain.
LikeLike
Still waiting to hear how Nebraska skirted this iron curtain.
Because Nebraska was in the AAU when they were admitted and that is all that mattered.
LikeLike
There would definitely be opposition from some Big Ten schools … whether enough to derail the deal is another question. I think TX/OU would get in, but not without some squawking.
LikeLike
Its a bit odd to read of “the top 18” in a top 20 list, just because #19 and #20 are in neither the SEC nor the Big Ten. The benefit of arbitrary cut-offs like top five, top ten, top twenty is that they ARE arbitrary, rather than tailored to the argument being made.
But, yes, of the Top 10: SEC 5, Big12 2, Big10 2, Notre Dame 1
Of the Top 20: SEC 9, Big12 2, Big10 6, Pac-12 2, Notre Dame 1
As a program value proposition, the TX/OU pair is not just the foundation of the Big12, they are a big chunk of the first floor as well.
On the other hand, though, the value of a program to itself and the value of a program to a conference are two quite different things. With the A&M expansion, the SEC footprint went from a position in one large, rapidly growing demographic region in Florida to two in Florida & Texas. Expanding its footprint into the North Carolina / Virginia area on its northeastern border would be a strategic value that is distinct from the financial value of those programs to their own schools.
LikeLike
TV markets are now a big factor in expansion. The first 5 schools added to the B10 and SEC are in the top 18, the last 3 are all #55+. TxT, OKst, and KSst come in #22-24. Conference revenues depend on the ability to get TV ratings, not local ticket sales or even good football. A bad team like Rutgers with a good market will bring more to other conference members than a prince in a small market.
LikeLike
A bad team like Rutgers with a good market will bring more to other conference members than a prince in a small market.
That’s not always true. The Big XII took WVU over Louisville and Cincinnati even though they had better markets and offered easier travel.
LikeLike
Mitch Daniels talks about D4 http://www.jconline.com/article/20130810/SPORTS020101/308100034/Purdue-football-Purdue-sports-Boilermakers-Mitch-Daniels
LikeLike
Frank, former Illini pitcher Tanner Roark is in the win column for the first time — two scoreless innings as the Nationals beat the Phillies 8-5.
LikeLike
Saeed Blacknall commits to Rutgers.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/08/new_jerseys_top_receiver_saeed_blacknall_commits_to_rutgers.html
LikeLike
Hypothetically speaking, what is to stop UT and say Kansas from announcing they will be joining the BIG in 2025 and start airing their tier 3 content on the BTN now. I know ESPN have separate deals for those schools tier 3, but lets say the BIG agrees to sell their Tier 1 on Espn/ABC instead of Fox in exchange for those tier 3 rights. Would UT and Kansas still be satisfying the GOR since they are still in the conference til 2025 and giving up their Tier 1 and 2 content?
Why would UT and Kansas do this? If it done is say 2017, it allows for a gradual integration into the BIG, secures their spots in the conference and could potentially detonate the conference earlier as schools would be scrambling to fine a future home. The BIG wins as it can air local content in Texas and Kansas on the BTN and has two more national brands to sell on the BTN. Also they can sign a longer term contract in 2017 for added stability with a massive bump in 2025 when the BIG can air tier 1, 2 content of those two schools.
LikeLike
Maybe in the realm of possibility. Chances of Texas & KU proactively abandoning their little brothers are almost nil, however.
LikeLike
In the past and current present, I would agree. However, the SEC with Espn as its publicist is a huge threat to UT that is just beginning to realize. Texas A&M has dominated the headlines since it beat Alabama. Johnny Manziel is the new Tebow, for which Espn is going to talk non stop about. That impacts recruiting. UT’s partnership with Espn has been a failure. This is a pivotal year for UT in that they have to be great or risk falling further behind the SEC hype machine. If that happens and UT becomes an after thought to A&M, I serious doubt the powers that be will render them 2nd class to keep TCU, Tech, and Baylor a float. UT is Texas; for how long is the question.
LikeLike
That is a lot of hype over one good A&M year. Texas has law and medical colleges (and the donations that come from these alums) that A&M does not. I doubt these alums will start supporting A&M. If A&M starts losing the hype will die down.
LikeLike
I am not talking about Alums. I am talking about T-shirt fans and recruits. UT used to have their pick of the litter for Texas football recruits. How long will that last if A&M proves to be more than a 1 year wonder. The longer the SEC retains in dominance the further the other power schools lose a little bit of their prestige. 17-18 year olds are highly impressionable and only care about the now. An espn backed SEC is a threat to all other football schools, even Texas now.
LikeLike
It takes a lot longer than one year. A&M beat Texas 10 out of 11 years in the 80s/early 90s and it didn’t change the long run balance. 17 and 18 year olds are impressionable, but that’s not enough. A&M will narrow the gap on Texas, but not because of the SEC. Simply because of demographics. A&M has a different mix of students now (its not all male as it was in the early 60s and not just ag students and kids who want to play soldier-or actually become one) and they have more than they used to. Around 1980 Texas hit 50,000 students and chose to stay around that number. At that time A&M had just passed 20,000. They grew to 45,000 in the mid-90s and chose to stay at that figure until increasing the last 3 or 4 years.
Some people don’t think FSU and Miami are kings yet and they had two of the greatest runs in history.
LikeLike
I think we can agree that the sports landscape has changed since to 80’s 90’s with the Internet, social media, and sports journalism. There was no news agency with as much power as ESPN then as there is now. Espn from 80’s and 90’s didnt have the influence, and the outright advocacy in its programing, that is does now. I do agree it takes more than a year, though.
LikeLike
As a Rutgers fan who follows their recruiting closely I think I have a little perspective on this. RU was not an option for the better NJ players before Schiano because they had no tradition and no history of winning. In the last 2-3 years many of the better players have been considering and visiting RU (even before the B1G news). Even if they don’t end up going there, RU is talked about like it is a viable option. These 17-18 yo kids have only known RU as a team with moderate success that goes to bowl games, because RU has been doing that since they were 10 or 11.
So, I would agree with the person above that said A+M’s 2012 would not change minds by itself. What Texas needs to worry about is that if this trend continues for another 4-5 years, they will start running into recruits that have no conception that for decades Texas was considered the much bigger program.
LikeLike
Interesting article on DirecTV/Dish.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/dish-network-directv-wall-street-merger-pressure/
LikeLike
RAC getting a $2.4 million makeover for Rutgers’ move to the Big Ten
http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/hoopshaven/2013/08/10/rac-renovations-underway-scoreboard-taken-down/
LikeLike
SIAP. article on FSU and the CFB arms race. no mention of realignment, but it’s in the backdrop.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9543925/florida-state-seminoles-look-level-playing-field-sec-gridiron-their-checkbook
LikeLike
Good article because it clearly explains how FSU needs to keep up with it’s neighbors.
LikeLike
OK, several posts here and elsewhere make this explanation necessary.
ANY discussion that mentions Texas not playing Oklahoma should be immediately labeled as not serious. Texas let Arkansas go without a care. OU sacrificed the yearly Nebraska game to be in the division with Texas. Oklahoma let NU run off to the B1G. Texas let aTm run off to the SEC. Yet the Red River Shootout remains. As much as I dislike both programs, this game is sacrosanct.
LikeLike
I agree, because I think they stay together. If not…
http://www.foxsportswest.com/09/06/11/Stoops-not-bothered-if-Texas-OU-series-e/mobile_landing.html?blockID=560164&tagID=15204
LikeLike
A few days ago, Tony Barnhart wrote a column asking if the Big 5 conferences would pull the plug on guarantee games? See http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/tony-barnhart/23082463/big-five-schools-could-pull-plug-on-guarantee-games-but-will-they
There’s some discussion in the article about how Division 4 teams may opt to play only programs within that division and not play programs outside of it. Obviously, that would only be the 64 programs in the five major conferences plus Notre Dame and perhaps Brigham Young.
An excerpt from the article:
The real leverage the Big Five has moving forward is to quit paying these large guarantees to the bottom half of the FBS and simply limit their nonconference games to other members of those five conferences. It would save several millions per year and, in the new world of the four-team playoff (starting in 2014) where the teams would be picked by a selection committee, it would address the strength of schedule question.
The Big Ten already has announced that it plans to phase out nonconference games against FCS opponents.
At the Pac-12 media days commissioner Larry Scott said that it was time for football to evolve from the concept of the big guys paying the little guys for an easy win.
“I’m not very sympathetic,” Scott said. “I just don’t think that the concept of the buy games is a healthy thing for college football or for fans. I think it’s been a quirk in the system that they’ve benefitted from, and good for them. I certainly don’t feel any sense of entitlement or right they have.”
Now Scott and others have stopped short of saying that the Big Five would only play other Big Five schools if some accommodation is not made. Right now they don’t have to say it, an athletics director told me.
“Everybody knows it [the threat] is out there,” he said.
LikeLike
The real leverage the Big Five has moving forward is to quit paying these large guarantees to the bottom half of the FBS and simply limit their nonconference games to other members of those five conferences. It would save several millions per year…
Well, this implies that the schools with huge stadiums they routinely sell out, such as Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State, would be content to play just six home games a year. Michigan doesn’t “lose several millions per year” on guarantee games: the income from those games vastly outweighs the costs.
…and, in the new world of the four-team playoff (starting in 2014) where the teams would be picked by a selection committee, it would address the strength of schedule question.
I’ll believe this when I see it, e.g,, when a good 9-3 team (with two tough close road losses to strong opponents) makes the playoff over a middling Big Five 11-1 team who didn’t play anybody.
LikeLike
Michigan’s per game ticket revenue has spectator admissions at a little under $43M for seven football games or approx. $6M per game. Deduct a $1M fee for a pay for play opponent (which in the next few years will include BYU, Oregon State, Colorado, Hawaii, UNLV, Ball State, Miami (Ohio) and Appalachian State. Add team travel costs because of one more road game (let’s say around $100K) and the net loss is perhaps $5.1M.
See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf
Could Michigan make up that revenue shortfall? It’d have to come through increased television revenues, higher ticket prices, greater donation levels and more seating. On the latter, there has been an ongoing discussion about expanding the south end of the stadium with more seating, but that also has an expense tied to it. The most likely source for the increased money would be from the television rights as a number of the teams listed above (Hawaii, UNLV, ASU, the two MAC teams) would not be on any future schedule.
The spectator admissions figure also doesn’t include the rental costs of the luxury boxes, so you have to wonder if UM will be able to charge as much for one fewer home game, but with a better overall schedule. In 2016, for example, Michigan’s three non-conference opponents are Colorado, Hawaii and Ball State (all at home). Replace HI and BSU with one road game and one quality home opponent (both against Division 4 opponents) and work from there.
As far as SOS is concerned, if everyone is prohibited from playing current FCS teams and non Division 4 FBS teams, then everyone’s schedules will get relatively better to some degree. Relatively speaking, I don’t know if it’s going to help strength of schedule that much for individual programs.
Will this happen? That’s tough to say. Some sort of reorganization is in the wind and when we asked questions about Division 4 before, the opinion on this board was largely that Division 4 and non-Division 4 teams would continue to play one another both during the regular season and in the bowls because of the revenue question and the desire to get a post-season berth.
Would I like it to happen? Sure. It’d be a lot more interesting to play Arizona State and Tennessee or Virginia and LSU, for example, in 2016 than Hawaii and Ball State.
LikeLike
I do not think that GORs will have much impact on conference transfers. Suppose Kansas jumps to the Big 10, pays the Big 12 exit fee and leaves the Big 12 GOR unchallenged and intact.
Then, from the Big 12 perspective, all of Kansas’ games are nonconference (except KSU, if they continue to play) and half of those are away games. Since a GOR cannot affect the rights of nonsignatory third parties, Kansas can shop around at least some and maybe all of the away games. The most likely buyer would be the Big 10.
Since the Big 12 GOR is in force, at the end of the year, the Big 12 must pay some TV revenue to Kansas, although it might not be a full share. Similarly, the Big 10 must share some of its revenue with Kansas. The net result is that Kansas continues to receive TV revenue, although perhaps somewhat less than before the jump.
The real fun starts when the Big 12’s TV network televises Kansas games. I have no doubt they will love to televise Kansas/Ohio St, Kansas/Michigan, Kansas/Penn St, Kansas/Wisconsin et al. No doubt these games would replace some regular Big 12 games like Baylor/anybody, TCU/anybody. How long the Big 12 would put up with this is anybody’s guess.
By the way, the obvious partner for Kansas is Missouri, past history not withstanding. UT/OU is a nonstarter.
LikeLike
@bob Sykes – The key, though, is that the Big 12 does NOT pay Kansas anything under the GOR in that scenario. It’s specifically stated in the Big 12 bylaws that a withdrawing member receives nothing, including mentioning the GOR specifically (to remove any doubt). That’s why the GOR is considered to be such a powerful retention tool. Unless Kansas is OK with leaving for only a 50% share of Big Ten revenue and/or the Big Ten is willing to pay Kansas a full share for only 50% of its games, the argument for allowing shared rights of a school drops precipitously.
Putting all of this aside, why is the Big Ten going to be willing to do all of this for Kansas when it would never let Notre Dame keep its own TV contract with NBC as a hypothetical conference member? It’s really the same ultimate effect – the Big Ten doesn’t control any home games of the team that it’s adding.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
I do not think that GORs will have much impact on conference transfers. Suppose Kansas jumps to the Big 10, pays the Big 12 exit fee and leaves the Big 12 GOR unchallenged and intact.
Well, they have already. Name one school that has left a conference while a GOR was in effect. You can’t. The two leagues that implemented GORs the most recently (the Big XII and the ACC) both said that it would stop realignment in its tracks. So far they’re right.
In theory, a GOR is just like any other contract: breakable at some price. But so far it’s a price no one has been willing to pay. Kansas isn’t so valuable to the Big Ten that the league would be willing to do without KU’s home games. And the Big Ten isn’t so much more valuable than the Big XII, that KU would be willing to accept only a revenue share from its road games.
LikeLike
I agree with you that the benefits of adding most Schools do not justify breaking the GOR over (Kansas included). But, if the B10 could add Texas, the Long-Term Economics involved, might create a special case, where you throw the rules out the window. For example: The B10, is willing to allow John’s Hopkins to join under very favorable terms to JHU (such as keeping their ESPNU TV Contract (so a premier Conference Game such as Maryland @ JHU will be on ESPNU instead of the B10 Network)). Why are they doing it? It is NOT about Lacrosse… It is money. They are willing to take the chance they can lock their Research $$$$$ into the CIC. A B10 Lacrosse Conference is simply gravy to the B10 . Simply put, I do not see UT wanting to join, but if they did, stuff like GOR’s and travel issues would be thrown out real quick.
LikeLike
I don’t think expanding with a GOR school will necessarily cost as much as seems to be assumed. Let’s just consider conference football games to make it easy (and understanding that if it doesn’t work there it doesn’t work). The “current” B1G slate would include 14×8/2 or 56 conference games. If the B1G adds UT and OU we would have 16×8/2 or 64 conference games a year, but 8 of those would be UT and OU home games owned by the big12. But the B1G does not lose any games, its just that there are 8 conference games a year that a historical B1G team plays in Norman or Austin that are owned by the big12, and 8 games where UT and OU plays at a historical B1G venue that the B1G owns.
So the first question is, are the 8 games gained of more value than the 8 games lost. The 8 games lost are not the 8 games at Norman and Austin, but the conference games that would have been played by the teams that visit those places on given weekend. Assuming the B1G doesn’t try to game the schedule, these would be typical B1G matchups. Something like OSU/Illinois (best and worst) or Penn St./MSU (two midling teams). From the novelty factor alone, I think UT/Penn St or OU/MSU is more compelling, a UT/Illinois is slightly less compelling nationally, and a OU/OSU is a hugely compelling matchup.
So despite not owning the 8 UT and OU home games a year, value is created. Some people will have a hard time with this, and get hung up on the value “left on the table” with the UT and OU home games. What is the big12 going to do with these games? Are they going to let the networks show B1G matchups instead of giving loyal conference teams exposure? This to me would seem a recipe for the remaining big12 teams to bail out as soon as possible. The B1G would control scheduling, and at least for a few years you could see some less than compelling matchups, and they could be scheduled on top of each other to reduce value. It would seem the b12 would be willing to negotiate these rights back to the B1G at some discount.
An interesting scenario would be if the same network held rights to both big12 and B1G games. My guess is they would be in favor of such a move, as it would create on average more marketable matchups.
Because of BTN, B1G has an additional degree of freedom to realize value created. If the Tier One/Two networks don’t realize the value created with the addition, the new games could just go on BTN. There would undoubtedly be an immediate increase in BTN carriage in Texas and Oklahoma, and somewhat nationally with these brands, with their fans following the new conference. So the BTN stands to have an immediate favorable impact.
The bottom line is that this deal would create net value. Anybody that has negotiated business deals knows that net value creation deals are the easiest to do, easier than lose-lose or zero sum deals. Furthermore, the B1G has a few levers it can use to reduce the value that the big12 would get if no deal is done. The question to me is not if UT/OU is doable with the GOR, but if UT/Kansas is.
LikeLike
If the B1G adds UT and OU we would have 16×8/2 or 64 conference games a year, but 8 of those would be UT and OU home games owned by the big12.
I understand your point, but the math is wrong. Starting next year, the Big Ten plays nine conference games per team per year, not eight. You’ve also ignored the OOC: most years, UT and OU have two at home, one on the road.
In total, then, the Big Ten (and therefore the schools) would lose the revenue of the combined 13 (on average) home games that OU and UT play every year, not the eight that you assumed.
The B1G would control scheduling, and at least for a few years you could see some less than compelling matchups, and they could be scheduled on top of each other to reduce value.
You assume the schools would agree to this. If you’re Oklahoma, do you want a steady diet of home games against the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, and Rutgers, with all of your desirable games played away, until the GOR issue is litigated?
LikeLike
You are right on the math. I was trying to use round numbers to illustrate the point you got, the B1G is not giving up the games in Austin and Norman, rather it is giving up the random historical B1G matchups that did not occur, that on average would be less compelling nationally. Thus value is created if the national brand is strong enough.
If Oklahoma and Texas are making the jump I think they have to be prepared to go on the “steady diet.” It the big12 perceives unity, they are are more likely to negotiate.
I can imagine should this event occur the immediate emotional reaction in the big12 would be to stick it to UT and OU. Eventually cooler heads will prevail, and they will realize that the goal should be to put together a viable conference in the end. Their position is not that strong, and I guess that is the point I am trying to make. If the B1G takes UT and OU, they are not left wtih a national football brand, but they do have some good programs that create interesting matchups for the casual college football fan. They would probably be able to swing a decent network contract, but at this point the prisoner dilemma starts to kick in. If somebody gets a better offer (maybe TTech, Kansas and/or Iowa St to PacX, Baylor and/or OkSt to SEC, and any to the ACC).
One strategy could be is that UT/OU announce in a contractually binding way that they are leaving the conference in 5 years and put this scenario in play. That allows their inclusion to be valued in the new network contracts, shortens the exposure to the GOR, and lets the other teams have a chance to sweat a bit and be tempted to bolt themselves if given a good offer. If enough teams bolt there is no GOR, and nobody wants to be the last team hanging onto it.
LikeLike
Does anybody other than maybe The Dude and other fringe internet looney toons actually believe that UT and OU are going to join the B1G?
LikeLike
I would be skeptical that the Dude himself thinks it … but he moved his blog to its new home just before Power5 conference realignment hit the pause button, and he could well need some hits, which idle speculation on the future home for Air Force Lacrosse just isn’t going to deliver (I’m guessing they work out something with Atlantic Sun).
Given the likely period of the coming Big Ten agreement, and the known period of the Big12 GOR, which will threaten Power5 conference realignment hitting “play” again in the early Twenties, it could well be prudent to talk to Texas to get an idea whether there are some terms for a potential Big10 broadcast deal which Texas would look on with pleasure or displeasure.
LikeLike
yeah, I guess 2026 will be here before you know it, right?
LikeLike
Pac-12 taking on DirecTV
http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/directv-pac-12-networks-switch-1200576907/
LikeLike
The problem I see in this is the PAC 12 doesn’t have the fan base as the B1G or the SEC. Most people out here in CA are fans of which team is winning and most have no problem waiting for the Sunday paper to see the final scores. Hard to get any kind of leverage with that.
LikeLike
SEC adds Birmingham and Shreveport bowls to its 2014 lineup.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/246353/sec-announces-agreements-with-nine-bowl-games.aspx
#1 CFP Semi (sometimes 2)
#2 Sugar
#2a Orange (share spot with B1G & ND)
#3 Cap One
#4 – #9 Pool – Outback, Music City, Gator, Charlotte, Houston & Liberty
#10 Birmingham
#11 Shreveport
LikeLike
ACC and AAC could share the opposite slots in the Birmingham and Shreveport bowls.
I’d say that’s probable.
LikeLike
Why would Kansas and Texas sign away GOR for 12 years or whatever if they wanted to turn around and leave? Mizzou knew they wanted to move on to bigger and better things so they made sure to get out before signing away GOR.
LikeLike
i’m not believing that TX and OU are moving, but just to answer the question:
things change quickly.
What was desirable, necessary, seemed good, etc., in 2011 maybe isn’t anymore in 2013. Factors: A&M not merely succeeding, but rocketing while UTAustin flounders and sinks, O’Bannon case and all the potentials, CFP, the $$ gap between B1G/SEC and all others finally sinking in, SEC Network dawning (further nurturing A&M), Div IV dawning, B1G adding two more AAU universities, ND to the ACC partially, etc.
Summary: UT Austin being left behind.
Unknown=Behind-The-Scenes-Factors: Dodds probably has many envious detractors within the UT structure; for all we know, long knives have been drawn. Factors: apparent failure of LHN, Mack’s horrible last 3 years; serious hit to UT’s general good reputation with Mizzu, CO, NE and A&M all trashing UT on their way out; A&M AND Baylor (Baylor !!) winning Heisman’s while Mack didn’t even recruit the two QBs; OU spanking UT in last three games, Dodds’ bed-buddy BXII Commissioner getting replaced with a less compliant version, etc.
All told: many in Austin may be rethinking options.
As for Kansas: please! they would have signed away all their grandmothers to keep a spot in a P5 conference. IIRC, they gave TX all their exit fees from NE and CO just to make sure TX and OU wouldn’t go to the PAC-10/12/16. You can hardly criticize a drowning man for grabbing whatever rope is at hand.
LikeLike
Agreed on KU, but I was truly surprised when Texas signed GOR. I just don’t get why they’d do that unless they want to stay in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Because they do want to stay in the Big 12. Nothing he has mentioned would have any effect on the thinking. Dodds is as connected as they come. He would know about Division IV and O’Bannon. As for the $ gap, Texas will be making more on media than anyone else for a long time to come. His explanation of why UT might change their mind demonstrates why they wouldn’t.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I was truly surprised when Texas signed GOR. I just don’t get why they’d do that unless they want to stay in the Big 12.
All schools are, to an extent, conflicted. If there’s a better league, they want to be part of it. But if there’s no better league, they want to ensure the stability of the one they’re in.
I wish I had a dollar every time a school said, “We’re totally committed to ____,” while other options on the side. I’d also take a dollar every time a league commissioner said, “We’re very happy with ___ members,” while negotiating to add more.
No school yet has left a conference that had a GOR. But a number of schools have voted for increased exit fees, and only shortly thereafter left the conference, or pursued the possibility of leaving.
Personally, I don’t think Texas will be on the block before the 2020s, if at all. But it is not necessarily inconsistent to sign a GOR, and then have second thoughts.
LikeLike
Texas will be joining the Pac12, not the B1G. There are several reasons for this:
1. The Pac12 needs Texas more than the B1G does. The Pac12 is short of football kings, compared to the B1G and the SEC; and its only hope for expansion is to take B12 teams. On the other hand, the B1G already has four kings; and it has more expansion options than the Pac12. As a result, the Pac12 is more motivated than the B1G to accommodate to Texas.
2. The AAU requirement will make it very difficult for Texas to bring any friends to the B1G. This would make Texas an isolated island in the B1G. Texas would be happier taking three friends to the Pac12.
3. The addition of Texas to the west division of the B1G (with a balancing addition in the east) would have a negative impact on the timetable. In contrast, the addition of Texas (plus three friends) to the Pac12 would produce a very nice Pac16 timetable.
4. It is theoretically possible that the B1G might let Texas bring Kansas (AAU) or Oklahoma (king), but both these schools would find it difficult (impossible?) to go without their instate partners. There would be no such difficulty if Texas goes to the Pac12.
5. The all-for-one comradery of the B1G might not be a comfortable home for the Texas ego. It will probably prefer being in the Pac16 will three friends.
The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.
Disproportionate scheduling in the Pac16 would be very popular with the inland four and the California four (who would rather play Arizona and ASU than Texas Tech and OSU). The Texas four have no history of regular games in California, so it’s not a big problem for them. And PNW four are in the same division with California, so they should be happy (even though they get more crossovers with the Texas 4 and fewer with the inland 4).
LikeLike
I don’t like to make definitive statements about events that are probably 10+ years in the future, but most of these arguments make some sense.
In addition, the Pac-12 is stronger in baseball than the Big Ten, and UT really cares about that sport. Baseball wouldn’t drive the decision on its own, but it’s another plus in the Pac’s corner.
Also, the comparative lack of kings in the west doesn’t just motivate the Pac; it motivates UT and Oklahoma too. All other things being equal, they’d rather be in a league they can win more often.
LikeLike
and, given the historical friendly relationship between the B1G and the PAC, I think the B1G would not mind TX +3 going to the PAC. At minimum, that would certainly be better than TX going to the SEC.
and think what ratings the Rose Bowl would get with TX-Mich or OK-Neb or PSU-TX. the two tOSU-TX reg. season games a few years back were ratings gold. imagine the Rose Bowl ratings.
LikeLike
Do we know the PAC offer for the group would be repeated? They are the ones that we see could, but would they? They did (supposedly) deny OU/OkSU that could have compelled a decision by UT, and rumor has it the ACC “deal” wasn’t really there.
I’m not sure it ever happens. If it was going to there was no better opportunity than 2010. I have a hard time thinking UT really believed a single school channel could either generate the needed inventory, or even if it did that carriage would be anything but modest and predominantly in state. I think it’s possible they took ESPN’s money to not do something they didn’t want to do anyway.
LikeLike
UT is disappointed in carriage so far, but they couldn’t pass up $15 million. At that price, ESPN is charging more than many cable companies are willing to pay ($.35 is number that gets thrown around as what they are asking). I think both were counting on high school games to fill the gaps and create more general interest in the channel around the state. They could have filled every Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
LikeLike
I doubt Dodd’s/UT didn’t understand the unlikelihood of HS games on a university specific and branded channel passing muster. I’m surprised at ESPN’s lack of understanding.
.35 for tier three (plus) of only one school? BTN should be $5, or more with the power of consolidation. This is why LHN isn’t market valued. Do I blame them for taking it? They would probably have realized nearly increased amount from a P16 primary contract, with the P16N still to come and with vastly greater marketing leverage. So, no. I don’t blame them. Because, as I said, I think they had decided not to go anyway.
LikeLike
Do we know the PAC offer for the group would be repeated?
We clearly don’t know it would be repeated. But something the parties have already shown an inclination to do is a safer guess than something they have never entertained. And the fundamentals are obvious: if the Pac wants to expand, there is only one direction to go.
I’m not sure it ever happens. If it was going to there was no better opportunity than 2010. I have a hard time thinking UT really believed a single school channel could either generate the needed inventory, or even if it did that carriage would be anything but modest and predominantly in state.
Bear in mind, some people thought the Big Ten Network was a fool’s errand. For that matter, some people thought that no one would buy books over the Internet, and look at Amazon now.
So it’s not crazy that Texas thought that LHN revenues, plus the Big XII’s sweetheart deal with ESPN, plus being the king of a smaller castle, was a better bet than the uncertainty of a Pac-16 and regular games on the west coast.
If the LHN is a flop (it certainly seems like one now), the calculus changes.
LikeLike
It’s so far off that it’s useless to try to guess. We’re talking 2026 here folks.
That said looking at the landscape as it is in 2013 I’d say Pac 12 makes the most sense, but it could go a lot of different ways.
LikeLike
I have said it before, and I will say it again, if UT and OU would want to join the B10, they would be welcomed with open arms.
What I think will happen, is everyone will wait to see how things like O’Bannon turn out, as well as what will the economic climate be, and will certain teams move up (for example UNLV if they get their New Stadium), while other teams fall deeper into the gutter ( Washington State comes to mind), and still others decide to drop football due to economics?
I do not see the Big 10 dropping a school (Penn State (Sandusky) & Nebraska (no AAU), could have been tossed but they were not. In fact, Maryland & Rutgers were added, because they were afraid the Nitts might leave). But I could see a Wazzu, Wake Forest, or a Boston College being thrown out if they do not start to invest in the program (BC in particular). Why BC? They have no Conference Tradition (Unlike Wake), so I can imagine the ACC is not exactly happy with BC investing all their resources in Hockey, while living like pikers off the North Carolina’s, Florida State’s, and the Clemson’s of the Conference.
LikeLike
Power conference history of expelling schools:
Once. And that school got back in. [assumes BE qualifies as a power conference]
UNLV moves up to where? And because of a stadium? While the creation D4 is intended to curb just that?
The ACC doesn’t like having exposure in New England? How about ESPN?
LikeLike
Does what the PAC did to Idaho qualify as expulsion?
LikeLike
No. The PCC disbanded over a pay for play scandles at Cal, UCLA, USC, and UW. They weren’t invited into the new AAWU that grew from five into the PAC 8 (PCC had ten from ’29 until ’50). Idaho suffered the fate that worries ISU, Wake, etc. when the demise of their conference is forecast.
LikeLike
True. Though it should be noted that the PAC does claim the PCC’s history as its own and all other PCC schools at the time of dissolution were invited back within 3 years so the effect was the same as expulsion…
LikeLike
Unless you’re arguing a new conference forming with a new set of rules can’t include groups of former conference mates, its irrelevant. I’d suggest the SWC/Big8 merger is a better example of what you’re talking about. Several got left behind, but I wouldn’t say expelled, when many SWC members were rejoined in a new conference.
LikeLike
My issue (and why it could be considered borderline expulsion) is that the “new” conference claimed the PCC’s history as its own.
The best analog I can think of would be if the C7 had voted to dissolve the Big East, then formed a conference without UConn, Cincy and USF but still claimed the Big East history.
I agree it wouldn’t be expulsion, but it would be very close.
LikeLike
Frug:
Had to look up a bit of history to confirm what I’d heard and read.
The PCC breakup was not a move to improve athletic conditions for some (as the SWC did intentionally, and the Big 8 was an enabler). Quite the contrary. It was presidential, academic, inter and intra school fighting at the top.
“The first major reaction came from the University of California system. Robert Sproul, president of the University of California, along with the chancellors of Berkeley and UCLA, drafted a “Five Point Plan”, emphasizing academic eligibility standards, setting the two UC campuses apart from the PCC and laying the groundwork for their departure. For Sproul the PCC dispute was not just about athletics; at stake was the ideal of a unified University of California that enjoyed statewide support. This ideal collided with aspirations of UCLA alumni who believed that Sproul’s vision would always favor the Berkeley campus at the expense of the younger UCLA campus.”
Note that UCLA’s mascot originally was a bear cub.
“Oregon State College president August Leroy Strand wrote, “The reasons for California and UCLA dropping out are as different as night and day… the significance of the whole affair was the union of Berkeley and UCLA… admissions and scholarship had nothing to do with the withdrawals . . . the marriage of this desire on the part of Berkeley with the known ambitions and necessities of its sister institution has produced a bastard that has the bard of a purebred but the innards and hair of a mongrel.”
They may have been barred, as the other three initially were, “but unlike Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State, Idaho did not pursue AAWU admission, and competed as an independent before becoming a charter member of the Big Sky Conference in 1963.”
PCC had fallen apart by 1957 but didn’t dissolve until ’59. Independent was far more viable then. Arguably OSC’s (since people tend to think of OSU/WSU as charity cases) best years were during that turbulent period. ’57 Rose Bowl, ’62 Liberty Bowl, Rose Bowl again ’65 upon entering AAWU (which when formed had contracted with the RB), Mel Counts led BB success, Terry Baker (the only Heisman winner to also play in the final four). Regaining the last three was to strengthen and improve the AAWU.
As there were now eight schools, and all were former members together in the PCC it seems not unreasonable to “claim” that history – it actually was their’s. Idaho wasn’t expelled, although there were expulsion votes involving others. Within the AAWU “Tensions were high between UCLA and Stanford, as Stanford had voted for UCLA’s expulsion from the PCC.”
LikeLike
In fact, Maryland & Rutgers were added, because they were afraid the Nitts might leave
Holy, over statement Batman!
All that Barry Alvarez (the source of that supposed fact) said was that Delaney told the conference presidents that without Eastern expansion “someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league.” At no point has anyone ever suggested the Big Ten was actually afraid Penn St. would leave the conference.
LikeLike
All that Barry Alvarez (the source of that supposed fact) said was that Delaney told the conference presidents that without Eastern expansion “someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league.” At no point has anyone ever suggested the Big Ten was actually afraid Penn St. would leave the conference.
You may consider Barry Alvarez a weak source, though I don’t know why you would disbelieve him. Taking him at his word, it sounds like the conference did indeed fear, that at some point Penn State might be tempted to leave. It was not a fear in imminent danger of coming true, but it was a fear nevertheless.
Some fans on message boards did seriously suggest that the Big Ten ought to kick out Penn State after the Sandusky scandal. I thought that was complete nonsense, and apparently the league thought so too. Far from kicking them out, Delany went out and got two more teams to solidify their membership.
Clearly the Big Ten believes (as I do) that Penn State, long-term, is one of its most valuable assets.
LikeLike
Kicking PSU out would have hurt the Big Ten more than Penn State and you are right some message board fans called for it. But Penn State is the bridge out of the Midwest to the east coast for the BIG. The program has been down since the mid-90’s and will continue to muddle along with the sanctions, but its value is unquestioned. The ACC would be waiting with open arms.
LikeLike
And Penn State isn’t a one-note athletic department. While its men’s basketball team is more often than not a lost cause, PSU has a solid women’s basketball program, is a blue-blood in wrestling and both men’s and women’s volleyball (with NCAA titles in all three of these sports), and is perennially in the top 10 of the Directors’ Cup. It’s a genuine athletic powerhouse.
LikeLike
I didn’t say Alvarez was a weak source or that I didn’t believe him; I just pointed out that nothing he said indicates the Big Ten was actually afraid that Penn St. would leave.
LikeLike
Interesting points but disagree on a few of them.
1. Agreed that the PAC maybe more motivated to bring in UT since there are no other big Tim expansion options for that conference.
2. AAU requirement would still allow Kansas and if Oklahoma was the price to get UT, I wouldn’t doubt that the BIG would think very hard and probably accept. Also, you are assuming that UT wants to brings friends along. If they are leaving the Big 12, that means they are trying to leave their friends.
3. No idea what timetable you are talking about.
4. The PAC would not necessarily be taking OSU or Kansas State either unless they had to. If it was UT, Tech, OU, and OSU maybe, but I am sure the PAC would love to drop OSU for Kansas. Also if you think that Berkley and Stanford are any less academically snooty as the BIG schools, think again.
5. Agreed that the equal partnership might not be to UT’s liking but don’t think for one second that UT is coming into the PAC and bullying USC and the California blue bloods in their own conference.
Now the counter argument:
1. Texas won’t be going to the PAC because of the time zone difference. The PAC receives less media attention because it is on the West Coast and two times zones behind Texas and 3 behind the East, where the big time media outlets are located. Yes they could play local schools like those they bring and Colorado and Utah but then why leave the Big 12. Also the two time zone difference would be huge for nonrevenue sports.
2. The main hub of political power, media coverage, finance, and advertising are located on the East Coast. It is why the Dallas Cowboys refused to be put into the west division of the NFC. Jerry Jones knows that by playing in NY, Washington, and to a lesser extent Philadelphia his team gets maximum exposure. The south is growing but it will take over 100 years for the power and infrastructure of this country to migrate out of the East Coast megalopolis if it ever does at all. Why would Texas chance getting less access to that power by going West?
I think Texas ends up in the BIG or ACC.
LikeLike
“Also if you think that Berkley and Stanford are any less academically snooty as the BIG schools, think again.”
That’s not the issue. The Pac doesn’t have an academic consortium, so Stanford and Berkeley aren’t sharing their academic resources or reputation with Oregon St. or WSU (and why they were willing to take OKSt. and TTech last time).
LikeLike
The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.
The rotating quads concept also could work.
Southwest: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Four Corners: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Golden State: California, Southern Cal, Stanford, UCLA
Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Year A paired quads: Southwest-Four Corners, Golden State-Northwest
Year B paired quads: Southwest-Golden State, Four Corners-Northwest
Year C paired quads: Southwest-Northwest, Four Corners-Golden State
With a 9-game schedule, teams would play one opponent from each of the other two quads they aren’t paired with.
So the non-California teams would be assured of two games in California once every three years, in addition to one every other year.
LikeLike
They already play nine, and access to CA is already limited for some. I’m not sure games in TX would be an acceptable trade, and I’m sure UT doesn’t want many games in the NW.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“3. The addition of Texas to the west division of the B1G (with a balancing addition in the east) would have a negative impact on the timetable. In contrast, the addition of Texas (plus three friends) to the Pac12 would produce a very nice Pac16 timetable.”
What timetable? What negative effect?
“4. It is theoretically possible that the B1G might let Texas bring Kansas (AAU) or Oklahoma (king), but both these schools would find it difficult (impossible?) to go without their instate partners. There would be no such difficulty if Texas goes to the Pac12.”
Unless, of course, the P12 refuses to admit one of them.
“5. The all-for-one comradery of the B1G might not be a comfortable home for the Texas ego. It will probably prefer being in the Pac16 will three friends.”
I think UT would see the other kings as a comfortable fit. They understand how kings think.
“The biggest impediment to adding Texas+3 to the Pac12 is the reluctance of the inland schools (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU) to be stuck in a division with Texas+3 and to lose their regular games in California. However, this could be mitigated by giving the four inland schools a disproportionate number of crossover games in California (with Texas+3 getting fewer crossovers in California). This would be similar to the (parity) scheduling in the B1G, where kings have a disproportionate number of crossovers with kings.”
16 teams with 9 games means 7 division games and 2 crossovers to split over 8 schools (25%). An equal share would be 50% vs CA and 50% vs the pacific NW. How are they going to split them instead? 75% CA and 25% PNW for the inland schools?
Right now they get a 5/4 schedule.
2 LA schools – 100%
2 SF schools – 33%
4 PNW schools – 83%
They’d be fine playing the PNW schools less, but not the LA schools. No disproportionate scheduling plan will let them play the LA schools annually.
“Disproportionate scheduling in the Pac16 would be very popular with the inland four and the California four (who would rather play Arizona and ASU than Texas Tech and OSU). The Texas four have no history of regular games in California, so it’s not a big problem for them. And PNW four are in the same division with California, so they should be happy (even though they get more crossovers with the Texas 4 and fewer with the inland 4).”
A big part of UT and OU joining would be to play the CA schools. They have no desire to play the PNW schools.
LikeLike
Brian wrote: ” No disproportionate scheduling plan will let them play the LA schools annually.”
It is quite possible for the inland four (Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado) to play an LA school every year. Just assign one of their crossovers to LA (UCLA one year and USC the next) and use the other crossover to cover the other six teams in the coastal division.
LikeLike
Yes, schools plural. I said playing both LA schools since that guarantees a game in LA each season. That’s very important for them in recruiting.
LikeLike
Nice post, Steven.
I have some disagreements, though that come out of a difference in opinion on what the B!G and PAC can do now.
I think the B1G appears to effectively checkmated on a large expansion to 18-20 for the next 10+ years due to the GOR deals. I don’t think they (or the Pac-12 or ACC) want to challenge those.
I do think the B1G could expand to 16 (UConn+Vandy? Missou+ Vandy? There are a few options) to get a bigger TV deal in the last days of Cable.
I do agree that the Pac-12 can take OSU and Tech where the B1G won’t…. and that could make both OU and UT’s lives easier… but there is still the GOR issue. So unless you are talking 10+ years down the road — to a time where all the power conferences have equal shots at the Big 12 elite — I cannot see this Pac-12 plan you are describing having any shot.
Now I do agree that the PAC-12 is in the driver’s seat as far as UT goes. (I believe if the Pac-12 had invited OU and OSU, UT would have followed with Tech on Pac-12 terms. IMO, The PAC leadership simply blinked first.)
To me, the only path that can break a one of the two lower tier power conferences before the GOR deals run their course would be for the PAC-12 to eat the Big 12.
To do this, the PAC either on it’s own (or with assistance from the Big 12, ACC, and/or the SEC) will need to offer 8/10 Big 12 schools homes — if those 8 vote to dissolve Big 12. I see that as UT’s “get out of the GOR” escape plan and the reason there is no 11th or 12th school in the Big 12.
I think that would be the only “safe” way to kill a GOR deal (specifically the Big 12′s) and even then some special concessions/payouts/scheduling deals would have to be made to Baylor and the other school left behind.
The Pac-12 could add 8 Big 12 members and have the old Pac10 as the Pacific division and the newbies as the SW division. Everyone gets their money and can live with that price.
The PAC could work a deal with another conference to assist. (I am sure if such a plan happened the PAC would want to look at Rice if they could free up one of their 8 slots. Rice would never be a Big 10 candidate, but they kinda fit this kind of Pac-20.)
The ACC could consider taking West Virginia.
The SEC could consider taking West Virginia, OSU, and maybe even KSU to give Missou and Arkansas schools to play.
The Big 10 could consider a Kansas+ Missouri package for 16. My take is that they may just not be good enough academically or valueable enough, but who knows.
But even if they don’t, the PAC-12 could add UT, Tech, TCU, OU, OSU, Kansas, KSU, and ISU as a package and that could be that.
I think they are the only conference that could do that.
—tobi
LikeLike
Kansas & Missouri to Big Ten
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas & Texas Tech to Pac-12
Cincinnati, Tulsa & West Virginia to SEC
UConn (Full-Member) & Navy (Football Only) to ACC
That’s how I think it’s going to go down. I believe that the Big 12 is going to dissolve. The ACC move would be lateral as Navy would hold onto Notre Dame’s spot if they ever decide to join a conference in football. Navy wouldn’t count towards the 5-game schedule either. UConn would solidify the college hoops side as well. The SEC move would get them into Ohio, Oklahoma & Pennsylvania recruiting grounds, plus Tulsa (#89) & Cincinnati (#139) are good academic schools though West Virginia (#165) would be the lowest ranked school in the SEC, it brings an extremely strong college athletic brand with a strong fan-base.
LikeLike
I think Kansas & Missouri would be a great fit for the B1G. Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri have a storied history together and Missouri also has a history with Illinois. It would be nice to see them all playing together in the B1G. However, I don’t think it will happen.
First there is the problem of Kansas leaving KSU. Unless KSU has a reasonable landing spot, Kansas may be unable to break free. However, that is a minor problem compared to the difficulty of getting Missouri.
Intially, Missouri might have preferred the B1G to the SEC, but having been rejected by the B1G, Missouri has now embraced the SEC.
Even if Missouri has a rough time in the SEC and never has a winning season in conference, I don’t think they will go running to the B1G.
Missourians pride themselves in being stalwart, conservative and noncredulous. I expect them to cling stubbornly to the SEC, no matter what is offered by the B1G.
LikeLike
KU and MO would be 2/3 lowest ranked academic schools if added.
KU and MO would be 2/4 smallest enrollments if added.
KU and MO are both #16 schools. The BIG would not add both in a 2 team expansion.
LikeLike
not true, MU wouldn’t be bottom 4 in enrollment. Higher enrollment than Northwestern, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa, and not too far from Michigan and Purdue. Also middle of the pack as far as state population among B1G states. Slightly above average if you include Kansas.
LikeLike
ok, 2/5 smallest enrollments.
Wikipedia has as follows:
NW———8000 undergrads, 19000 total
NEB——–19000/25000
Kansas—-20000/29000
Missouri—27000/35000
Purdue—-30000/39000
Last I saw, Maryland and Rutgers would be similiar to Purdue.
Point is, MD, Rytgers, and Purdue are much better schools than MO.
That said, I still think the BIG should have added MO over Neb.
But I don’t think Kansas and MO together is realistic, even apart from the SEC and GOR issues.
Michigan–28000/43000
LikeLike
Northwestern total enrollment 19k
Nebraska total enrollment 25k
Kansas total enrollment 29k
Iowa total enrollment 31k
Missouri total enrollment 35k
Maryland total enrollment 37k
Purdue total enrollment 39k
Point is Missouri’s not really out side the range of the B1G as far as enrollment.
Also state population Missouri ranks ahead of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maryland, and nearly tied with Indiana.
Academics Missouri is AAU, and, at #69 in the country ranks ahead of #93 Nebraska, #100 Kansas, and #96 Indiana in total reasearch and isn’t terribly far off from #57 Rutgers, #55 Michigan State, and #52 Purdue.
Missouri is much closer to fitting in with the B1G as an academic institution than Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Obviously some of the ACC gems like Virginia and North Carolina are better schools. But if you take those off the table then Missouri is about as good as the B1G could have done. Too late now though.
LikeLike
oops, left out Oklahoma’s research ranking: #130.
LikeLike
The SEC move would get them into Ohio, Oklahoma & Pennsylvania recruiting grounds, plus Tulsa (#89) & Cincinnati (#139) are good academic schools though West Virginia (#165) would be the lowest ranked school in the SEC, it brings an extremely strong college athletic brand with a strong fan-base.
The SEC doesn’t have trouble recruiting anywhere it wants. It’s not going to take the second-best school in Ohio and the third-best school in Oklahoma. We already know the SEC has no interest in WV. Cincinnati was already rejected by the Big XII and the ACC.
The SEC is sitting pretty at 14. They never need to expand again. If they do, they won’t settle for anything less than the crown jewels. Taking Tulsa is an AAC type of move.
LikeLike
I don’t see the SEC expanding just for the sake of expanding. They did consider WVU when they decided on Missouri, but that was for #14. If WVU was available, they might take them as a #16. But the SEC will need someone they really want as a #15 before they expand and that list is probably pretty short-Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and Virginia Tech. All of those schools are locked up by GORs for a decade or more.
LikeLike
I agree: WV isn’t a totally crazy move for the SEC, the way Tulsa or Cincinnati would be. With the right 15th team, conceivably WV could be the 16th.
It would have to be a situation where a 15th team they really want is available, and WV is the best 16th team around.
LikeLike
Here’s how I could see it playing out
PAC 16
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
SEC
Kansas State
West Virginia
B1G
Kansas
UConn
ACC
Houston
Tulane
LikeLike
The SEC would sooner stay at 14 than take WVU and KSU. WVU and KSU add nothing of value to the SEC. The SEC would expand for UNC, Duke, Virginia, and maybe Oklahoma, not much else. Why divide up the pie for weak additions and pay everyone less? Not going to happen.
LikeLike
The SEC would sooner stay at 14 than take WVU and KSU.
I agree with Andy. The flaw of all these expansion proposals posted since yesterday, is that they all assume that the power conferences would agree to take schools they don’t want, just to ensure that the whole Big XII lands safely somewhere.
It also assumes that all the conferences would arrive at an even 16 members. The power conferences have never had the same number of members. They reach independent decisions according to their own self-interest. No one will force them to take teams they don’t want, just to get up to the same number as everybody else.
The SEC doesn’t want KSU or WV. The ACC doesn’t want Houston or Tulane. The Big Ten doesn’t want UConn, and if it wants Kansas, they would have to be paired with a solid #15.
The one solid idea here is TX/TT/OU/OSU to the Pac-16, because that was a move most of the parties were willing to make, before Texas torpedoed it. But if that happens, it will be the orphaned schools’ problem to find leagues to play in. The SEC is not going to bail out K-State, out of the goodness of its heart.
LikeLike
The one solid idea here is TX/TT/OU/OSU to the Pac-16, because that was a move most of the parties were willing to make, before Texas torpedoed it. But if that happens, it will be the orphaned schools’ problem to find leagues to play in. The SEC is not going to bail out K-State, out of the goodness of its heart.
For the likes of Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Christian and West Virginia, this is probably where the American comes in. Its goal is seemingly to replace the Big 12 as the #5 conference in the event of its implosion. As of fall 2015 (assuming none of its members are taken elsewhere), the AAC will have Connecticut, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, Central Florida, South Florida, Houston, Southern Methodist, Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina and Navy (football-only). Four of the five Big 12 emigres would create a 16-team football conference, and the fifth could partner with Kansas in another conference.
Or things could go in the opposite direction if the “other six” of the Big 12 stayed together. They could pick and choose the most attractive members from the AAC (e.g., Cincinnati, Connecticut, Central Florida, South Florida, Tulane and East Carolina) and both keep the Big 12 name and revive the CCG.
Either way would result in a somewhat solid #5 conference, likely securing status in any prospective Division 4, and put the kibosh on some of the more outlandish scenarios floated out there (e.g., Iowa State to the Mid-American).
LikeLike
The second of your scenarios sounds more likely to me. The six bottom-feeders of the Big XII are still more valuable programs than most of the AAC schools; and the Big XII is clearly a more valuable name than the AAC, unless the AAC really distinguishes itself over the next 10 years.
So what makes sense to me is that if at least four or five of the Big XII leftovers stay together, they’d keep the name and invite the five best AAC schools to join them, rather than the other way around.
LikeLike
Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?
LikeLike
Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?
It’s difficult to gauge competitively for a conference that hasn’t staged a single athletic event yet, but on the whole, AAC members have more of a national identity — and play in larger markets — than do those of the Mountain West. (Boise State football, for all intents and purposes, is this era’s equivalent of Tarkanian-era UNLV basketball.)
LikeLike
And just to clarify things, I’m referring to the AAC post-Louisville and Rutgers.
LikeLike
The Big 12 could one day end up as
Kansas
Kansas State
TCU
Baylor
Houston
Boise State
San Diego State
Iowa State
West Virginia
UConn
Cincinatti
South Florida
LikeLike
Andy:
IF something like that happened don’t you think Rice and maybe SMU would get a seat at that table?
LikeLike
And perhaps Fresno and SJSU (Central Valley and Bay Area markets and recruiting, in the most populous state)?
LikeLike
Nah, they suck at sports. They’d want it to be as strong at sports as possible to get a seat at the big boys table in the national title hunt.
LikeLike
I’ve got to think that if there were 4-8 Big XII orphans, then they would look to ONLY Cincinnati, UConn, Boise St, and BYU (in some order). Each brings a football or basketball program that moves the needle much moreso than San Diego St, USF, Houston or anyone else.
Let’s say the Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-OSU to Pac 12 happens. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia remain. You could argue that adding only Boise St and Connecticut to get to 8 teams is sufficient, but Cincinnati and BYU to get to 10 teams is ok, too. Each school carries its own weight, one way or another, and there’s no threat to them as the clear #6 conference. There’s some decent tv for football and basketball, and some decent mid-level bowl bids available for this group. Does USF or San Diego State add anything other than another market, or do they become another mouth to share? And I just don’t see the value in a Conference Championship game for this group, especially if they have to add four mouths to hold a CCG.
LikeLike
“Is the AAC clearly ahead of the MWC, or are we just seeing a directional bias?”
Directional bias.
W/O Louisville, MWC is probably ahead. MWC will be getting a better TV deal if Boise gets picked up on ESPN any decent amount of times, although CUSA/MWC and AAC are essentially equal in their deals.
LikeLike
Andy:
You may be right. But it wasn’t athletic achievement that got Rutgers (NJ/NY) or Utah (Salt Lake area surprisingly large, and rapidly growing) in a power conference. Markets (and academics) matter. Granted it was entry to a conference, not the conferences status, but markets help there, too. If Boise St. Was in a million population city in even a modest size state wouldn’t they be in the B12?
LikeLike
Texas will look to move eastwards to the B1G or ACC before they land in the PAC. The PAC 12 really doesn’t have many expansion options at this point (and is content with this) – unless UNLV somehow manages to become relevant in football or the Boise and Albuquerque areas amazingly grow into hot markets.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together spread a small market way too thin. They would not be able stay together in an expansion scenario. But that’s okay, because I could see Texas, TTech, Oklahoma, and Kansas St. to the ACC if Oklahoma goes to the SEC and Kansas to the Big Ten.
WVU, TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St. would be left to scramble. May be the ACC would take WVU and Iowa St. as well. TCU and Baylor would be headed for the AAC or MWC.
LikeLike
UT not going B1G. Paraphrasing Robert Duvall, Texas don’t wrestle. 😉
http://search.yahoo.com/mobile/s?ei=UTF-8&_tsrc=apple&r=web_filter&fr2=p&p=charlie+don+t+surf+apocalipse+now
LikeLike
I’ll believe it 5 years after it happens, and not a moment before Michigan and Texas have played multiple in conference games that Texas+someone is in the conference.
Why would schools like Wisconsin (which, along with Michigan, are the 2 most powerful in the B1G), Minnesota, and Illinois want to add Texas and Oklahoma and decimate their chances of winning the West division? For $10M more a year? They don’t need it. They already run substantially larger athletic departments than the BigXII and SEC with the money they have, which is only going to increase in 3 years anyway.
I’m sure it’s a CFB conference fantasy commissioner’s wet dream to see 3 kings per side, but unless anyone here can tell me why Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois would benefit from importing the three strongest BigXII programs of the last 15 years to come beat them on a regular basis, while not playing Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU who get to beat up on Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Maryland, then I will not believe in any further expansion westward at this time.
LikeLike
Because more money is always better. The presidents can always use it to support the school if the AD doesn’t need it.
LikeLike
I never thought I’d slightly advocate a 20 team BIG. But 4 pods of 5 teams and 9 conference games pretty much ensures every team plays each other within 3 years & a conference championship game can be determined with such a format. I’m not going to propose the teams at this point, but instead use a Michigan fan’s wish list on a OU board. He interestingly put Rice & Tulane in the equation. I dropped Tulane for UConn.
Pod A: Rice, Tx, OU, KU and Neb
Pod B: Iowa, Minny, Wisky, North, & Ill
Pod C: MSU, Mi, Purdue, ND & IU
Pod D: OSU, PSU, Rut, UConn and Md
Clearly Pod B lacks one thing the other pods have: two or more national brands.
Rice is interesting since they’re aren’t even the 5th best program in Tx, but they would make AAU purists happy, bring in top shelf academics, and give Tx an in-state rivalry, albeit a weak one. But hey now, Rice is a pretty damn good baseball team.
Pod A would have no original BIG teams, thus I would consider swapping Neb and Iowa, and clearly Pod A has 3 national brands. Neb would be content with such a swap since they’re already in the BIG without OU, Tx and KU. I think they’d be happy knowing they get Tx and OU every 3 years and a possible matchup in a CCG, where it matters most. Plus, a Neb and Iowa swap would give Pod B nearly two national brands – Wisky is getting closer to national brand caliber – would possibly be there had they won the past 3 Rose Bowls.
The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.
In the above, could you imagine Pod A against Pod C or Pod D in a given year – damn that’s a lot of big time games for networks to salivate over.
One big issue: no annual Mi-OSU game unless they meet in CCG’s . But what the heck, it was a Michigan fan’s proposal – I actually kind of like it.
LikeLike
There’s no reason that the Big 20 couldn’t have a semi-final game for the conference in a home stadium of a higher ranked team. In that format, I don’t even think you’d need to pair up pods. Have each pod play itself…and then rotate through the other 15 teams somewhat randomly. Maximize the best TV games…maximize the rivalries. Minimize the duds…minimize the teams with no connections/history.
LikeLike
One big issue: no annual Mi-OSU game unless they meet in CCG’s . But what the heck, it was a Michigan fan’s proposal – I actually kind of like it.
Michigan and OSU both have millions of fans, so just about every dumb idea is going to be proposed by somebody. Once you start organizing pods that make sense, it becomes a lot more difficult.
LikeLike
I’m not sure which of your ideas is more nuts — Connecticut in the Big Ten (get over it, it’s not happening) or not having Ohio State-Michigan as the season finale. Regardless, your plan has no way in hell of happening.
LikeLike
It’s a light endorsement of a Michigan fan’s idea on an OU board. I like UConn – get over it. They’re a great basketball school & absolutely the best men’s and women’s punch in the nation. And like your school, they sit in a state filled with talented k-12 students (I believe you’re a Md fan). UConn is certainly trending as a destination public school for the Northeast. But, at the end of the day, I’m actually quite optimistic with the BIG @ 14 for the long term. PS No one needs to waste their time citing UConn’s football product, I get it. But if they’re lumped with OU and Tx, I’m fine. They’ll pull their weight in other sports, esp basketball.
LikeLike
And yes, I’m “nuts”, esp when I come on here.
LikeLike
Rice in the Big10 isn’t the nuttiest part?
LikeLike
Pretty funny post about Rice in the Big 10………oh wait, you’re serious?
LikeLike
For you to even pose the question is borderline, well I can’t say. Much of this expansion talk has been what it is: perfect for an alias world of semi-delusion. Just enjoy what you can, I do. I generally back off when people star posting non-facts disguised in pseudo-intellectualism.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Pod A: Rice, Tx, OU, KU and Neb
Pod B: Iowa, Minny, Wisky, North, & Ill
Pod C: MSU, Mi, Purdue, ND & IU
Pod D: OSU, PSU, Rut, UConn and Md
Clearly Pod B lacks one thing the other pods have: two or more national brands.
Rice is interesting since they’re aren’t even the 5th best program in Tx, but they would make AAU purists happy, bring in top shelf academics, and give Tx an in-state rivalry, albeit a weak one. But hey now, Rice is a pretty damn good baseball team.”
Rice is not joining the B10, and I doubt ND is either.
“Pod A would have no original BIG teams, thus I would consider swapping Neb and Iowa, and clearly Pod A has 3 national brands. Neb would be content with such a swap since they’re already in the BIG without OU, Tx and KU. I think they’d be happy knowing they get Tx and OU every 3 years and a possible matchup in a CCG, where it matters most. Plus, a Neb and Iowa swap would give Pod B nearly two national brands – Wisky is getting closer to national brand caliber – would possibly be there had they won the past 3 Rose Bowls.”
No, NE would be very upset to be in a conference with OU and not play them annually again.
“The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.”
OSU/MI? NE/OU?
Pods of 5 can be tough unless schools in the right places are added. 4 in the west and 2 in the east works fine. 3 and 3 stinks.
LikeLike
Brian
You are beyond entertaining because you’re incapable of detecting the less serious and often satirical angles of my some of my posts, esp this one, which was somewhat clear from the onset. You do realize I was merely posting much of what a claimed Michigan fan wrote on an OU board. As usual, I love the quotes then merely pure opinions on your part, though you sometimes speak as if factual and all knowing – I’ll just call it inexplicable confidence on your part. For example, and I could do this with every single one of your past rebuttals.
“The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.” (my observation of a Mi fan’s post on an OU board).
OSU/MI? NE/OU? (your response, as if I’m some fool who doesn’t pay attention to details.)
What do you not understand about the following words from my post: “nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved” – clearly I didn’t say all and I definitely made a point of the Mi-OSU game, as well as the OU-Neb game within the same post. Did you ever take college logic? “Nearly” and “every” being the clues. Now chew on this, Neb is already in the BIG, thus they have already given up on the OU rivalry for the time being & when they were in the Big12 they were not in the same division as OU – Big 8, different story. They in fact did not play OU annually on at least 4 occasions during their Big12 membership (I could be off a game here). And yet again, I must remind you my post was primarily based off of another person’s post.
Also consider the following, as if the above expansion of a 20-team BIG were to actually happen (slim chance). If say the era of super-conferences were upon us and God forbid a fair-minded 8 team playoff, then this BIG @ 20 will be brutal for even the kings – so be it I guess. So it’s fair to ask why a Pod would have Tx, OU, and Neb together – those 3 have 4.5 NCs between them since the early 90s – twice as many as the BIG, actual membership, and that’s going back 40 plus years for the BIG. Do you really want to compare AP NC’s between the BIG @ 10 vs Tx, OU, and Neb since 1970? Thus, I’d be pretty pissed as an AD of OU, Tx or Neb if the BIG were to lump us in the same pod while other kings were at two or less per pod. It’s fair to consider that these teams would like a shot at the playoffs and prefer to go for such a bid against another king in a potential CCG, as opposed to being knocked out during the regular season.
As for the Mi-OSU game, again, I made it pretty clear I was surprised by the Mi fan’s proposal – last statement – so why even nitpick – really. But in all honesty, this game means less and less to me, esp after the hype in 2006 – both were embarrassed in their following BCS games & badly.
As for your statement: “Rice is not joining the B10, and I doubt ND is either.” Waste of breath on your part. Had I posted a BIG@20 on my strict behalf, neither Rice nor ND would be on my wish list, esp ND. As far as I’m concerned, ND can go eat a box of d_ _ ks. I grew tired of their shenanigans long ago, their BCS performances have been God awful, which suggests hype rather than reality scored their bids. Moreover, I do think their indie status has partially prevented a playoff until now & their impact on the Big East’s demise is duly noted. Throw in the fact that they pretend to be an island within Indiana, when everyone in the Rust Belt and Midwest knows South Bend is a bona fide Rust Belt city – a shit hole in many places.
I enjoy some of your posts, but as I’ve said in the past, at times you are way too serious for me & you have a truly stubborn, almost condescending tone in your responses – almost as if “how dare you think such . . . so let me (Brian the wizard) enlighten you”. You’re a bit opinionated and you teeter on arrogance, which is quite ridiculous when it comes to discussions related to expansion. None of us on here really knows what’s going on in the back offices of these conferences, and neither does much of the national media unless they are reporting an actual forthcoming expansion. It’s entertainment for me, a bit like a buying a lottery ticket or going to the casino. I’ve said in the past I’m fine with a BIG @ 14 and even the current BIG @ 12. I was certainly a critic of the BIG @11 because of the lack of a CCG. Now please deconstruct via your more than annoying methodology of quotes then subsequent so-called expert opinion (not all the time) – you have plenty of statements here : ). I’ve warned you in the past that reification hardly works with me, esp this topic, and your obvious lack of actual, substantiating facts from true sources don’t work either. I don’t expect much on a sports board – truly towards the back of daily priorities – so lighten up! This post was overdue.
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned, ND can go eat a box of d_ _ ks. I grew tired of their shenanigans long ago, their BCS performances have been God awful, which suggests hype rather than reality scored their bids.
BCS bowls care about selling tickets…and ND sells tickets. That is why a major bowl will always select ND over almost anyone, if the rules in effect allow them to be selected.
Moreover, I do think their indie status has partially prevented a playoff until now & their impact on the Big East’s demise is duly noted.
ND didn’t prevent a playoff. The staunchest opponents were a bunch of university presidents, especially in the Big Ten and Pac-12, because they were trying to protect the Rose Bowl. If ND opposed it, they were merely one of many.
Notre Dame had very little to do with the Big East’s demise. Obviously, their departure was one of many body blows to that conference. But if you’re going to “blame” any school, you need to “blame” all of those that left: BC, VT, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers, to say nothing of those who would have left, if only a better offer had come along (Cincy, UConn). And unlike ND, the rest of those who left were full members.
Personally, I wouldn’t blame any of them, as they were simply looking out for themselves, as any athletic department should. Really, what killed the Big East was the lack of football kings in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states. They thought of themselves as a basketball-first league, and hence turned down the one bona fide football king, Penn State, that they could have had. VT and Miami were members for a while, but geographically those schools are a better fit in the ACC, so when they had the chance to jump, they did.
Throw in the fact that they pretend to be an island within Indiana, when everyone in the Rust Belt and Midwest knows South Bend is a bona fide Rust Belt city – a shit hole in many places.
All Notre Dame does is make the best of the hand they’ve been dealt. I don’t resent them for being good at it. The attractiveness of South Bend is not the school’s best asset, so they don’t emphasize it. If you were running the place, you wouldn’t either.
LikeLike
Marc, no offense but let’s agree to disagree. I’m sure my Pops and deceased Grandpas aren’t happy w/my negative ND statements (all three attended, but only my father didn’t graduate – he opted for a transfer to little St. Mary’s in Winona, MN then the Vietnam War), nor my humungous Catholic family, here, Vietnam and Malaysia of all places (wife’s family).
LikeLike
@gfunk (and Brian):
Hmm… dangerous to comment here, but … wth (and interestingly, MS avoided the main thrust and reacted to the ND component of your post).
gFunk, I agree with much that you say re: Brian’s postings, particularly concerning methodology. A textual analysis of message board comments seems overdone and unnecessary. Seriously, we are not dealing with the Bible or the Constitution here. I admit to being surprised that so many have followed Brian and have adopted that methodology. I further admit to wanting, on occasion, to post a multi-worded post directed at Brian for various at-this-time-to-be-left-unnamed failings.
But, having said that, Brian’s posts add a lot to this Board. His methodology adds a lot of content that can be/has been interesting and entertaining. And I have occasionally indulged in a Brian-esque textual decomposition of someone else’s post. It can be fun. Further, IMO, he has a good eye for articles and links and topics. Yes, he can sound as though he knows it all, but that is hardly unique to Brian (or others on this Board or any other including myself).
Bottom line: Brian is not trolling us. Consequently, “sandbox rules” apply. Get along; and if not, move to the opposite corner. Don’t respond to him; hopefully he won’t respond to you. Simple.
All that being said, IMO, you add a lot of value to the Board too. So (not that you need my permission), I hope you will keep adding your input even if you find a few other commentators to be aggravating.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“gFunk, I agree with much that you say re: Brian’s postings, particularly concerning methodology. A textual analysis of message board comments seems overdone and unnecessary. Seriously, we are not dealing with the Bible or the Constitution here. I admit to being surprised that so many have followed Brian and have adopted that methodology.”
There’s a method to the madness. The reasons I’ll break out a post chunk by chunk (off the top of my head):
1. I want to be clear about which part of their comment I’m directing a certain statement towards. That’s can be especially helpful when responding to long comments. Before I did that, I would occasionally get someone asking which part of what they said I was replying to, or they would deny what i was saying applied to anything they wrote. I found it to be more clear if I broke it down. I don’t do it to annoy.
2. It’s long and/or it switches from point to point or topic to topic. The shorter chunks provide better context for my replies, IMO.
3. In the middle of a larger point, the person makes statement I want to comment on specifically. For example, if someone is factually wrong in the middle of an argument and i just want to correct the statement and not engage in the bigger discussion. Or in the middle of an argument I might otherwise agree with, there is one particular part that I feel needs addressing.
4. I rarely waste my time just agreeing with things. If you’ve already said it and I agree, why copy it and then say “Me, too” or something similar? That just wastes space. Thus, I edit out the parts I’m not going to add anything to.
5. I’ll snip out large chunks that I don’t want to respond to in general. Maybe I agree, maybe I don’t, or maybe I just don’t care. That leaves just the parts I want to discuss further.
6. I just quote the things for context. I want to respond to something they said but I don’t see the need to copy everything, just enough so everyone knows what was being discussed.
In general, I think people that use this method largely do it for clarity. Especially since some/many of us have been known to make long comments, it can be helpful to trim the fat so to speak when replying. It may also be a vestige of my early days on the internet and not something other people are used to. Oh well.
LikeLike
Thanks BuckeyeBeau. On the other hand, Brian often makes points I can appreciate and I’m sure the three of us, in person, would have a blast. Brian, you are a “textual analysis” fiend – good for you, but I’ve withdrawn from my anthropology days : ).
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Clarification to my response post: yes, Brian does make good points and his passion is commendable. Maybe he’s a BIG insider throwing necessary curveballs here and there to keep the data honest : ).
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Maybe he’s a BIG insider throwing necessary curveballs here and there to keep the data honest : ).”
Only if one can become an insider by being so far outside that you wrap around to being inside. Heck, I haven’t even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently.
LikeLike
(I think this mini-thread is long done and in the past, but in case you and gFunk come back to it…)
@Brian:
re: your six (off the top of your head) reasons for the textual methodology: Fair enough. Clarity is an excellent goal.
However, I just remember quite some time back we had an exchange and, at one point, you mentioned/accused/whatever me of not responding to half the points you made. (That is a paraphrase, of course.)
I did not like the suggestion that somehow my response was less valid because I did not use a textual methodology.
In my view, not every sentence in every post needs a response. And, as you say, many posts have many points and may or may not be well organized with topic sentences and neat paragraphs (which is a function of, among other things, busy schedules, no Professor grading us here and no edit function, etc.)
I often only want to respond to a piece or a sentence.
Moreover, let’s also admit that using a textual methodology requires a high level of writing skill. I have noticed that some use the method, but don’t use it very well.
Anyway, as noted, the methodology can be useful and entertaining, but I wanted to offer the counter-thought that the methodology may not be suited for every writer and/or for every comment and/or for every sentence in every comment.
Also, love the idea of being an insider by being so outside as to wrap around and, thus, be an insider. LOL
@gFunk. yeah, we three would probably get along famously in person.
a lot of facial and body language is lost on the internet and a lot of that helps reduce antagonisms. In person, it is easy enough to tell if someone is getting agitated and then easy enough to switch gears or turn off to another topic.
and, unless we’re taking a deposition or interrogating someone or in a press conference, none of us use a textual methodology when talking face-to-face. and very few of us (tho’ I have been known to do it) give 400 word soliloquies. LOL
ciao and peace.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“(I think this mini-thread is long done and in the past, but in case you and gFunk come back to it…)”
I think it’s over, too. But you never know.
“However, I just remember quite some time back we had an exchange and, at one point, you mentioned/accused/whatever me of not responding to half the points you made. (That is a paraphrase, of course.)
I did not like the suggestion that somehow my response was less valid because I did not use a textual methodology.”
I have no recollection of this whatsoever. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t recall it. It wouldn’t have been a complaint about methodology though. I don’t really care if someone quotes me or not, or whether they respond piece by piece or all at once below. It would’ve been that I felt you skipped several of my points but claimed to have fully rebutted my argument or somesuch thing. But like I say, I don’t remember the discussion in question so I can’t be specific.
“In my view, not every sentence in every post needs a response. And, as you say, many posts have many points and may or may not be well organized with topic sentences and neat paragraphs (which is a function of, among other things, busy schedules, no Professor grading us here and no edit function, etc.)
I often only want to respond to a piece or a sentence.”
I fully agree.
“Anyway, as noted, the methodology can be useful and entertaining, but I wanted to offer the counter-thought that the methodology may not be suited for every writer and/or for every comment and/or for every sentence in every comment.”
Very true. Everyone should use their own style, and the chosen style may vary for good reasons.
“Also, love the idea of being an insider by being so outside as to wrap around and, thus, be an insider. LOL”
It’s my best shot at insider status.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“you’re incapable of detecting the less serious and often satirical angles of my some of my posts, esp this one, which was somewhat clear from the onset.”
Have you ever noticed that you often have to point out to multiple people that reply to your comments and explain that you were kidding/satirical/etc? Plenty of people seriously propose ridiculous ideas on the internet. How should we know when you’re kidding? From the responses, it’s obvious that you aren’t making it clear when you aren’t serious versus when you are even if you think you are being clear about it.
“You do realize I was merely posting much of what a claimed Michigan fan wrote on an OU board.”
Yes, I can read. No part of that indicates a lack of being serious.
“For example, and I could do this with every single one of your past rebuttals.”
Help yourself.
“The nice thing about this person’s proposal is the fact that nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved, esp in-state rivalries.” (my observation of a Mi fan’s post on an OU board).
OSU/MI? NE/OU? (your response, as if I’m some fool who doesn’t pay attention to details.)
What do you not understand about the following words from my post: “nearly every traditional rivalry that matters most is preserved” – clearly I didn’t say all and I definitely made a point of the Mi-OSU game, as well as the OU-Neb game within the same post.
Those are two of the three biggest rivalries in that entire conference. It makes no sense to compliment the preservation of rivalries when they whiffed on the biggest of them unless you qualified it first by pointing out the gaping flaws in the plan.
“Also consider the following, as if the above expansion of a 20-team BIG were to actually happen (slim chance). If say the era of super-conferences were upon us and God forbid a fair-minded 8 team playoff, then this BIG @ 20 will be brutal for even the kings – so be it I guess.”
I don’t think it’s be that much harder. There are still a lot of average teams in that B20. 6 kings in 20 teams isn’t much different from 3 in 11 (B10 with PSU), 3 in 12 or 2 in 10 with 9 games (B12 with and without NE).
“So it’s fair to ask why a Pod would have Tx, OU, and Neb together”
Sure it is, and the answer is fairly obvious.
“Thus, I’d be pretty pissed as an AD of OU, Tx or Neb if the BIG were to lump us in the same pod while other kings were at two or less per pod.”
You play in a division, not just a pod. I’d lean towards 2 harder pods as anchors to make sure each division has enough brand power and just rotate the other 2 pods.
“It’s fair to consider that these teams would like a shot at the playoffs and prefer to go for such a bid against another king in a potential CCG, as opposed to being knocked out during the regular season.”
So the B10 would never put 3 kings together to make that more difficult? Have you seen the East division plan?
“As for the Mi-OSU game, again, I made it pretty clear I was surprised by the Mi fan’s proposal – last statement – so why even nitpick – really. But in all honesty, this game means less and less to me, esp after the hype in 2006 – both were embarrassed in their following BCS games & badly.”
What it means to you (or any other individual fan) is inconsequential. You’re a hoops fan first and foremost anyway. OSU/MI is the most valuable game in the B10’s inventory and one of the most valuable in the country.
LikeLike
You are absolutely right in ever single point you’ve made. In other words, I’m done w/the back n forth with you, but in a respectful way mind you. I’ve generally let it go & now I’m making it official. And to make myself more clear: I can’t ever stop your right to speak freely, nor am I even remotely interested in it – those are your sacred rights, among others.
One more reality to digest & this applies to all college football fans – super conferences and a playoff will continue to alter traditions – it’s simply part of the process. I suppose I can adapt as a fan.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“In other words, I’m done w/the back n forth with you, but in a respectful way mind you. I’ve generally let it go & now I’m making it official.”
You don’t have to agree with me in order to stop discussing it. You can just stop, or say you still disagree but not otherwise respond. No matter which course you take, it isn’t disrespectful unless you start calling me names.
“And to make myself more clear: I can’t ever stop your right to speak freely, nor am I even remotely interested in it – those are your sacred rights, among others.”
I never thought you were trying to stifle me, and would be even less inclined to think you were trying that since you’re a vet. People can reasonably disagree on almost any non-factual issue and it isn’t offensive (at least it isn’t to me).
LikeLike
Texas and Oklahoma separate. Both separate from Kansas. That’s how the break-up of the Big XII starts.
Texas gets to bring its Texas-based rivals to another conference. Where? The ACC. That’s right! Swofford’s conference pulls another rabbit out of the hat and brings in the flagship of a fast-growing state plus a few of its old Big 12 rivals. Oklahoma will use the opportunity to suck up to A&M and get a coveted spot in the SEC. Now the SEC finally gets a coveted football king and doesn’t have to deal with Texas the second time. 2 for 2. Oklahoma State, having been shut out of the SEC, reacts by separating themselves from OU and goes with Texas to the ACC. Thus we have a Texahoma pod, but without OU.
Kansas and UConn bring in their basketball acumen to the B1G ten. Penn State gets its own Eastern pod to play with, and they’d be in the playoffs more often than not. Nebraska and Iowa would battle it out in their own pod, with Minny and KU occasionally pretending to compete in football. Wisconsin, NW, Michigan State and Indiana is the third pod. Finally, Illinois, OSU, UM and Purdue is the fourth pod.
B1G West: UNL,KU,IA,MN
B1G North: UW,MSU,NW,IU
B1G Central: OSU,UM,PU,IL
B1G East: PSU,RU,UMD,UCONN
SEC
Pod A: OU,A&M,LSU,Ark
Pod B: MO,KY,VU,WVU
Pod C: UT,Bama,Miss St,Ole Miss
Pod D: UGA,UF,Aub,S.Carolina
ACC
Pod A: Texas,TT,BU,TCU,OSU
Pod B: FSU,Miami,GT,Clem,Wake
Pod C: UNC,Duke,NCSU,VT,UVa
Pod D: Ville,Cincy,Pitt,Cuse,BC
ND remains partial
PAC stays the same
AAC
ISU
KSU
Tulsa
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Memphis
Temple
ECU
USF
UCF
Navy
Buffalo
UMass
LikeLike
I could see TX in the ACC with a ND-like special deal….not otherwise.
As for OK St to the ACC….I can’t imagine more schools ACC purists would be LESS interested in………….now Kansas……possibly.
LikeLike
Kansas and U Conn both suck at football……..unlikely combination for the Big 10.
LikeLike
Football is irrelevant at this point. This is about power and money. Content for the BTN, which basketball brings a lot. However, ultimately, what those other schools decide will influence what the B1G will do.
LikeLike
FSU, Clemson and VT run the show now. That’s how Louisville got in.
LikeLike
UT runs the show. That’s how Louisville was available. 😉
LikeLike
Transic,
I disagree with much of this, but I’ll focus on the pods.
“B1G West: UNL,KU,IA,MN
B1G North: UW,MSU,NW,IU
B1G Central: OSU,UM,PU,IL
B1G East: PSU,RU,UMD,UCONN”
The B10 wouldn’t split rivalries like that. It leaves too many games to lock.
A – WI, IA, MN, NW
B – NE, KU, PU, IN
C – OSU, MI, MSU, IL
D – PSU, UConn, RU, UMD
Only NW/IL needs to be locked here, but the balance is weak. Divisions are much simpler.
LikeLike
The ACC can hold back money from us because THEY get the money first from ESPN/RAYCOM/FOX etc. So when we left and are IN the conference they can hold it back.
However, how in the hell would enforce a GOR if say Oklahoma and Virginia joined the Big Ten next year? Their money would be paid out through the Big 10. The ACC and Big12 could sue, but it’s not like they would be holding back the money, they would only state the GOR entitles them to the money.
And as we all know possession is nine tenths of the law. At that point, from the information above would the ACC and Big12 want to get into a long term lawsuit with the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Why would the B10 want Connecticut? This is an example of subtraction by addition (I would even take Kansas State, Cincinnati or Iowa State over the Huskies). Why? They bring nothing as far as added income, the TV Market, Geography, Football or Rivalries are concerned. If the B10 wanted such a program, they could have grabbed Pitt (before the GOR was signed). At least the Panthers bring Geography and rivalries (Ohio State and especially Penn State) to the table, and I am sure they would have jumped to the B10 in a nanosecond. Why? Anyone familiar with Pitt knows they would be happier in the B10 over the ACC. Basically, there is no doubt that the Pitt fans will be miserable not seeing West Virginia or Penn State for the next several years, and the only people more upset, will be the Athletic Department who know that except for the Notre Dame game (November 9th), and perhaps Week 1 versus Florida State, they are not drawing flies to Heinz Field.
The logical solution (and based on Historical Precedent, the one I expect from the Conference), is to wait until the right School becomes available. That is what they did when it came to Football (and to a lesser extent Basketball) expansion (accepting an uneven amount of teams until Nebraska became available) and Hockey (waiting for Penn State to move up to Division 1 before creating a Big 10 Conference) . I admit they acted differently when it came to Johns Hopkins, Maryland & Rutgers, but they felt the financial opportunity was so great, perhaps in the hundreds of millions to each School (CIC Research $$$$ (Hopkins), and TV Market $$$$ (Maryland & Rutgers)), they decided to take the risk and add them. Basically, if a University cannot bring something exceptional to the table (such as what Texas, Oklahoma or North Carolina could offer ), they are not being invited to the B10.
LikeLike
I think some forget that expansion has primarily been about money for the Big Ten. Any further expansion will be about money too.
LikeLike
Yet the B10 turned down a school because their academics was not up to par. Money matters, but for the B10, it’s not money at all costs.
LikeLike
Hint: there is more money in academics than in athletics.
LikeLike
They did reportedly turn down a school for academics but has there been any confirmation who it was? It could have been Uconn. It could have been FSU. It could have been West Virginia or Louisville. They said they turned down a school for acedemics but it also could have been a school that didn’t bring enough money to the table for the conference either.
LikeLike
We will never know who they turned down, nor truly validate if such was the case. Let’s leave it alone – Brian has cited this rumor in the past as if he’s speaking fact.
LikeLike
Uh, Barry Alvarez cited this in the past as if he was speaking fact.
It’s crazy how easily some people rationalize away evidence that doesn’t support their pet cause.
LikeLike
I call BS Richard, Alvarez or not. Give me official BIG documentation or call it a day. I have no “pet cause” here other than routine entertainment and poker style odds.
LikeLike
You provided evidence for my assertion:
“It’s crazy how easily some people rationalize away evidence that doesn’t support their pet cause.”
But hey, if you want to call Alvarez a liar, go right ahead (at least one journalist has documented that he said that). I have no dog in this fight.
Oh, and there would be no official documentation for something that didn’t lead to an invite. Think about it. What type of official documentation would exist? Don’t be stupid.
LikeLike
Why would the B10 want Connecticut? This is an example of subtraction by addition (I would even take Kansas State, Cincinnati or Iowa State over the Huskies). Why? They bring nothing as far as added income, the TV Market, Geography, Football or Rivalries are concerned.
Connecticut isn’t a great market, but at least it’s a market the Big Ten doesn’t have. Gun to head (which of course is not the case), they’d prefer UConn over Cincinnati, which totally duplicates a market they already own. And although neither is anywhere near AAU status, UConn is at least a state flagship school; UC is not. But of course, they’re not taking any of the above.
LikeLike
We do not disagree as far as Connecticut is concerned (They have no chance of joining the Big 10 (nor does Iowa State, Kansas State or Cincinnati for that matter)). We also do not disagree that Academics matter in the B10 far more than say the SEC, so this is just semantics. The B10 will simply wait and see if a University like Texas becomes available.
LikeLike
I find it arrogant that people overlook a school that has combined for 11 basketball nc’s (m & w) the past 20 years. UConn’s men’s program has as many NC’s as the entire BIG in the modern era. Some assume they’ll hit the gutter now that Calhoun is gone – I say BS. 3 NC’s not only solidifies a rock solid foundation – it forever stays in the history books. Basketball’s value should never be overlooked. Football, on the other hand, could hit certain walls – I’m noticing increasing dislike for this sport & if the SEC continues to dominate and no true playoff system beyond 4 teams manifests – I’m done with it.
LikeLike
The AAC will have nowhere the visibility of the old Big East, and Connecticut’s basketball programs (both Calhoun’s sullied legacy and Geno’s evil empire) slowly will wither on the vine, especially after Louisville and Rutgers bid adieu. And I haven’t even brought up AAC football, essentially an upscale version of C-USA.
LikeLike
VP you’re cracking me up. I’d embrace a UConn-Md hoops rivalry & it would be quite heated on both ends, both sexes. The soccer rivarly would be intense as well. I get your lacrosse angle. I think, no quantitative proof, that UConn is better suited to capture NYC than Syracuse.
LikeLike
I find it arrogant that people overlook a school that has combined for 11 basketball nc’s (m & w) the past 20 years.
It’s nothing personal. Football drives realignment. Of all the moves the Big Five leagues have made, how many were for basketball?
LikeLike
@ Marc, not enough!
LikeLike
There seems to be an odd battle for the hearts and minds of New Yorkers between the Big Ten and the ACC right now. Both conferences are playing in the Pinstripe Bowl. The B1G is looking at placing an office in the east–probably in NYC. The ACC just had their most recent media event there, including an appearance at the exchange. Each conference is looking at playing basketball games in the NYC metropolitan area as well.
My assessment on this is that they’re looking at the demographic numbers and seeing if they can get the city and the state into their camp. The ACC made it plain ten years ago when they planned on adding Syracuse along with Boston College to the conference that they wanted a strong presence along the East Coast. While that plan was only partially borne out when Virginia Tech squeezed out SU, it’s now come back to fruition again with the additions of Pittsburgh and having Notre Dame in the ACC as a football semi-independent.
In the meantime, the Big Ten has added Maryland and Rutgers and planted their flag in the DC-Baltimore-Philadelphia-NJ-NYC corridor. Adding UConn to that mix would point to a strategy of trying to appeal to the NYC/NE demographic.
Now if you agree with that strategy or not is another matter. We’ve delved into the numbers regarding the relative popularity of college sports in those areas and it’s certainly not the same as Tuscaloosa, AL. So if the Big Ten were to add UConn, then it’d be an investment into a strategy of becoming popular in more metropolitan areas along the eastern seabooard.
We’ll see what happens. The Big Ten has made it clear that they’re interested in demographics, population growth, etc. I don’t know if the case study for UConn is good or not, but unless the ACC or B12 GOR is successfully challenged, there may not be too many options for another 15 years or so.
Could the Big Ten wait that long? Perhaps. After all, the conference was at 11 members for over two decades before going to 12 and now 14 in short order. There are the new television contracts that will be up for negotiation in a couple of years, so that may be a catalyst for further change (something Dennis Dodd is suggesting). Coupled with that is the emerging prospect of a new NCAA Division 4 being created. Is there a reason or opportunity for the Big Ten to go to 16 or more members if such a division were to emerge?
The Big Ten has been vetting schools for years now, so it does have the ability to move quickly on any sort of future agreement (provided the existing members of the conference agree). I have to imagine they have a larger strategy guided by television revenue, academic credentials, etc. that they want to pursue going forward. The environment that collegiate athletics has changed since Delany first talked about expanding the conference. Between the possibility of Division 4 and the O’Bannon lawsuit, the prospect for some major restructuring is out there.
LikeLike
The battle for New York will be an interesting one to watch. The BIG has the advantage with football as they have one of the top 2 brands in that area in PSU plus bringing UM, OSU into Rutgers every year is a pretty good stragedy. Notre Dame would help the ACC considerably if it was a full member. The ACC has an advantage with basketball with Syracuse, Duke, and UNC but I would be curious as to how much of a push the ACC will make into New York is it is at the expense of time spent in North Carolina, which has traditionally been the epicenter of the conference.
LikeLike
Michigan played a couple of basketball games at the NIT Tip Off Classic at Madison Square Garden (Kansas State and Pittsburgh) with one more game in Brooklyn against West Virginia last year.
The Wolverines are schedule to play in Brooklyn next season against Stanford, although the date hasn’t been confirmed. I don’t know how many other B1G teams are looking to play in the NYC metropolitan area, but it certainly looks like that’s part of Michigan’s scheduling strategy (which I can easily assume also has the endorsement of the Big Ten).
As Psuhockey mentioned, it’s no surprise to anyone that Michigan and Ohio State joined Penn State in the Big Ten East Division for football either. It’s a clear decision made to bring as many brand names into the mid-Atlantic region as possible. And FWIW, UM is playing at UConn’s stadium this year on 9/21 as part of a home-and-home series agreement (the Huskies agreed to play in Ann Arbor for the stadium re-dedication game a few years back. UM AD David Brandon wanted to get it moved to the new stadium in the Meadowlands region, but Connecticut said no in large part because Rentschler Field was paid for by the state’s taxpayers and is actually owned by the state government.
I’m really hard pressed to make a case for adding Connecticut into the Big Ten though. It’s not a member of the AAU and while it has name brand basketball (although I wonder about the future of the men’s program), it’s not a major force in football (despite the one BCS bowl appearance). I don’t know if they add many eyes for television and as was noted above, New England isn’t exactly a hotbed for college sports.
I suppose much the same could be said for Rutgers (except for the AAU status). A “good” football program, but no real basketball presence, but in a coveted location. Does UConn do the same for the Big Ten? If yes, would they be one of two (or four) programs the conference would likely add? I really don’t think so, but again, what else is available?
I suppose I could be surprised–goodness know I was surprised about Maryland and Rutgers although we were all aware that they had been vetted and were potential additions to the conference. Would UConn make sense if it was coupled with a school (or three schools out west)? Would Connectict Plus One be an interim step to a larger conference with 18 or 20 members (possibly in a Division 4 setup)?
LikeLike
Without AAU membership, Uconn isn’t coming to the BIG because it does add enough. If some around doubt Oklahoma would get in without AAU membership, I don’t see how a case for Uconn can be made,
LikeLike
The Big Ten would sooner wait for Syracuse to regain its AAU status (not likely unless SU began to seriously emphasize graduate studies and research, which it might have difficulty doing in SUNY country) than invite Connecticut. SU remains more of a brand name and better fits the Big Ten “old money” identity than does nouveau riche UConn.
LikeLike
I disagree. UConn’s potential is higher & damn if they haven’t been a better basketball program, both sexes, & they have a hockey team in a state that is increasingly improving its prep hockey culture. I’d much rather pass through NYC then on to Storrs than Syracuse.
LikeLike
SU still has far more of a football pedigree than Connecticut does, and Orange lacrosse> Husky hockey.
LikeLike
I think UConn has more potential then Syracuse (SU is in a declining market, NOT a flagship University, an aging facility (The Carrier Dome), and being trapped in the ACC GOR)), but both of them are potentially inferior to Boston College. If over the next two decades, BC would decide to invest the necessary $$$$$$$$ in the athletic facilities and bringing the Academics up to an AAU level) the way they could (the Boston Market and Ice Hockey are major things in their favor). The point is I see NONE of those Schools as making sense for the B10.
LikeLike
Agree. Why the Big 10 wouldn’t push for the biggest of possible adds is beyond me. Why take UConn when Texas is in play? At least until Texas is 100% not in play.
LikeLike
U Conn’s a better fit than Syracuse, but neither is a great choice for the Big 10.
LikeLike
Let me be clear, I see UConn but only in a package w/Tx-OU-KU if BIG @ 18 or 20 – to me it’s a no brainer. It makes the BIG the most powerful football-basketball conference – not even close in my opinion, though once you separate the two sports and compare then start comparing difference you could argue the ACC for hoops, SEC for football – but only slight margins.. Outside of this package, UConn is a tough sell from the practical end. On a personal note, I’m a much bigger hoops fan than football – so UConn and KU would be enough for me. But I’ll side with practicality.
LikeLike
Could the Big Ten wait that long? Perhaps. After all, the conference was at 11 members for over two decades before going to 12 and now 14 in short order. There are the new television contracts that will be up for negotiation in a couple of years, so that may be a catalyst for further change (something Dennis Dodd is suggesting).
I don’t see the Big Ten making sub-optimal additions, just to get more schools before the TV contract is up for bid. They’re probably better off going in with the schools they have, and inserting a clause in the contract that allows for either side to re-open the deal if the composition of the conference changes. (Some leagues’ TV deals may already have such a clause.)
LikeLike
“I don’t see the Big Ten making sub-optimal additions”
It is funny that there are those who said the BIG struck out here or settled for that or the GORs ended their plans, but I think the Big 10 has done everything it wanted to from the very beginning. They just did it in pieces on their timetable. If they are to expand again, I am sure they already have the additions in mind and will strike when the time is right whether that be next year or in 10 years.
LikeLike
I largely agree with your premise that any new contract would have a condition in it calling for a renegotiation to take place if additional members are brought into the conference.
I just think there are too many moving parts right now with Division 4 and the O’Bannon lawsuit in the background for the Big Ten to make a move prior to the next television contract. If their revenue projections are accurate, (around $42M in conference distributions in 2017), then some one would have to make one hell of a compelling case to add more schools to the conference that aren’t well branded and/or have the desired academic credentials.
So yeah, if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and UConn all wanted in the Big Ten, I wouldn’t say no to any of them. Is that a likely scenario though? No, not really.
LikeLike
I could see the B1G adding UConn, but not right now. As others have said, New England is probably the only part of the country that could literally care less about college sports. Connecticut is also a small, slow growing state that doesn’t produce much football talent. On the other hand, the league would then be home to 4 of New York’s top 5 college football fan bases, with Notre Dame being the lone exception.
LikeLike
It Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and UConn were each available individually to the Big Ten, and no schools from the ACC that the Big Ten would want were available, then the Big Ten would take Texas and Kansas and call it a job well done despite the fact that there would indeed be those advocating for Oklahoma.
How Oklahoma would get past the academically snobbiest would be if they were a package deal with Texas, where many an academic snob would hold their nose for Oklahoma to pluck a rose as sweet as Texas.
LikeLike
cutter,
I don’t think it’s a battle for NYC, but a battle for a chunk of NYC. NYC is more than big enough to split several ways, and the pros will always have the biggest chunk. The first priority is to make college sports in general more relevant in NYC, then to sway as many as possible to your particular flavor of college sports. It could easily split differently for FB and hoops, too.
LikeLike
NY is big enough for both being a distant 2nd to the pros, but will it support two conference networks? There will be fights to get one network on in that area let alone two. Without subscription fees (or a bump in tier 1/2 for audience in a that area) and thus financial benefit, being popular in NY means nothing.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“NY is big enough for both being a distant 2nd to the pros, but will it support two conference networks?”
That’s a good question. Based on how hard the RSN had to fight to get carriage, I’d guess the answer is no for now. That may change as more people cut the cord and the percentage of sports fans paying for cable/satellite goes up.
“There will be fights to get one network on in that area let alone two. Without subscription fees (or a bump in tier 1/2 for audience in a that area) and thus financial benefit, being popular in NY means nothing.”
If you turn NYC into even lukewarm college fans, that means a huge ratings bump. A ratings bump will lead to better future TV deals, more media coverage, more merchandise sales, more NYC students interested in your school, etc. That means more money even without lots of BTN revenue.
LikeLike
Brian-
I absolutely agree that given the current sports environment in NYC, college sports are largely going to play second fiddle in what is a very large metropolitan market.
My hypothesis about the two conferences looking to increasing their exposure in this geographic area is based largely on past and current actions they’ve both taken and that I outlined above. If demographics and population are the drivers here and the Big Ten doesn’t have an opportunity to move into the southeast, then perhaps the new theatre of battle is now in the mid-Atlantic and northeast when it comes to B1G v. ACC (including NYC).
We’ll see what happens. I’m particularly interested in the dynamic that is taking place on the television side. The Fox Entertainment Group has a 49% share of the Big Ten Network and News Corporation has an equally large share in the Yes! Network based in NYC. Fox Sports 1 (and FS2) are coming on line as a direct competitor to ESPN with coverage of B12, P12 and Conference USA football games on Saturdays, so they’re looking for content as well. Obviously, all these things touch on how CFB will be watched not only in the NYC area, but nationwide. That said, the intriguing part of this will be distribution in the NYC area, but also content, i.e., will we be seeing some college football related material on Yes! (outside of ND game rebroadcasts and ND/PSU coaches shows)?
LikeLike
cutter,
“I absolutely agree that given the current sports environment in NYC, college sports are largely going to play second fiddle in what is a very large metropolitan market.
My hypothesis about the two conferences looking to increasing their exposure in this geographic area is based largely on past and current actions they’ve both taken and that I outlined above.”
And I agree with you. I was just pointing out that I don’t think the two are fighting each other as much as fighting against NYC’s lack of interest in college sports. If the ACC makes college hoops bigger in NYC, that helps the B10 as well. Maybe the B10/ACC challenge will start to include some games in NYC in the future to help both sides. If B10 football makes CFB bigger in NYC, that trickles down to the ACC as well. Once it’s a solid college market, then they’ll start fighting each other more for dominance (largely in hoops – the B10 already has a sizable lead in CFB based on Silver’s numbers).
“We’ll see what happens. I’m particularly interested in the dynamic that is taking place on the television side. The Fox Entertainment Group has a 49% share of the Big Ten Network and News Corporation has an equally large share in the Yes! Network based in NYC. Fox Sports 1 (and FS2) are coming on line as a direct competitor to ESPN with coverage of B12, P12 and Conference USA football games on Saturdays, so they’re looking for content as well. Obviously, all these things touch on how CFB will be watched not only in the NYC area, but nationwide. That said, the intriguing part of this will be distribution in the NYC area, but also content, i.e., will we be seeing some college football related material on Yes! (outside of ND game rebroadcasts and ND/PSU coaches shows)?”
A lot of things are in flux. One clue will be the coverage maps for various games in the future. Will there still be regional coverage in any sport? If so, which games does NYC get?
LikeLike
I think you’re wrong about Pitt and the ACC. I was on the Pitt board often prior to Pitt to the ACC, and many posters felt ACC was a better fit than the Big 10….Pitt’s a somewhat smaller school than most of the Big 10 teams…with a relatively small fan base and very solid academics…Pitt fits in very well with Syracuse, UNC, BC….very similiar in a lot of respects to U Conn, which is also probably a better fit for the ACC than the BIG.
LikeLike
As a Pitt fan, I am excited that Pitt is in the ACC. I think the only real draw for us the BIG was the opportunity to relight the rivalry with PSU in a meaningful way. I think we all, on some level, miss the PSU and WVU rivalry. They were fun games. That being said Pitt has had some fun games with VT and Miami in the old BE days.
LikeLike
@Steve,
Based on Pitt’s history, it seems the ACC offers the biggest number of programs it has played historically. The glaring exceptions are West Virginia and Penn State. Otherwise, Pitt has played Syracuse going back many decades. Boston College was a common opponent when both were independent and was an annual opponent when both were in the Big East. Ditto for Miami. Even Louisville offers relative proximity and a short history as members of the Big East together for eight years. Notre Dame games actually will be reduced with Pitt as a member of the ACC, but not as much as they would if Pitt were in the Big Ten.
As for the ACC schools further south, there’s less of a consistent history. On the other hand, there at least have been a handful of bowl games and regular season games in recent years between Pitt and ACC teams.
Yes, the Big Ten would be a great landing spot for just about anyone because the Big Ten is just a juggernaut financially. But the ACC makes a lot of sense for Pitt.
LikeLike
I thought about throwing Syracuse into the list, but I just don’t hate them. Not like WVU or PSU. Don’t know why, just don’t, and we have a long history with them. As I said earlier, I am extremely excited about Pitt starting play in the ACC this year.
LikeLike
Steve, the reason why Syracuse does not bother you, is they do not care about Football there (maybe Penn State, maybe), which is why a Pitt/SU Basketball Game in the Carrier Dome drew more people than Pitt/SU in Football that same season. Lets be honest, if you are a Panther fan, you want to open with West Virginia, end with Penn State, and have Ohio State and Michigan come to Heinz Field, and the ACC is a poor substitute for that (I understand this very well, because as a Nitt fan, I would love to end the Season versus Pitt). The biggest problems with Pitt is the failure to invest in the program (such as not having an On Campus Stadium), and not playing Penn State & West Virginia every year. Until they do both of those things, you will continue to see more Penguin fans than Panthers (even in Downtown Oakland).
LikeLike
David – Totaly agree (never thought I would say that to a Nitt) with your comments especially that Pitt should play PSU and WVU every year and for the life of me can’t figure out why Pitt, PSU and WVU can’t get it done. These games are good for all programs. I loved PSU over Thanksgiving Weekend and the Brawl during rivalry week. There are now marquee northeast games anymore.
LikeLike
This is a good read on conference perception.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/preview13/story/_/id/9560908/perceptions-bcs-conferences-real-imagined-college-football
As far as B1G expansion; if it doesn’t include NC or TX, does it make sense? Certainly either one of them as a 15 with whomever, OU/KU or DU/UVa would be a no brainer IMO. And certainly either one of them in a four pack with OU/KU/?, and DU/UV/GT would be, again, a no brainer.
Without either of those universities, UT or UNC, conceivably being available, KU and UVa would be a good add, but it’s extremely doubtful UVa is going anywhere without UNC. IMO, with the GORs, we have stopped for approximately 8 years, until the monetary differences amonst conferences is more defined.
And, as far as UConn to the B1G; whoa!
LikeLike
largeR,
ESPN has a whole series of those articles today.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/preview13/story/_/id/9563308/word-clouds-show-current-players-perceptions-different-college-football-conferences
I like this word cloud article to quickly summarize what players think.
Dominant phrases:
ACC – FSU
B10 – physical
B12 – none (lots of phrases, all equal in size)
P12 – OR, followed by speed and fast
SEC – speed, followed by power and overrated
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9561203/college-football-transfers-share-their-impressions-playing-different-major-conferences
This one interviews players who transferred between AQ leagues for their impressions. In general, they conclude that the differences are smaller than the media and fans make them out to be.
LikeLike
There’s a different article from earlier that had a different tone than the words they put up in this article:
“During conference media days a few weeks ago, ESPN polled anonymous players about what word or phrase comes to mind when they think of other conferences. They mostly played along with general fan perceptions.
• ACC: Duke-North Carolina basketball … a step down from the SEC … underachieving.
• Big Ten: Cold weather … a power conference … the running game … slow.
• Big 12: Spread offenses … very fast, athletic guys … competitive.
• Pac-12: Spread offenses … quick, smaller linemen … a 7-on-7 conference.
• SEC: Defense … smashmouth … dominance … overrated.”
LikeLike
I read that article, but I thought it ended with a few quotes from players who had transferred between conferences saying the differences were in external perception. Something fans and media want…a brief way to simplistically differentiate complex systems.
LikeLike
@Brian
Todays SVP and Rusillo is covering this to start the show. Unfortunately Reese ‘SEC’ Davis is sitting in for SVP.
LikeLike
Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.”
Rusillo defines the B1G as “Mad at the truth.”
LikeLike
Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.”
For lack of a better phrase, “Paul Harvey traditionalism,” as opposed to the “the Civil War never ended” mentality of the SEC or the “yeah, the Civil War ended, but frankly we don’t care — pass me the basketball” mentality of the ACC.
LikeLike
largeR,
“Reese calls the B1G “Isolationist by nature. They want their traditions, their way of life.””
It’s true to say that the B10 wants it traditions. I just wouldn’t consider that isolationist. Considering our deep ties with the P12, including the attempted scheduling deal, isolationist is not accurate.
“Rusillo defines the B1G as “Mad at the truth.””
Which I also think is incorrect. I think the B10 is more disappointed with the present state of CFB than mad about it (wants more stress on student welfare, academics, etc and less of the obsession with NCs and playoffs), and certainly the B10 is OK with their financial place in CFB.
Thanks for the update.
LikeLike
UNC, no thank you, really. What a pipe dream and the declarations of “sleeping football giant” are genuinely overstated. Do you realize how against the BIG most of their fans are? It’s supremely greater than the backlash Md alum and fans had & they don’t seem forgiving like Md fans. They’ve been king of the ACC for so long, though not in the football sense. And damn right I’m making generalizations.
LikeLike
Having lived in the triangle area and loved it, I would selfishly want them in the BIG for the sake of visiting. However, their football program will always be 2nd class because the fans don’t care. It all basketball all the time.
There isn’t many valuable brands outside of the SEC or BIG west of the Rockies left for future expansion. UNC, UT, OU, and FSU are the top. UNC brings in the entire state of North Carolina while the others add much more. Without one of those four, I don’t think BIG expansion makes any sense financially to the conference. Not only would any addition have to pay for itself, but also add to the profit margins of 14 other schools. That is a heavy burden.
LikeLike
The most common obvious statement. “Not only would any addition have to pay for itself, but also add to the profit margins of 14 other schools.” But does it have to pay for itself directly and immediately? Couldn’t value include projections, or the cost of allowing another conference to maintain/gain a property that does improve that conferences attractiveness or viability. Assume UNC doesn’t directly pay its way, but contributes to the ACC collapses some while later. What is the B1G leverage worth in a four power conference world rather than five? I’d bet it more than covers the difference in what UNCs simplistic estimated value lacks.
(UNC chosen strictly as an example, not as a projection or favored scenario)
LikeLike
I was referring to schools like Duke, Kansas, and UVA. There is possible value in turning 5 power conferences into 4, but do these schools actually accomplish that? I don’t see any other schools besides that four that could one provide enough financial gain immediately or destroy their current conference by leaving. Now does adding Duke or UVA make UNC join? Does Kansas for Texas? I don’t know but there is a big risk they do not.
LikeLike
Psuhockey:
I don’t think the B1G, or it’s members are in a position to absolutely require immediate increased return. That is one feature that differentiates the top conferences from the rest. Plus it’s not like your suggested schools are pure chopped liver. They would increase the footprint, and in the area the B1G has openly targeted.
LikeLike
Those schools are good schools and would increase the footprint, but there are limits to membership that needs to be considered. Does adding say Kansas now prevent adding Texas later? Does adding UVA push UNC to the SEC? Is the BIG willing to go above 16 schools? 20 schools? At what number does the conference stop being close knit?
LikeLike
Exactly. That is the calculus to be worked, not the simple “will the school immediately pay for itself plus some”.
LikeLike
Its as with the previous expansion ~ Rutgers got picked because Maryland was made available. If UNC became available, UNC/UVA makes sense, if Texas became available, Texas/Kansas or indeed Texas / UVA or Texas / Pitt makes sense. But no sense adding a 16th in advance of a 15th becoming available, because then you end up adding two 16th schools.
LikeLike
CFN ranks all 125 FBS teams.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1315002.html
Their rankings always go against conventional wisdom and this one is no exception. Here’s their top 25 by conference.
SEC (9) – #1 Bama, #4 LSU, #6 A&M, #7 Georgia, #10 Florida, #15 South Carolina, #22 Ole Miss, #24 Mizzou, and #25 Miss State
B1G (5) – #11 Ohio State, #13 Mich State, #18 Wisconsin, #21 Michigan, and #23 Nebraska
B-XII (4) – #5 Texas, #9 Oklahoma, #16 OK State, and #20 TCU
ACC (3) – #2 Florida State, #14 Clemson, and #17 VA Tech
P-12 (3) – #3 Oregon, #8 Stanford, and #12 USC
LikeLike
What goes against conventional wisdom in your opinion? Texas is a little higher than in most, but they are top 10 in some others and ranked everywhere. Mizzou is a little odd, but its only #24. Nothing else particularly stands out.
LikeLike
I question USC. They are just reaching the height of their scholarship penalties…and still have Kiffin.
LikeLike
They correctly noticed that Mizzou was dealing with A LOT of injuries last year, so it’s very possible they’ll bounce back to their normal win level with players healthy again.
LikeLike
bullet,
“What goes against conventional wisdom in your opinion?”
OSU at #11. MS, MS St. and MO all top 25. FSU #2. USC #12.
LikeLike
MSU sniffing the top 25 with that offense still amazes me. Sure, they may end there this year with a beneficial schedule, but I don’t buy them as the #13 team going into the season. Would you really take MSU over Clemson on a neutral site?
LikeLike
I agree with you, Ross. I should have included MSU in my comment.
LikeLike
The University of Maryland’s report on integrating the university into the Big Ten and CIC is out, and to the surprise of few aware of the situation, it probably will take College Park close to a decade before it can financially compete with the rest of the conference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-athletics-continues-to-struggle-financially-despite-planned-move-to-big-ten/2013/08/13/1a7c5ecc-0419-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html
The report can be read at http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/sports/commission-on-u-md-big-ten-cic-integration-final-report/548/
New athletic facilities, such as indoor practice for football, are far on the horizon: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/08/13/maryland-big-ten-commission-report-football-practice-facility-seemingly-still-years-away/
Much-maligned AD Kevin Anderson is confident money will be raised:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/08/13/maryland-ad-kevin-anderson-wasnt-surprised-by-anything-in-big-ten-commission-report/
LikeLike
To facilitate UMD’s transition to the Big Ten, the conference distribution is front
loaded and pegged to approximate UMD’s projected ACC revenue stream. In year seven and
beyond, revenue is set to start to build.
Interesting quote page 16 of the report.
LikeLike
Other notes:
On July 1, 2020, UMD will become an equity partner in the Big Ten Network.
That’s a 6 year buy-in.
6. Once ICA is financially stable, fifty percent (50%) of excess revenues
should be used to repay the debt it owes to the University for the loan
from Non-State Auxiliary Funds. The other fifty percent (50%) should be
set aside to build ICA reserves and to make additional investments in ICA.
Annual reviews should be conducted of ICA financial results comparing
them with the plan for Big Ten integration.
7. Starting in FY 15, some ICA revenues should be provided to support the
academic enterprise. These funds to meet the University’s academic
priorities will be phased in over the next nine years and are expected to
reach at least $1M per year.
First, start turning a profit. Then use half of it to repay the school the $21M loaned to it so far (may be another $20M before they join due to the ACC withholding money) while the other half goes into reserves and reinvestment in athletics. That seems like a reasonable plan.
Slowly starting to give money to the school every year also fits with what most B10 schools do. That will certainly help soothe the ruffled feathers of some academics.
LikeLike
Sure is nice that the SEC didn’t require a buy in for Missouri and Texas A&M. Too bad for the turtles and corn shuckers.
LikeLike
What was Mizzu going to buy into joining the SEC? They (1) don’t have a network to buy into and (2) won’t own the SECN when it arrives. It’s a contractually dedicated, ESPN owned network. Md and UNL aren’t bitching.
LikeLike
Conferences almost always have buy-ins. BTN requires a little more buy-in, but most have buy-ins for the NCAA tourney credits and for their conference “brand” equity (primarily they charge them because they will be making more). Of course, the AQ schools moving already had the “brand” equity and so Nebraska got a floor (guaranteed not to make less than they were) and A&M and Missouri got no buy-in. But not even buying in on NCAA credits showed the SEC really wanted A&M.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Colorado receive less money during the buy-in period than they would have received in the XII. All other schools that moved are still making more than they would have in their old conferences. The XII buy-in is 3 years with average distribution of 67%. So shorter and less of a cut than the B1G, but no BTN either.
LikeLike
Colorado was invited as a full sharing partner, Utah on a 3 year plan to reach full share.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=pac12&id=10590&src=desktop
Not sure if that takes into account Colorado managing to come a year early. That may be the origin of the thought they weren’t full shares. First year (IIRC) was matching what they would have made in the B12, where the invite anticipated they would still be.
LikeLike
Nebraska is making less than they would have been in the Big 12, but more than they were. They didn’t know how much the Big 12 would be making when they left. At the time there was a very big gap.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Is UNL making less if you credit them with the income redirected to buying BTN equity? And even if so, are they concerned? B12 contract just complerted v B1G operating on soon to expire old contract. Which position would you choose?
LikeLike
@bullet – that might be a chicken and egg scenario. Had Nebraska never left you couldn’t guarantee that ABC/Fox would have extended their contracts at the same per school value (i.e. they bid $X for 12 schools w/ 8 conf games (48 total) or 10 schools w/ 9 conf games (45 total)) as they ended up doing.
LikeLike
ccrider, WVU and TCU are having to buy into the big 12, Utah had to buy into the Pac 12 but Colorado didn’t, etc. Some conference movers had to buy in, some didn’t, regardless of conference network status. Mizzou and A&M worked hard to negotiate no buy in to the SEC and got it.
LikeLike
I understand. However, Utah was moving up. And while not receiving a full share immediately still saw a considerable increase from what they were getting from their former, non BCS conference. IIRC Colorado was straight up invited as a full member. Didn’t have to “work hard”. The only negotiating was over the desire to move a year earlier than invited, and how to ease that transition. There was not yet a conference network that would have necessitated the purchase of equity (like the SEC).
I just don’t understand your fixation with buy ins (as if they are a always stain), or the apparent conviction that Mizzu should have been given what the B1G conference schools had invested in to create, that UNL readily agreed to.
LikeLike
(Or the belief that that was what got UNL in, instead of Mizzu.)
LikeLike
For UMD, the first few years of B1G membership will be financially challenging. Even CIC membership will be a financial drain initially: they have committed to spending $1.7M per year on CIC, but are unable to recognize any CIC based savings in the early years.
LikeLike
In regards to a GOR, is it enforceable if all parties decided to leave the conference? What about if all parties except one or two found acceptable homes? If the Big 12 was ever to dissolve, I can’t imagine Iowa State being appealing to any power conference. Of the remaining schools, I think Cincci and Iowa State would have the most to worry about.
LikeLike
Reading a very good monograph today, “Paying for the Party.” It is a study of class and inequality and the role of flagship public universities in increasing not reducing class differences — as we tend to pretend. It made me think about the “living community” arms race that the top 30 or so colleges and universities have been involved in for two decades. The result — class stratification has increased.
On my other desktop, I am viewing a slide show I received from Chicago (an e-letter) proudly announcing the new Residential Hall and Dining Commons to be built on 55th and University (by Jeanne Gang, of course) for 800 undergraduates (at a rumored cost that seems to range all over the place — $200,000,00? $300,000,000? $400,000,000? ) — it might sound pricey to some but it is a “welcoming space” for undergraduates to build a “community of learning” — and it a key part of the top tier arms race. Clearly total cost will surpass the $138,000,000 in 2005? for 222 students at the Whitman Buildings at Princeton. At 300,000,000 it represents more than then the total building (non-research- related) budget for the entire IU system in the last biennial award. Some will argue that it is an obscene amount of many and that universities should not engage in an amenities race for undergraduates –but it is justified by administrators since attracting the most talented undergrads is the goal of a group of universities (maybe 30 colleges and universities in the US are in this game) — and on the margin beautiful dorms built by renowned architects is a selling point to 18 yr old kids and their parents.
The public flagships have largely ceded the top tier space for undergraduates to the privates — and I have decidedly mixed feelings about this situation. Should IU pay 180,000,000 for a “honor college dorm” to maybe compete for 180 top tier students when IUB and the State has so many educational shortfalls? We can float bonds to pay for it — so it does not “cost” much!! People tend to rush to make definitive judgments on this board — professionals in higher ed have developed many pros and cons on this one for a decade — it is not simple and easy — but the drift is to not really compete but to “somewhat” compete.
Now we turn to the “Duckstar” — the new training facility at Oregon or the 30-person recruiting and evaluation unit at Alabama — and when you combine what has already occurred with the prospect of new revenues that an expanded football playoff will generate or more cable revenues — I am really troubled. I have no doubt that if I was an administrator at OU or Alabama or lots of public universities it would be much easier to build better and better athletic facilities to compete at elite levels athletically rather than divert those funds to compete academically. For example, at Oregon — you can point to an elite football program — a top 10 program — today. Realistically, it will take a half-century for Oregon to enroll a freshman class with a 32 – 35 ACT split — if ever — and that is what you must have to be considered “elite.” The idea of “university” might disappear before this occurs. So, if you compete where you can and invest where you reap the greatest return, how do you believe that they will re-distribute their profits? — and what would you predict that this scenario would mean if a division of 64 football schools was established? The issue is that while attracting top tier students might justify this competition, can a similar argument be made for attracting football players? and if not, what is the end game?
LikeLike
Legacies matter, for nations, for communities, for individuals.
(Joseph Campbell offers clues in “The Power of Myth”.)
Na zdrowie!
LikeLike
Oklahoma. It’s a quick search on the Internet to see that OU isn’t AAU. If the big ten was “doing homework” on OU then they were at least considering the Sooners even though they weren’t AAU.
If I’m Jim Delaney, my end game is 20 schools as follows:
West
Oklahoma
Texas
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
North
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Central
Ohio state
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan state
Michigan
East
Penn state
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
LikeLike
Or the B1G was doing research to determine just how far apart AAU and the Sooner’s are. Apparently a ways still, as Boren mentioned (during the PAC flirtation) that Stanford, Cal, etc would be a big help to them in trying to get there.
LikeLike
Do that, and Nebraska would feel as if had been sent back to its Big 12 island.
LikeLike
I honestly, I don’t think they would mind.
Nebraska didn’t have a problem with the teams in the Big XII (compared to Colorado who ecstatic to get away from the Plains schools), just the way it was being run.
To be honest, they would probably prefer that pod to the Western Division of the Big 10.
LikeLike
I agree. If the BIG were to add those schools, I’d think they would be more than reasonable ensuring that at least one original BIG member, or at least one of the Big10 schools is in each pod, any alternative proposal would be stupid. But really now, let’s forget the UVa or UNC scenarios, those aren’t going to happen & I think even the past rumors were far fetched. I’ve long believed that if 4 super conferences happen – goodbye Big12. They have the least amount of tradition under current membership, the SWC and Big 8 mergers was chaotic, and their geography is truly at the crossroads of the BIG, SEC and Pac12 (<– though incredibly far from the Pac12 western schools, further than the average fan realizes).
LikeLike
I still don’t see any reason why the ACC is more likely to survive than the Big XII.
Yes, the ACC has been around longer, but they are constructed in a way that is less desirable from a stability standpoint (they have a lot of pieces that would be appealing to other conferences but none strong enough to form a core to hold them all together). Moreover, with the CFP starting the financial disparity between the ACC and the other major conferences (which already exists thanks to the mindnumbingly stupid TV deal they signed a couple years ago) will only grow.
(Of course this all kind of beside the point)
LikeLike
On one side:
I’ve long believed that if 4 super conferences happen – goodbye Big 12. They have the least amount of tradition under current membership, the SWC and Big 8 mergers was chaotic, and their geography is truly at the crossroads of the BIG, SEC and Pac-12 (<– though incredibly far from the Pac-12 western schools, further than the average fan realizes).
On the other:
I still don’t see any reason why the ACC is more likely to survive than the Big XII.
Yes, the ACC has been around longer, but they are constructed in a way that is less desirable from a stability standpoint (they have a lot of pieces that would be appealing to other conferences but none strong enough to form a core to hold them all together). Moreover, with the CFP starting the financial disparity between the ACC and the other major conferences (which already exists thanks to the mindnumbingly stupid TV deal they signed a couple years ago) will only grow.
Now, a third view:
What will probably happen by the end of the 2020s, after the various GORs expire, is that both the ACC and Big 12 will have its key members picked off by the Big Ten, Pac and SEC, leaving the smaller state schools and private institutions from both leagues (e.g., Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Christian, Boston College, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Syracuse) to merge into a new #5 conference, adding the likes of Cincinnati, Connecticut and others from the AAC.
LikeLike
Frug,
FWIW – survival of the B12 is dependent on both UT and OU sticking around; survival of the ACC is dependent on either UNC or FSU sticking around. The ACC may not have strength at the top of the conference, but it has more schools in the middle who have long working relationships. There are good reasons why the ACC is likely to go on.
LikeLike
survival of the ACC is dependent on either UNC or FSU sticking around.
No, it needs both. UNC is the political center of the conference; FSU is the financial. Take either out and the conference crumbles. Maybe not enough schools to actually dissolve the conference, but enough that what would be left be a glorified mid-major.
The ACC may not have strength at the top of the conference, but it has more schools in the middle who have long working relationships.
That’s part of the problem. The fact that the ACC has so many schools in the middle, means more potential targets for other conferences. As I have noted before UNC, Duke, UVa, V-Tech, FSU, Miami, Clemson and possibly G-Tech, Pitt and NC State all have at least one other major conference that would jump at the chance to add them and offer them a raise. Sure they are content now, but that can change (Maryland was quite happy in the ACC right up until they ran out of money).
The Big XII meanwhile is made up schools that (for a variety of reasons) can’t go anywhere else. Literally, every member who has another major conference option has already gone elsewhere. Whether they like it or not, the Big XII schools are stuck with each other.
LikeLike
You just make the case for the ACC being able to survive defections. The ACC is still the ACC even if FSU and VT were to go SEC. It’s still the ACC if UVA and GT went B1G. If UNC, with one friend left, the ACC stands. Combinations of two of those hurt more but aren’t fatal. It would take losing six of the more influential schools to do to the ACC what OU/UT would to the B12, perhaps even independently.
LikeLike
ACC is virtually the AAC if it loses FSU and Virginia Tech. It loses the Orange Bowl deal and doesn’t have the qualifications for a “contract” conference. Take out FSU, VT and Miami and its poll rankings for the BCS era are basically the same as the future MWC, which no longer has Utah, BYU or TCU.
It really can’t lose 2 of those 3-VT, FSU and Miami. It might survive losing one. And it can’t lose UNC, because then everyone else who could would bolt. FSU wouldn’t stay with the Carolina and Virginia schools gone.
LikeLike
The ACC is still the ACC even if FSU and VT were to go SEC. It’s still the ACC if UVA and GT went B1G. If UNC, with one friend left, the ACC stands.
Can you think of any plausible scenario where anyone of those actions occurs and it doesn’t lead to a chain reaction?
For example;
If FSU and VT leave, UVA G-Tech pretty much have to go to the Big Ten (they don’t have the money to run their athletic departments with a reduced ACC payout) at that point UNC doesn’t see an ACC worth saving and is looking at massive revenue loss and bolts with (at least one of) NC State or Duke.
The Big XII is suddenly a (much) better option than the ACC, and gets its choice of Miami, Clemson, NCSU/Duke, Louisville, Pitt and even Syracuse (if they want). No more ACC.
LikeLike
Can you think of any plausible scenario where anyone of those actions occurs and it doesn’t lead to a chain reaction?
I sure can’t.
LikeLike
The same scenario that had UT/OU decide to stay? As long as UNC and a couple friends wast to, the don’t have to leave. The threat of FSU (for B12 or wherever) leaving didn’t shake even one other (Clemson) loose. Even with the rumors of UVA, GT, UNC, (take your pick) talking B1G.
That said, I don’t think the ACC is unbreakable. But I think it wouldn’t be a chain reaction. It would be more of a collective decision that at least 6, maybe 8 would be involved in. Until that’s reached I think they’ll all stick. That’s compared with the only two in the B12 (with their wards) that decides.
LikeLike
I’m sure he’d love to get those schools but he won’t. Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina aren’t joining the B1G, and Texas probably wouldn’t either.
LikeLike
And by the way I think it’s cute how some of you seem to believe that every other school in the country is falling over each other to get into the B1G. It’s just really not the case. The following schools would probably kill to get into the B1G:
Kansas
Oklahoma
Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
UConn
Cincinatti
Pitt (maybe, but maybe not anymore)
probably not Syracuse anymore
probably not Boston College
probably not Louisville
Missouri used to feel that way but not anymore.
Basically, schools in the SEC and ACC are fairly happy where they are. So that doesn’t leave much for the B1G to pick from. But that doesn’t stop some of you from endlessly dreaming about snatching up every worthwhile school on the map. It’s cute.
LikeLike
Well that’s good, I only wanted the top two anyway.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St. would never go solo to the Big 10 if they had a chance to stay with OU elsewhere (theoretical since it wouldn’t be offered). The Big 12 schools are happy where they are as well. The malcontents are gone. But like schools in any conference, they would seriously consider better offers. Arkansas always listens when the Big 12 calls.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St. would never go solo to the Big 10 if they had a chance to stay with OU elsewhere (theoretical since it wouldn’t be offered).
Was trying to come up with an “I wouldn’t go out with (insert name of favorite star actress), but only because she’s out of my league” analogy.
But like schools in any conference, they would seriously consider better offers. Arkansas always listens when the Big 12 calls.
And then endlessly laughs after the Big 12 hangs up.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Okie St. wouldn’t be in quite as much trouble if the Big XII dissolved as Tech, Baylor, TCU, K-State and ISU since the Cowboys are materially more valuable than those schools (thanks T-Boone!) and Oklahoma likes having them around more than Texas, Iowa and Kansas do their younger brothers, but Big 10 membership would still guarantee Oklahoma St. a permanent slot in a major conference which is something the Big XII can’t.
LikeLike
Tech, Baylor and TCU would also accept Big Ten bids without hesitation (assuming they could get around GOR’s). Every P5 schools’ top priority is ensuring they keep a seat at the grown ups’ table and membership in the Big 10, PAC and SEC are the only way those schools could make sure they are never left behind.
(Of course none of those schools will actually get a Big Ten invite, but just thought I would add that)
LikeLike
If any of those went to the Big 10 alone it would kill their football program. Their recruiting in Texas would nose-dive. None of them would do it. And the Big 10 schedule would be less attractive. Illinois and Iowa and Michigan St. wouldn’t generate any interest in Oklahoma or Texas, let alone Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
If any of those went to the Big 10 alone it would kill their football program. Their recruiting in Texas would nose-dive.
…
Illinois and Iowa and Michigan St. wouldn’t generate any interest in Oklahoma or Texas, let alone Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland and Rutgers.
All of that is completely true… and it still wouldn’t matter. Being the worse team in the Big Ten is still better than being stuck in mid-major which is always a risk so long as those schools are in the Big XII.
Just ask yourself this; if TCU could go back in time to 1984 and join the Big 10 do think they would do it?
LikeLike
Once in a while Andy stumbles upon a kernal of truth……………………..
LikeLike
There are three things that I know that are absolute facts regarding realignment:
1. After Nebraska & before the Maryland/Rutgers additions, Oklahoma approached the B1G as a solo act (ie no Okie St) & was turned down.
2. Virginia wanted in and will eventually be a member. The problem was timing in getting the other pieces to work (and I have no idea who they were).
3. Missouri never had a commitable offer.
The best thing about the pre-season is it allows Missouri fans to still pretend they’re relevant. Now that is downright cute.
LikeLike
And how do you know Virginia wanted in?
LikeLike
The Dude hasn’t been wrong yet, right?
LikeLike
There are three things that I know that are absolute facts regarding realignment:
1. After Nebraska & before the Maryland/Rutgers additions, Oklahoma approached the B1G as a solo act (ie no Okie St) & was turned down.
2. Virginia wanted in and will eventually be a member. The problem was timing in getting the other pieces to work (and I have no idea who they were).
3. Missouri never had a commitable offer.
#1 I can buy, #3 I don’t know, and #2? Well, I live in Charlottesville and never heard that talk coming from anyone I know close to UVa. If you are assuming a Big Ten invite is coming only because the president has ties to Michigan (and Michigan State as well, I believe), you’re reading too much into that. (Then again, I would have said the same thing about Loh’s ties to Iowa before November 2012.)
I sense that if a Big Ten invite was a serious issue, UVa would prefer to go in alongside North Carolina (it has lesser ties to Duke), but until Chapel Hill is a legit candidate, such talk for now is moot.
LikeLike
@S_L
Why I read this blog; ‘absolute facts’, and ‘downright cute’ things! LOL!
LikeLike
Are we sure about number 1? I’ve heard rumors but never seen anything confirmed. (I know they did a logistical report, but do we know for sure it was because Oklahoma approached the Big Ten and not just the Big Ten screening any number of schools?)
LikeLike
I can’t remember when but I linked to a tweet (and Frank RT’d it) in the comments from a previous post where a CBS Sports writer reported that Oklahoma and OSU approached the Big Ten and were turned down.
I would be shocked if OU didn’t approach the Big Ten. OU leaders needed to know what its options were especially before/during their run to the PAC12. Even if OU was turned down, there are varying degrees of getting turned down. The Big Ten could have said that they wouldn’t be receptive unless Texas is involved.
LikeLike
I know that Oklahoma and Okie St. approached the Big Ten together, but Scarlet said that OU approached the Big Ten alone. I’ve never seen that part confirmed.
LikeLike
Scarlet, no you can’t really prove any of those and they are not absolute facts.
LikeLike
The Big ten should add OU and UT and shut down forever. I don’t see any real benefit in a 20 team conference. 16 is a good number for either 8 team divisions, where every one plays at least 1 every 4 years, or in 4 team pods.
LikeLike
The Big ten should add OU and UT and shut down forever. I don’t see any real benefit in a 20 team conference. 16 is a good number for either 8 team divisions, where every one plays at least 1 every 4 years, or in 4 team pods.
I’m not sure how great 16 is. Let’s consider the possibilities.
If you have two 8-team divisions, then teams in opposite divisions would see each other highly infrequently. Penn State fans might be salivating over home games against Texas, before realizing that it would happen once every eight years. Many classic Big Ten matchups, such as Michigan at Wisconsin, would be similarly infrequent.
Pods allow for more frequent meetings, but it is difficult to come up with pods that make sense, in all the ways they have to (competitive balance, preserving rivalries, etc.).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m not sure how great 16 is. Let’s consider the possibilities.”
Me neither, but the money from UT might cause the COP/C to worry about that later. It’s only sports, after all.
“If you have two 8-team divisions, then teams in opposite divisions would see each other highly infrequently. Penn State fans might be salivating over home games against Texas, before realizing that it would happen once every eight years. Many classic Big Ten matchups, such as Michigan at Wisconsin, would be similarly infrequent.”
W – UT, OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
The original B10 would be split equally, but a lot of old match-ups would suffer as you note. That’s a price you have to pay in expansion. With a 7-2 schedule, you still get some exposure to the others (25%). If this deal was worth another $10M per year than staying at 14, it’s hard to turn down.
“Pods allow for more frequent meetings, but it is difficult to come up with pods that make sense, in all the ways they have to (competitive balance, preserving rivalries, etc.).”
Pods are always tough for the B10. There are so many rivalries to respect. Personally, I think they’d use the divisions instead. What they could do is go to 10 games and drop another OOC game. Use tiers to rotate crossover games for the 10th game to replicate the OOC game that’s lost. Then learn to live with two weaker home games OOC for those that want/need 7 home games.
10th games:
OSU, MI, PSU vs OU, UT, NE (home and home, then rotate)
MSU, ??, ?? vs WI, IA, NW
MN, IL vs IN, ??
Fill in RU, UMD and PU where you like for the ??.
LikeLike
Article from a few weeks ago that I don’t think was ever posted here
http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1527155
ACC Commissioner John Swofford said that the league has had “significant discussions” about revising the league’s current policy to distribute revenue generated by league members appearing in bowl games. Swofford also believes a change could come as soon as this bowl season.
…
Swofford said the league will maintain some level of equal sharing, “but how we get to that point of an equal share will change.” That suggests the league could look into ways to clear a team’s expenses or supplement successful teams prior to splitting the pool of bowl dollars.
LikeLike
Clearing team expenses seems perfectly reasonable, and equal (they’d be clearing non bowl teams bowl expenses too…).
LikeLike
I don’t believe either of them, but some fresh rumors from Mhver3 and “The Dude”.
First from Mhver3, select members of the AAC and MWC have met to discuss creating a new conference that they could get into D4. Maybe they can build some political clout, but you can take all the best teams from the non power conferences and they would still be a distant 6 in quality conference football quality.
The Dude is saying that the BIG Ten is asking for financials from 5 or 6 schools, none of which are from the Big 12. Mhver3 eluded to the fact that one was not currently in a power conference. Everyone of course thinks UConn. The Dude claims it’s Houston. Houston isn’t land grant, contiguous or AAU.
LikeLike
“First from Mhver3, select members of the AAC and MWC have met to discuss creating a new conference that they could get into D4.”
I was surprised SMU and Houston didn’t follow Boise and SDSU’s lead when the bailed on the BE. If they went MWC they’d clearly be top Go5 conference.
LikeLike
I’m guessing a lot of it may have had to do with a desire to play games against the remaining basketball powers in the AAC (UConn, Cincy, Memphis and Temple).
Also, travel is a lot easier to AAC schools since they (for the most part) are located in or near cities with major airports.
LikeLike
“I was surprised SMU and Houston didn’t follow Boise and SDSU’s lead when the bailed on the BE. If they went MWC they’d clearly be top Go5 conference.”
On the other hand, the AAC would have clearly been the top Go5 conference if Boise State and SDSU had gone through with joining.
Between the American/Big East and the Mountain West, too many schools have left each league for a coast-to-coast to be worth very much. Prior to the realignment that began in 2010, a very good coast-to-coast league could have been compiled. Imagine this group:
Syracuse
Pitt
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
UCF or USF
Boise State
TCU
BYU
Utah
Plus at least two among Air Force, UNLV, Fresno State, Houston, Memphis, ECU, Navy, UConn, and Rutgers.
That group could have made for a solid #6 conference. But that ship has sailed. Any new best of the rest league would have to be without Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville, TCU, Utah, and maybe BYU.
LikeLike
Glad Pitt didn’t end up in that mess.
LikeLike
Well, it was never a real possibility. The Big East schools like Syracuse and Pitt would have had to leave behind their basketball rivals (i.e., the Catholic 7) for the sake of football programs (and very subpar basketball programs) in the West, in Texas, and various parts of the South. There never would have been enough gained to give up what they’d have lost. Only going to the ACC, Big 12, SEC, or Big Ten was worthwhile.
LikeLike
Looks decent, until the possibility of moving up happens.
Agree with SDSU, BSU, SMU, Houston together works either way. My point was that SMU/Houston knew SDSU/BSU had bailed when they chose to go BE.
LikeLike
SMU/Houston knew that SDSU/BSU had bailed when they chose to go Big East rather than stay in the CUSA. There’s no strong indication that a jump to the MWC instead was on offer. And say what you want about The American being a reincarnated CUSA v1.0 … a reincarnated CUSA v1.0 is way better than CUSA v3.0.
LikeLike
At least he could of said Rice which is AAU.
LikeLike
So, 5 or 6…one not from a major conference…that would mean that 4 or 5 are from a power conference, but not the Big 12. Are we talking SEC or ACC?!?!? Very odd rumor.
LikeLike
“The Dude is saying that the BIG Ten is asking for financials from 5 or 6 schools, none of which are from the Big 12. Mhver3 eluded to the fact that one was not currently in a power conference. Everyone of course thinks UConn. The Dude claims it’s Houston. Houston isn’t land grant, contiguous or AAU.”
Rice!
LikeLike
“At least he could of said Rice which is AAU” PsuHockey
Ha! My thought as well!
LikeLike
This is MHver3’s morning update. Schools looking at forming new conference
MWC
1. UNLV
2. San Diego State
3. Fresno State
4. Air Force
5. Colorado St
6. Boise State
AAC
1. UConn
2. UCF
3. South Florida
4. Memphis
5. SMU
6. Houston
7. East Carolina
8. Temple
9. Navy
Not sure which one but Navy was also mentioned for the Big10…. Cincinnati was left out as they believe they will go to Big12. 16th member could possibly come from MAC or CUSA.
The remaining schools would form a new conference or take the MWC name… whatever. I would assume they would pillage what is left of CUSA and SunBelt, which are both about to the bones as it is. Rice, Utep, Marshal and UAB is about it from CUSA, New Mexico State from SunBelt as a big stretch.
MWC
1. Hawaii
2. Nevada
3. San Jose State
4. New Mexico
5. Wyoming
6. Utah State
AAC
1. Tulsa
2. Tulane
LikeLike
Big question…if the Power 5 say that all are welcome IF they can pay each scholarship athlete $3,000 stipends, can all of those 12-16 schools in the “6th power conference” afford it? Seems like a big risk. They could try to cut a few minor sports, I guess, and specialize in fewer…but that might not go over well among alumni and students. (Or might the Division 4 say that you must have at least X number of total scholarship sports?)
LikeLike
They won’t mandate payment. They will allow it and the competitive advantage it allows for. It will be self selecting as to those who can afford to do it, or some may try to compete/recruit while at a disadvantage. Current requirements may be increased.
LikeLike
Not that they either of those guys are to be believed, but Navy would be an interesting add for the BIG. It doesn’t much add as far as competition in athletics, but it does have a passionate international fanbase and an open spigot to federal funds. Very unlikely but interesting to think about.
LikeLike
I have always liked the idea of a NAVY add. They bring a lot to the table that the Presidents crave.
LikeLike
???
Navy brings nothing that the COP/C craves. Its a small, undergraduate-only liberal arts college that does zero research. Its unlike nearly every school in the country, and the Big Ten in particular.
LikeLike
Liberal art college?
LikeLike
USNWR categorizes it as that. I guess more accurately a military academy. Either way, not what the COP/C is looking for.
LikeLike
Totally agree they don’t fit.
http://www.usna.edu/Academics/Majors-and-Courses/index.php
LikeLike
“Its unlike nearly every school in the country.”
Exactly.
LikeLike
“…college that does zero research.”
The rest of the country does research for them at their leaders request, and enables their cool toys.
LikeLike
When I previously stated ‘they don’t fit’, I meant athletically in a power football conference. Here are links to all three academies.
http://www.usma.edu/SitePages/Home.aspx
http://www.usna.edu/homepage.php
http://www.usafa.edu/index.cfm?catname=Academy Info
And, thankyou to all veterans for your service.
LikeLike
Even if the Big Ten wanted Navy, Navy doesn’t want the Big Ten. They play a very easy schedule. Outside of their three traditional rivals (Notre Dame, Air Force and Army), they play just three Big Five teams this year. Two of those are Duke and Indiana, about as weak as you can get in the power leagues. They also schedule lower-end FCS teams, like Colgate, Fordham, and VMI. Put nine Big Ten teams on their schedule every year, and they’d get clobbered.
LikeLike
After what Army suffered through in CUSA, I’d agree wholeheartedly. Off the top of my head, I’d say the academies actually belong in D-1AA.
LikeLike
Don’t tell ND…
3-3 since 2007
LikeLike
2013 BIG recruiting rankings (nationally) in wrestling and volleyball
wrestling–1. Michigan 5. Illinois 6. Nebraska 7. PSU 8. Iowa 11. OSU 13. Rutgers 18. Minnesota 20. IU 24. Purdue…..Apparently Michigan has made a big $$ commitment with a brand new facility….thier class last year was also right at the top.
volleyball–1. Nebraska 3. Minnesota 4. Wisconsin 7. MSU 11 OSU 20. Illinois 25. Michigan….Minnesota has a first year coach, but he’s a big name (if I recall correctly).
LikeLike
I take it Maryland ranked in neither. (I’ve mentioned at several Terrapin forums that going from ACC to Big Ten wrestling and volleyball may be more of a competitive shock than will be the football change. The B1G takes both of those sports quite seriously, and if I’m AD Anderson, one of the first things I plan for 2014-2015 is to move all home wrestling and volleyball matches from the Comcast Center Pavilion, an auxiliary gym seating about 1,500, to the main Comcast arena.)
LikeLike
I have a 3rd cous that plays volleyball for Purdue, so I’ve become something of a fan……in person, it’s a fast, physical sport….biggest downside I see is that the strategic aspect is less, or at least less interesting, than in bball, fball, baseball……….
Maryland to ther BIG is interesting in that some of MD’s best sports are relatively weak in the BIG, while their worst sports are some of the strongest BIG sports…….examples….BIG is relatively strong in football, volleyball, wrestling, men’s and women’s hockey……relatively weak in men’s soccer(other than IU), women’s soccer, men’s LAX, women’s LAX(other than NW), women’s bball……what’s MD’s baseball history like?—-the BIG could use some help there
LikeLike
The good news: Maryland has three ACC baseball titles to its credit, and quite a few pro players and major-leaguers over the years (e.g., Eric Milton, Justin Maxwell). The bad news: The Terraplns’ last ACC title came in 1971, and the climate disadvantages make it almost impossible for Maryland to compete in such a powerhouse conference. (The change in academic schedules at most universities, from September-June to August-May, also occurred in the ’70s, weakening baseball at many northern colleges or even ultimately dooming it, as has been the case at Syracuse, Colorado, Iowa State and Wisconsin. At least Maryland still fields a team.) The Terps have been unable to qualify for the eight-team ACC tourney in recent years despite posting some overall winning records during that span. While Maryland will be on the same climatic footing as its Big Ten rivals, the relatively weaker competition compared to the ACC will mean that Maryland almost certainly will have little chance of securing an NCAA tourney berth. It will be an entirely different world in College Park.
LikeLike
Except if it wins the Big Ten, then wouldn’t it go to the tourney? The Big Ten may only rarely be a two-bid conference, but I don’t think its been relegated to a zero-bid conference.
LikeLike
Except if it wins the Big Ten, then wouldn’t it go to the tourney? The Big Ten may only rarely be a two-bid conference, but I don’t think its been relegated to a zero-bid conference.
I meant zero at-large berths. Sorry.
LikeLike
Yes, which underlines the different world ~ from one in which winning the conference baseball championship shifts from being a wistful dream to a real possibility to aim for.
LikeLike
But in this new environment, it’s essentially all or nothing at all, no margin for error. It would be like moving from the ACC, Big Ten or old Big East in basketball to the Mid-American or Metro Atlantic.
LikeLike
Gophers coach is Hugh McCutcheon, former coach for both Men’s and Women’s Olympic Volleyball teams. It was quite a coup securing him, even though he couldn’t start for a whole year after being hired, due to the Olympics.
LikeLike
Those Scandinavians breed’em big and tall.
Surprised that PSU isn’t in the volleyball ranking.
LikeLike
I’m not if it has been posted already, but a Q & A with Jim Delany in the News-Gazette.
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/illini-sports/football/2013-08-10/qa-jim-delany.html
LikeLike
I like this part from the article:
” I think we’re going to keep traditional model of no games on Thursday or Friday or Wednesday. Saturday, we’re trying to get more games into prime. We’ve got a championship game and we’re trying to upgrade our September schedules a little bit, dropping the teams that don’t have as many scholarships that are actually from another division, increasing the quality of the opponent because we’re going to be competing for one of those four slots in the College Football Playoff. There’s a lot of competition for the discretionary dollar; people can stay home and watch it on TV so if you want people to come to your game, you need to put good, competitive games on. I don’t think there’s any doubt that when we went to a 12th game, the overall quality of our games went down, but the number of home games went up and the number of wins went up. I’d rather have seven or eight teams compete on a national basis rather than 10 that are bowl eligible. It seems to me after a decade of that experience, that’s not necessarily a drive. We’ve seen people go to bowl games and not be there the next year and that certainly doesn’t have the same meaning it did 15 years ago.”
LikeLike
Fascinating read. Tough read because of the formatting. Big solid blocks of text. Delany is a man of many words.
But, here is just one example (and not even the best): “When I was in the ‘60s and ‘70s, young people experimented with drugs and they realized the kind of harm they could do, you had a large group of people move away from that. I think the experience with social media [Twitter, Instagram … ] will have some of the same kinds of movement and adaptations. ”
Fascinating.
LikeLike
A good bit about heading east:
We’re going to get out East, I don’t expect that to be easy, but it we can [engage] constructively with distributors, I think there’s a valued proposition there. We’ve got a million people in that corridor between Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan state, Michigan plus Rutgers and Maryland. I think major college sports will come around, largely as a result of the size and scope of these programs coming in there. It’s not going to be immediate, we won’t dominate, but I think we’ll be impactful and relevant in time and I think everybody’s real excited about that. A number of coaches mentioned it’s a great opportunity to recruit out there. We’ve added 3 percent to our geographic footprint and 30 percent to our demographic footprint.
LikeLike
Here’s another article from 25 July 2013 from New Jersey about Delany being bullish about turning NYC into a B1G city:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/07/politi_jim_delany_is_bullish_about_turning_new_york_into_a_big_ten_city.html
The article says “everything is on the table”, so we could be looking at the Big Ten Kickoff Luncheon, the B1G basketball tournament, etc. Delany has stated in the past that the conference is looking to have an office in the East–it sounds like he’s serious.
LikeLike
There are plenty of good options for holding events in the NYC area.
I think it could be cool to turn the B10/ACC Challenge into a 4 day event – 3 games on Thursday and Friday nights (one day in B10 country, the other in ACC country), then 4 games each on Saturday and Sunday all played at Barclay’s or MSG or something.
Or have a mini-B10 tournament sort of thing to kick off the B10 season. Play a B10 double-header in NYC over the holidays (maybe two of them).
Start having a kickoff game at MetLife as the first conference game of the year, since they’re going to start playing those games early anyway. If not that, then a major OOC game. MI/ND in NYC? OSU/OU? NE/Miami?
LikeLike
Also, so. many. transcription. errors. But I agree, an excellent read. Delany appears from his public statements and the B!G moves to have a firm vision and the ability to execute it. Whenever he retires, the B1G will have some very large shoes to fill.
LikeLike
So negotiations don’t begin for tier 1/2 until fall of 2015. If, and its a big if, there is anymore expansion, I don’t think it would occur until 2015 before negotiations start.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9567204/bcs-best-moments
A fun little poll. Rank the top 10 BCS moments.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone else has thrown this out there, so here’s a suggestion (maybe in 2020):
B10 adds
UVa, VTech
Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice
OK, VTech, Baylor, & TCU aren’t AAU, but you could say that Baylor & TCU have a quality undergrad student body & VTech is close enough to be AAU in 2 decades.
Simple E-W split along the IL-IN border.
Texas gets to bring along a posse.
Both divisions get their southern exposure.
10 conference games (9 intradivisional games and 1 interdivisional game; if you use divisional games as the tie-breaker, this effectively makes the divisional games what matter most and the interdivisional game a tie-breaker).
I think that in such a setup, only Michigan, OSU, and PSU would entertain the idea of 7 home games every year (assuming that Texas still maintains a neutral site game with OU . . . or someone else).
LikeLike
Richard,
“I don’t think anyone else has thrown this out there, so here’s a suggestion (maybe in 2020):
B10 adds
UVa, VTech
Texas, Baylor, TCU, Rice”
I think the western 4 are a stretch for various reasons, but I could see VT as a viable candidate.
“OK, VTech, Baylor, & TCU aren’t AAU, but you could say that Baylor & TCU have a quality undergrad student body & VTech is close enough to be AAU in 2 decades.”
VT is roughly where FSU is, and they also have a plan to work towards AAU membership. I’m not saying they’ll get there any time soon, but at least they’re working on improving.
“Simple E-W split along the IL-IN border.”
You think divisions over pods? I tend to agree, but I’m less sure as the number grows. Maybe add a 10th game so you at least occasionally play the other side. Oh, I see you addressed that later.
“Texas gets to bring along a posse.”
But is that the posse they want? It’s hard to imagine them leaving OU.
“10 conference games (9 intradivisional games and 1 interdivisional game; if you use divisional games as the tie-breaker, this effectively makes the divisional games what matter most and the interdivisional game a tie-breaker).”
Is 1 game every 10 years enough? That may force them to pods.
W – UT, BU, TCU, Rice, NE
N – WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
S – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, VT
Those are decent and no locked games are required. A 9 game schedule let’s you play your neighbors 100% of the time and everyone else 33%. It also allows for 3 OOC games, so the big games can stay. They could also do 10 games, of course, and try to pair teams by tiers for that 10th game.
Tier 1 – UT, NE, TCU; WI, IA, NW; OSU, MI, MSU; PSU, VT, RU
Tier 2 – Other
“I think that in such a setup, only Michigan, OSU, and PSU would entertain the idea of 7 home games every year (assuming that Texas still maintains a neutral site game with OU . . . or someone else).”
The TV money might be enough to make up the difference for everyone else, true.
LikeLike
If 10 games with pods:
If they pair by tiers, then
PSU-OSU-Wisconsin-Texas-VTech
VTech-Michigan-Iowa-UNL-PSU
(first 2 tiers switch around to preserve Iowa-UNL-PSU-OSU but also match Wisconsin with the top tier and Iowa with the second)
Could just be:
PSU-OSU-Iowa-UNL
VTech-Michigan-Wisconsin-Texas
so that Iowa and Wisconsin have similar strength.
RU-MSU-Northwestern-TCU
UVa-PU-Minny-Rice-UMD
UMD-IU-Illinois-BU-UVa
(last 2 tiers switch around to preserve IU-Illinois).
Pretty much every rivalry of any consequence (besides the LBJ game, which isn’t preserved now) would be preserved.
LikeLike
Right, so some of these would be played all the time and some only 2/3rds of the time. The all-the-time ones:
PSU-OSU, Iowa-UNL, Michigan-Wisconsin, Texas-VTech
MSU-Northwestern, RU-TCU
IU-Illinois, BU-UVa, PU-Minny, Rice-UMD
4 original B10 matchups as well as PSU-OSU & Iowa-UNL
LikeLike
Depending on how serious the Big 10 really is about getting to 16, and how secure the GOR protection really is…………..the VA/VA Tech combo, although still very unlikely and seemingly not under consideration, , seems to me to be as reasonable as any…………..
The biggest non-GOR issues there would be Va Tech’s non-AAU status and cultural issues……..concerning the former, have you noticed that the BIG doesn’t use it as much as a talking point since Neb go booted……concerning the cultural issues, Va Tech is a little too Aggie-like for a lot of Big 10 academic sorts, and Va Tech fans would vote 85-15 for the SEC if they had a say……that being said, having the 2 come in together would alleviate a lot of the cultural issue…..
Instituton fit-wise, this duo would be great for the Big 10……VA would be like a smaller UM or Wisconsin…very similiar to NW….Va Tech is a bigger school overall and a big-time engineering school and that would fit with Purdue and the highly-rated eng. depts at Ill, UM, Wisky, NW, MD, Minnesota……
For these reasons, I’m surprided that in all the recent expansion mania there were NO reports concerning Va Tech…..
LikeLike
I’m surprided that in all the recent expansion mania there were NO reports concerning Va Tech…
Because the Big Ten is probably not going to duplicate a market they’re already in. It’s the same reason why Pitt didn’t get a serious look. Same deal with Rice, Baylor, and TCU.
LikeLike
1. The B10 isn’t already in VA.
2. While UVa & VTech aren’t as tied at the hip as some other schools, they are tied to some degree.
3. VTech is a bigger brand than Pitt while UVa is a much smaller brand than PSU.
Add PSU, and you essentially own PA (except for maybe metro Pittsburgh, which has only a little over 20% of PA’s population).
Add only UVa, and you’re ceding the loyalty of over half the football fans in VA to whoever adds VTech.
LikeLike
As for Rice, Baylor, and TCU, they come only if Texas requires bringing a posse to join, and I’m certain that wherever they go, they will demand to bring one.
LikeLike
But it won’t be a private school.
LikeLike
1. The B10 isn’t already in VA.
Well, the stipulation is that they’d be getting UVA; they’re clearly not taking VT on its own. The state of Virginia isn’t so important to the Big Ten that they’d take a second school to lock it down. If they want UVA at all, it’s as a stepping stone to North Carolina. The more believable scenario is that UVA goes to the Big Ten, VT goes to the SEC, and the two play OOC every year.
As for Rice, Baylor, and TCU, they come only if Texas requires bringing a posse to join, and I’m certain that wherever they go, they will demand to bring one.
Texas already kicked Rice and TCU to the curb when the SWC dissolved, and when they came within an inch of joining the Pac-12, the only school they would have brought along was Texas Tech. Most people are doubtful that even TT would be acceptable to the Big Ten. If the Big Ten were willing to take a second Texas school not named A&M, TT would be miles ahead of Baylor and TCU.
LikeLike
I’ve longed looked at Virginia Tech as one of the sleeper expansion candidates for the Big Ten. If the conference is going to look at schools that aren’t AAU schools but still have a modicum of academic credibility, then VT is one of those schools that fits the bill and, not insignificantly, actually has a very good (Prince level?) football program that has had sustained success. It’s not necessarily a home run school, but it’s pretty solid across the board: good market (meaning the state of Virginia), good recruiting territory, good academics, good football program, and good fans. If UVA isn’t going to come, then VT is certainly a consideration for further East Coast exposure (much more so for me than UConn). Why let VT potentially walk over to the SEC and allow that conference to have even more on-the-field football power? VT is really the only contiguous school in a state that the Big Ten isn’t already in that improves the overall football product for the conference, so I wouldn’t dismiss them out of hat.
LikeLike
“The state of Virginia isn’t so important to the Big Ten that they’d take a second school to lock it down. If they want UVA at all, it’s as a stepping stone to North Carolina.”
Maybe you’re right, maybe not. I know that if I ran the B10, I’d take both UVa and VTech.
In terms of brand/TV attractiveness (even including bball), UNC isn’t really that much more valuable than VTech, as this ACC poster showed before:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc
As for adding UNC, I think that if the SEC collapses, they’ll choose the SEC since they would take NCSU.
LikeLike
If the ACC collapses, I meant.
LikeLike
Depending on how serious the Big 10 really is about getting to 16…
Delany has said over and over again that there is no particular number they want; each addition needs to be compelling on its own terms. As he always reminds people, he’s the guy who stood at 11 teams for 20 years. They’re not going to add #15/16 just because they’re available. After all, there are a bunch of teams they could have had, basically at any time, e.g., Missouri before it joined the SEC, Kansas before the Big XII GOR, any former Big East team, and so on.
LikeLike
Adding KU without KSU would have been difficult (and still would be, so long as the B12 is viable, GOR or no).
LikeLike
Texas gets to bring along a posse.
What makes you think Texas has any desire to drag along a posse? If anything they would be grateful to free themselves from the leaches once and for all.
LikeLike
@frug – I really used to think that. In fact, that was much of the crux of my very first argument in favor of Texas going to the Big Ten (where it could rid itself of the financial drain of the weakest Big 12 members while also improving its academic standing). What I’ve found over the past couple of years, though, is that it really seems like Texas likes having the “leaches” around to lord over. Like I’ve said before, Texas wants to own an estate with a bunch of worker bees from Lubbock and Waco in the yard, whereas Notre Dame just wants everyone to get the f**k off of its lawn.
LikeLike
What I’ve found over the past couple of years, though, is that it really seems like Texas likes having the “leaches” around to lord over. Like I’ve said before, Texas wants to own an estate with a bunch of worker bees from Lubbock and Waco in the yard
Well given that they came thisclose to relegating Baylor in both 2010 and 2011 I have a really hard time believing UT has any interest in the Bears. I also have a tough time believing they are all that interested in keeping Tech around in light of the infamous “Tech problem” email.
Really, the only reason Texas cares about anyone in the Big XII besides Oklahoma is because the Big XII is only conference willing to let them keep the LHN. If any of the PAC, Big 10 or ACC had been willing to compromise on it I don’t think Texas would lose even one wink of sleep over ditching any of the other Texas schools.
LikeLike
The tech problem was their requirement to join the B1G. It was a B1G email that spoke of that impediment, not media rights. LHN didn’t yet exist. They were also required (obviously along with OU to join the P16). The PAC didn’t yet have a conference network so UT hoped to carve an exception for themselves at startup. That possibility didn’t exist with the B1G. Then a little birdies started whispering in their ear about the potential benefit and support their own network would be. And here we are.
LikeLike
I meant Texas could have joined the Big Ten, ACC or PAC in 2011 (after Aggie left) if they had been willing to ditch the LHN.
LikeLike
And I suggested the LHN isn’t what their problem originally was with the B1G. Hint: it’s a “technical” issue, that I’m not sure they actually want to abandon. Not that the LHN wouldn’t be an issue now, and for as long as Mickey Mouse is willing to subsidize it.
LikeLike
The “Tech problem” was a political one and A&M showed how to solve it (wait for a friendly/distracted governor and for the state legislator to go out of session). And given that Texas was planning on ditching Tech back in ’94 until the Speaker of the State House stepped in and they have made clear they couldn’t possibly care less what happens to Baylor (the other school they were forced to drag into the Big XII) I suspect the Longhorns would be perfectly content to never see the Red Raiders again.
LikeLike
True. But I doubt TT alums and politicians will get distracted enought to miss/allow the keystone of their conference leaving, which aTm was not.
LikeLike
If Texas can pull off the A&M move, the TT alums can get as agitated as they want, but cannot stop it. The Texas legislature meets for 6 months every two years. A&M announced it was leaving immediately after it closed up shop. A&M only had to convince one politician (Perry, A&M alum by the way) that the SEC was a good move. He was the only one that could call a special session. By the time the legislature was in session again, A&M had already completed its first year in the SEC. What will make this move more difficult for UT is the XII GoR. It is one thing to have a shot every two years when the governor is a willing Texas alum, but now UT needs this to happen when the GoR is expiring.
LikeLike
IF you could pull it off, then you get to deal with really upset legislators. Enjoy the budgeting sessions. Might be better than MMA.
aTm moving, although weakening it did not threaten the conference’s viable existence. UT moving would end it, and TT’s major conference hopes unless they are included in the UT move.
LikeLike
IF you could pull it off, then you get to deal with really upset legislators. Enjoy the budgeting sessions.
At that point playing games with UT’s budget wouldn’t do any the legislators any good. Politicians may be petty sometimes, but they aren’t going to slash the flagship’s budget purely out of spite (especially since UT friendly members of the legislature ensure that penalty inflicted on UT would also apply to A&M, ensuring that Aggie legislators would be on their side).
LikeLike
You’ve seen a different kind of politics than I have. Petty and vindictive is just the beginning. More along the hell hath no fury like…along with an elephant’s memory.
LikeLike
If Texas can pull off the A&M move, the TT alums can get as agitated as they want, but cannot stop it.
The A&M move was different, because their departure didn’t kill the Big XII, the way it would if Texas left. That’s a pretty significant different.
A&M leaving still left TT and Baylor with good homes. If anything, it was a net improvement for the state, because A&M and TCU both got to step up, while UT, TT and Baylor stayed the same. That wouldn’t be the case if Texas left.
LikeLike
The A&M move was different, because their departure didn’t kill the Big XII, the way it would if Texas left. That’s a pretty significant different.
A&M leaving still left TT and Baylor with good homes.
Except Perry made it clear he wasn’t going to call the legislature back into session even if UT ditched followed the Aggies lead and ditched the Big XII also. In fact, Texas did negotiate with other conferences and (more or less) told Baylor that they would be left to fend for themselves if UT went to the PAC and Tech would face the same if they want to the Big 10 or ACC. In fact, Baylor famously refused to rule out legal action against anyone who left the Big XII.
LikeLike
You’ve seen a different kind of politics than I have. Petty and vindictive is just the beginning. More along the hell hath no fury like…along with an elephant’s memory.
Like all those Rice, Houston, TCU and SMU legislators that punished UT for ditching those schools back in ’94? Wait that didn’t happen, since it wouldn’t have done them any good.
I mean there are plenty of examples of them taking action before hand to achieve a goal (like forcing Tech and Baylor into the Big XII and V-Tech into the ACC) but there are not any examples of politicians simply punishing schools after the fact.
LikeLike
It’s very simple when Texas didn’t leave for the PAC and TAMU bolted for the SEC, Texas got its LHN but another mouth to feed in TCU. Perry won’t be governor in 2014 and the legislature is viscous (see this summer’s fireworks). UT has three mouths to feed and while it may be all well and good to discuss Athletic conferences in the legislature is not in session….blah, blah, blah – the unique set of circumstances that allowed TAMU to escape don’t apply to UT so everyone get comfy we’re all going to be together for awhile.
LikeLike
And that is the one for all attitude the B1G strives for…
LikeLike
True. The Big Ten doesn’t take little brothers.
LikeLike
But they don’t abandon their mates, either.
LikeLike
They don’t protect them either (notice that Iowa and Penn St. didn’t lift a finger to help ISU and Pitt when the Big XII and Big East were in trouble.)
LikeLike
The Big Ten also doesn’t care if the schools they acquire relegate their old conference members. Nebraska had been with KU, KSU, ISU and Missouri for well over a century, but the Big 10 had no problem at all with those 4 joining Baylor in the Forgotten Five.
LikeLike
Well, you’re right in what you say. I probably just have a touch too rosey shade of glasses on, but I do think there is a difference taking refugees from problematic circumstances, as opposed to those looking to change penthouse views. 😉
LikeLike
frug,
“True. The Big Ten doesn’t take little brothers.”
Except MSU and NW and Chicago (assuming IL is technically the big brother) and maybe PU (kind of a joint big brother with IN).
“They don’t protect them either (notice that Iowa and Penn St. didn’t lift a finger to help ISU and Pitt when the Big XII and Big East were in trouble.)”
What could they have possibly done to help them? Get outvoted 11-1 by the other presidents in a futile show of solidarity? IA already plays ISU annually. There’s nothing else they can do. PSU could agree to play Pitt annually, but the addition of the ninth game makes that unlikely.
“The Big Ten also doesn’t care if the schools they acquire relegate their old conference members. Nebraska had been with KU, KSU, ISU and Missouri for well over a century, but the Big 10 had no problem at all with those 4 joining Baylor in the Forgotten Five.”
Why should the B10 care? Those other teams are the competition. It’s not like the schools would disappear, just that their sports teams would become less prominent. No school has a right to prominent sports teams. That’s a privilege that is earned.
LikeLike
“True. The Big Ten doesn’t take little brothers.”
Except MSU and NW and Chicago (assuming IL is technically the big brother) and maybe PU (kind of a joint big brother with IN).
Actually the Big Ten didn’t take Northwestern or Chicago; those schools co-founded the conference.
You are right about MSU though.
LikeLike
I guess I should rephrase slightly; Northwestern, Chicago and Purdue for that matter were co-founders of the league (along with Illinois, Wiscy, Michigan and Minnesota)
LikeLike
Yeah, I was just light-heartedly pointing out that things change. You’re totally correct that the B10 wouldn’t take a little brother now that TV money is so important. MSU would struggle to get in today, just like Pitt. They’d be another perfect fit that adds nothing financially.
That means PSU would’ve been #10.
Likely scenario from there:
1. Pitt and MSU never get invited
2. The COP/C still says no to UT because there was a moratorium on expansion (one of their dumbest decisions ever).
3. NE is #11 and MO is #12 back in 2010.
In order of locked rivals:
L – OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IN, IL
L – MI, NE, MN, IA, MO, NW
4. This is where things get sketchy. Does the B10 still look eastward? Adding KU while adding NE and MO would be very tempting, and RU was always available. Maybe the B10 gets UMD and not RU? Given the choice, which was higher on the B10’s wishlist?
E – OSU, MI, PSU, PU, IN, RU/UMD, NW
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, MO, KU, IL
Only locked game is NW/IL. The imbalance makes even less sense now because only 1 new market is in the east, but MO and KS are full of strong fans and NE is the big attraction for them in FB. WI and IA would also be big due to proximity.
LikeLike
@Brian
My big questions is if the Big Ten didn’t take MSU to replace Chicago, would they have been able to land ND? Supposedly the Irish wanted in but Michigan politicians pressured the Big Ten into take the Spartans…
LikeLike
frug,
“My big questions is if the Big Ten didn’t take MSU to replace Chicago, would they have been able to land ND? Supposedly the Irish wanted in but Michigan politicians pressured the Big Ten into take the Spartans…”
If MSU was off the table, maybe. I really don’t know. That was well before my time. I have a hard time picturing ND actually wanting to join. Were the ND alumni as staunchly anti-B10 back then? They still hold a grudge about Fielding Yost, so I imagine those feelings were stronger back then. ND was at the height of its power, too. On the other hand, this was before interstates and flying to games, so the travel convenience would have been big.
I believe Pitt was also a candidate back then.
I was thinking nobody gets added and they stay at 9 until the decision to expand in 1990, but yours is a great question.
LikeLike
From what I understand, Pittsburgh — a national football power in the ’20s and ’30s — was a genuine candidate to replace Chicago in the late ’40s. (Penn State had also posted some success, but not to the level of Pitt; PSU was a much smaller school at the time, and it traditionally played at Pitt to close the season.) Had Pitt become member #10, PSU likely never gets in the Big Ten, and perhaps winds up in the ACC if those institutions agreed to invite schools that played black athletes (the ACC was all-white until Maryland broke the color line in the mid-’60s).
LikeLike
FWIW, William Marsh Rice University is located in Houston. So, the Dude and Mhver3 got the city right, but the University wrong?
So, I thought: what does Rice bring to the table?
“In 1900, millionaire William Marsh Rice was murdered by two men attempting to steal his fortune. They were convicted and his estate used to set up an Institute for the Advancement of the Letters, Science and Art. It opened in 1912 and gained university status in 1960. Its 285-acre wooded campus houses around 5,500 students and more than 600 academics.”
That from somewhere on the web; this from Wikipedia.
Undergrads: 3700; Grads: 2400; AAU; $115M in research funding annually.
Forbes ranks Rice ahead of UTAustin for research. FWIW. http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2013/07/where-rice-ranks-on-forbes-list-of.html
Honestly, as a member of the CoP/C, I might be intrigued with Rice as a companion to UTAustin.
LikeLike
More likely the P5 break away from the NCAA, pay their players, and Rice drops to D3.
LikeLike
Even though NW is an elite private school, it still has about 19000 total students, including a huge # of graduate students….so NW is 3x the size of Rice……NW has almost 3x as many grad students as Rice has undergrads……..Rice would never be seriously considered for the Big 10………….
LikeLike
NU has a shade over 8,000 undergrads. Only Kellogg is on the Evanston campus. The Medical and Law schools are in downtown Chicago. Only Kellogg students ever attend football games, and do so in very small numbers.
LikeLike
Er, Kellogg, Engineering, Arts&Science, Communications, Music, Journalism, etc. are in Evanston.
Law and Medical addwed together are still less than 50% of NU grad students..
LikeLike
Fun fact: Rice once owned the old Yankee Stadium.
LikeLike
I skipped from the top of the comments to the bottom, so I am responding as much to this as I am to the earlier posts about how the big 12 would be divvied up, with TCU and Baylor in the ACC.
If the ACC ever admits any Texas private schools, Rice and SMU are much more “ACC-like.” Which probably makes them more “PAC-16 like” and more “B1G like” as well. A Pac-12 pod with Texas, Rice, SMU and Oklahoma would balance nicely with UCB, Stanford, UCLA and USC. Two private schools, two public schools, one or two big states. (If the PAC snobs turn up their noses at SMU even though it is exactly as Southern and Methodist as Duke and as good as USC in every respect except recent football success, then substitute Tulane or Tulsa. They would never touch Baylor or Texas Christian, and neither would the B1G or ACC.)
The ACC has a slightly different take on what makes a “peer institution” than the B1G. Both leagues are full of great schools, but I think the ACC puts a bit more emphasis on undergraduate education and tradition at smaller schools, and less on STEM or Ag research. I firmly believe that the fact that the University of Louisville was founded in 1798 has a lot to do with why they are in and UConn and Cincy are not.
LikeLike
Hot off the presses
Click to access 2013_release_men-s_basketball_attendance.pdf
2012-2013 NCAA MBB attendance
Lots of interesting stuff but a few things that stick out;
– UK leads all schools in attendance (again)
– ‘Cuse, Louisville, UNC and Indiana rounded out the top 5
– Big Ten number 1 in attendance (again)
– Big East (in its swansong) replaced SEC at #2 on attendance chart
– Big XII was the only other conference to average more than 10,000
– PAC averaged almost 1,100 fewer fans per game that the MWC and 2,300 fewer than the ACC (the next lowest power conference)
– Total NCAA attendance was down 61 fans per game (73 excluding tournament and other neutral site games)
– And finally; Rutgers didn’t even average 5,000 fans a game. Northwestern was the lowest Big Ten teams at 6,389. Penn St. averaged 7,672 and all other schools were well over 10,000. To put it another way; NU ranked 82nd in the country in attendance, Penn St. 65th and everyone else is in the top 40. Rutgers meanwhile didn’t come close to cracking the top 100.
LikeLike
Maryland was 25th, with a 12,489 average, which would put it eighth among the Big Ten. Counting Maryland, 11 of the top 38 in attendance are current or future B1G members.
LikeLike
frug,
“2012-2013 NCAA MBB attendance
…
– Big Ten number 1 in attendance (again)
…
– And finally; Rutgers didn’t even average 5,000 fans a game. Northwestern was the lowest Big Ten teams at 6,389. Penn St. averaged 7,672 and all other schools were well over 10,000. To put it another way; NU ranked 82nd in the country in attendance, Penn St. 65th and everyone else is in the top 40. Rutgers meanwhile didn’t come close to cracking the top 100.”
RU averaged 4922 and UMD 12,489.
Luckily the B10 still has a big lead (13,114 to 10,699) since RU will hurt the average a bit. The average would have been 12,484 with RU and UMD included. Since UMD was basically at that new average, the drop of 630 is all due to RU.
Meanwhile, the ACC is about to jump up.
Current ACC Average – 9990
SU – 22,439
UL – 21,571
Pitt – 10,227
ND – 8242
UMD – 12,489
New ACC average – 11325
That would jump them from #5 to a clear #2.
LikeLike
MD seems like it’s on a roll recruiting-wise——-3 top 100 players so far in the 2014 class, from 3 different states—VA, PA, MD…..on top of a solid 2013 class…so I could see them averaging 16000 by the time they get to ther Big 10…….
PSU is a little odd in that there is SO little interest in basketball there….even though Rutgers has a small & old gym they may do better in Big 10 basketball than PSU because there is at least SOME latent bball interest there….and a better recruiting situation.
LikeLike
going on re: PSU…there are so many issues for bball there…..football dominance, the Big 5 Philly school tradition, hyistorical lack of success, diluted interest because of volleyball, wrestling, hockey……to me, that might be the toughest basketball job in the B ig 10……
LikeLike
No way.
As bad as PSU is, they still have way more MBB support than either Northwestern and Rutgers. And as bad as Penn St. has been, their BB history is still much stronger than those 2 schools.
Plus, unlike NU and Rutgers, PSU has significant (theoretical) upside. PSU has the resources necessary to build a powerhouse it’s just a matter of whether or not they want to make the investment.
LikeLike
The talent ‘near’ Pennsylvania is all located near the metro Big East schools (Villanova, Pitt) which is a big disadvantage. You’d hope PSU could put their football money in their basketball facilities to compete with the schools of the Big East. Rutgers has a similar issue with Villanova, & St. Johns,
LikeLike
The other thing going against PSU basketball is the location of the school. PSU I literally in the middle of nowhere. It is a small college town surrounded by mountains. Most top basketball players come from urban areas. It’s a tough sell.
LikeLike
PSU has the resources necessary to build a [basketball] powerhouse it’s just a matter of whether or not they want to make the investment.
If resources were all it took, why the big disparity between, say, Virginia and North Carolina — both big, affluent state flagship schools in the same, basketball-first, league? It’s not as if UVA has Penn State’s excuse that they focus mainly on football: they’re not a king in that sport either.
LikeLike
I think the issue with PSU is more that they haven’t been able to find the coach who wants to, and is able to, build and sustain a program. They are close enough to large metro areas where talent is plentiful.
While the school might be in the middle of nowhere, that’s not much of an excuse. Pittsburgh to PSU is 2.5 hours, slightly longer than Chicago to Champaign. Also, there are successful basketball schools in small cities/rural outposts, such as WVU and Arkansas,
Undoubtedly, PSU is a football school, and probably always will be. But PSU can be a top 25 program if it finds and keeps the right coach, and gives said coach institutional support.
As an analogy, for generations, folks said Rutgers could never be a decent football school, between the power of PSU, Syracuse, BC, and other schools with deep recruiting ties in NJ, the lack of facilities, negligible fan interest, proximity to NYC/prevalence of numerous pro teams, string of bad coaching hires, and no real administrative support. But in Greg Schiano, the school found the right guy to build a respectable program from the ground up, a program producing legit NFL players and going to bowl games–and moving up to the B1G. If Rutgers can succeed in football, there is no reason why PSU can’t succeed in basketball.
LikeLike
Being in he middle of nowhere is no excuse but the type of town it is does, in my opinion, make Penn State a tough sell for urban athletes. Why go to PSU when you can play in Philadelphia, Columbus, or New York? I think hockey will be huge at PSU and that will be the final nail in the men’s basketball teams coffin.
LikeLike
If resources were all it took, why the big disparity between, say, Virginia and North Carolina — both big, affluent state flagship schools in the same, basketball-first, league?
Virginia (historically) hasn’t produced the same level in state talent as North Carolina.
But my overall point is this, there is nothing stopping PSU from pursuing the same path that Ohio St., Florida, Texas and ND did (using excess FB wealth to build top 25 MBB programs) except the will to act. The Northeast is arguably the most talent rich region in the country and PSU is (by far) the wealthiest and powerful athletic department in the area. And while most BB talent may come from urban areas, that’s not really a huge issue (Gainesville and South Bend aren’t exactly major cities)
LikeLike
Have you been to Happy Valley? PSU in the middle of now where surrounded by rural central Pennsylvania (AKA Pennsyltucky). The talent from the Northeast is, for the most part, from urban areas (NYC, Philly). They tend to go to schools in urban areas. This may be the same problem for Virginia as compared to UNC.
LikeLike
I’d say that PSU has some disadvantages with its location for basketball recruiting, although Syracuse has done very well getting NYC recruits despite not being that close geographically. UConn in a rural area. So, I can see where PSU has a tougher time when recruits in Pennsylvania may prefer Villanova or Pitt (depending upon which end of the state that they’re from), but they are definitely underperforming compared to their resources. Rutgers really has no geographic excuse for their poor basketball, though – they are a train ride from Manhattan and have been a part of the hey-days of the Big East.
LikeLike
Many, many successful college basketball programs are in the middle of nowhere. Why should that only apply to PSU? How can PSU be successful in so many sports despite their location, but it only impacts hoops?
Location may be a small factor, but it is far from the overall reason for their struggles.
LikeLike
The number 1 reason for their struggles in nobody cares: administration, students, alumni.
LikeLike
Have you been to Happy Valley? PSU in the middle of now where surrounded by rural central Pennsylvania (AKA Pennsyltucky).
Have you ever been to Champaign? It’s as if someone dropped college in the middle of the world’s largest cornfield, yet Illinois still manages to maintain a strong BB program.
LikeLike
The number 1 reason for their struggles in nobody cares: administration, students, alumni.
Bingo.
That said, if the administrators made a real commitment to the sport I suspect that the students and alumni would catch up. (They already have better attendance they ND)
LikeLike
I admit, Basketball is far down the totem pole in fan interest in Western & Central PA (even Pitt Panther Hoops are far below the Steelers, Penguins, College Football and yes, the Pirates in popularity, so what kind of interest does anyone expect from Penn State Men’s Basketball?)). That said, the issue with Penn State and Hoops really goes back to Joe Paterno. He did not want another MAJOR Athletic program to compete against the Football team, so you did not see the alumni, students, and in particular, the Athletic Department & University Administration (also known as Tim Curley & Graham Spanier) pushing the envelope, and demanding excellence in Hoops.
However, since Coach Paterno, and the others are no longer there, and the Football Team is on probation, basketball has a chance to make a mark and fill the void, but with Big 10 Hockey coming, that window is closing. It is up to AD Joyner to make a commitment to Basketball like they are in Wrestling, Hockey and even Baseball (they hired a top flight new Coach in Rob Cooper). Lets see what happens?
LikeLike
Also, just did some quick math and the new Big East schools averaged 9857 (which is actually down a couple hundred from when I ran this exercise using the ’11-’12 data), which would make them an easy number 5 and likely to crack the 10,000 mark with the excitement of the “new” conference (and improved schedules for Creighton, Butler and Xavier).
That also means they will join the Big Ten and SEC as the only conferences to have all its members rank in the top 100 (a club the Big Ten will have to forfeit its membership in if Rutgers doesn’t get its s*** together)
LikeLike
Of course there is also this to consider
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130529/BLOGS04/130529794/depaul-basketball-attendance-well-short-of-mcpier-projections
Attendance at Blue Demons home games in suburban Rosemont has averaged around 2,900 over the past three years, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain’s.
…
That is far below DePaul’s reported average home game attendance of 7,938 over those 16 home games. Over the course of the entire season, the school reported total attendance at Allstate Arena at 127,020. The actual attendance was 41,771.
The discrepancy comes from the Blue Demons counting tickets rather than people. Their reported attendance, said an athletic department spokesman, includes “a couple thousand” tickets the school buys for each game to block out seats for students, who can go to any DePaul athletic event “free of charge” if they pay a quarterly $25 student activities fee. Many of those students, however, don’t go to the games. The school also counts complimentary tickets given to charities and other groups toward their attendance number each game.
LikeLike
BYU averaged just under 16,000 – good for 13th in the country. The next closest WCC schools was Gonzaga with 6,000. The WCC average was 4,200 (including BYU’s numbers). Time for BYU to get into the Big 12.
BYU would have been #2 in attendance in the Big 12, behind only Kansas. And BYU’s home attendance would have likely been closer to its 22,000 capacity with playing opponents like Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, etc. rather than Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Loyola-Marymount.
LikeLike
Random note, but it’s been a month and a half and the Big East still has that embarrassingly awful temporary webpage up.
http://www.bigeast.org/
I know they have a lot to worry about (what with putting together an entire new conference in a matter of months) but you think they could do better than that.
LikeLike
Are they still referring to themselves in ALL CAPS?
LikeLike
I don’t think they out THE AMERICAN in all caps, but it looks like their website still puts THE BIG EAST in all caps. As frug said, its presently a time capsule.
LikeLike
From the Diamondback, an editorial on the findings of College Park’s Big Ten commission: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/article_31120b6e-0540-11e3-b521-0019bb30f31a.html
Also, the 2013-2014 wrestling schedule is out, and the Terrapins will take part in an event at Madison Square Garden for the second straight year (a tri-meet vs. Cornell and future Big Ten foe Rutgers), joining Maryland’s men’s and women’s basketball teams and some track athletes in having competed at the famed arena:
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/blogs/article_47cebad2-0559-11e3-9e07-0019bb30f31a.html
LikeLike
Is the Big East committed to Fox to add schools? Or will they stay at 10? Dayton (12k+ avg attendance) is a no-brainer (assuming Xavier doesn’t have a veto) but who else? Saint Louis (7.5k), Richmond (6k), Siena (6k)? Am I missing any candidates (aside from VCU)? Every other realistic private school averages less than 5k.
LikeLike
They only need 2 more schools. It’s not like they need to expand to 20.
SLU & Dayton/Richmond/Siena should do it.
LikeLike
I applaud unproven Rutgers (in terms of BIG success) – they are quietly putting together an excellent recruiting class and building on momentum from not only the Schiano days & healthy high school football, but forthcoming BIG membership. Rutger’s two recent commitments (Hilliman and Blacknall) were highly sought recruits – even by the SEC.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/rutgers/football/recruiting/commitments/2014
And what I’ve always liked about the Rutger’s fanbase in this expansion era is there overwhelming desire to join the BIG (unlike many so-called expansion targets out there). This positive desire could very well translate into nice results down the road.
I’m appreciate programs like Oregon (though Nike money has helped big time), Boise State, Nebraska for decades, Wisconsin (Alvarez to present) and KSU under Snyder for proving that cultural-organizational change & subsequent maintenance = a proven recipe for building a football program. None of the above programs has the in-state talent of say Rutgers, yet they’ve sustained football success, though Boise State is merely in the first decade of such success.
PS Such above change can also hit a wall due to administrative mistakes as well, among other reasons. Before the ax, Md was becoming a nice program under Friedgen. Md, also has better in-state recruits than the likes of Oregon, Boise State, Wisconsin, Neb and KSU.
LikeLike
The people that criticize the Rutgers addition seem to focus on RU’s inability to deliver the New York City TV market but fail to realize that New Jersey is a densely populated, fast growing state that produces very good football talent. NJ will easily be the third best state to recruit from within the B1G, and some years it will be the second best. Rutgers doesn’t have any in state competition for that talent. It will lose the blue chippers more often than not, but all it has to do is get 1/2 of the best talent and they will be very competitive.
LikeLike
Tom,
“The people that criticize the Rutgers addition seem to focus on RU’s inability to deliver the New York City TV market”
It’s not just that, but that was the main selling point for adding them. They are a fit academically, but nothing special compared to the B10 average. They have a terrible overall athletic program. Their hoops team stinks and the football team has struggled to achieve mediocre status (1 4-way split BE title is their best result). They aren’t a brand in anything, and the B10 made a big deal when adding NE about looking for home runs. RU is a single with Delany hoping the ball will roll to the wall so he can get extra bases.
“but fail to realize that New Jersey is a densely populated, fast growing state that produces very good football talent.”
NJ is largish state, but 5th in the B10 behind IL, PA, OH and MI. But how many of those people are diehard RU fans that will demand their provider gets BTN? How many are already B10 fans? Will the B10 be able to get $1/household for the BTN in all of NJ like they do elsewhere? In the NYC and Philly metro areas?
As for growth, it isn’t growing all that fast according to census data. And you don’t add a school to get football talent. The B10 already recruits in NJ, and RU has been amongst all that talent for years without managing to do much.
“NJ will easily be the third best state to recruit from within the B1G, and some years it will be the second best. Rutgers doesn’t have any in state competition for that talent. It will lose the blue chippers more often than not, but all it has to do is get 1/2 of the best talent and they will be very competitive.”
What part of that wasn’t true in the Big East? And how is any of that a reason to add RU?
All their is to sell RU with is potential. IL has dripped with potential forever, and they’ve never put it together. Lots of schools fit that description. Duffman had a long series of comments about underachievers a while ago. Why should we believe that joining the B10 is the magic wand that will fix 100+ years of mediocrity at best? Miami managed to be good in the BE. So did VT, BC, WV, UC and now UL. If RU couldn’t win before, why should we assume they’ll do better in a tougher league?
LikeLike
Because of its placement in the East division, winning Big Ten titles or even East divisions will surely be more difficult (if not impossible) in the Big Ten than it was in the Big East. They haven’t been able to win the Big East, but they were a close loss to Louisville away from doing it last year, and we all saw what Louisville did against Florida. Still, I think it’s safe to say the program is on an upswing. They are currently third in Big Ten recruiting per the 247 composite rankings, (19 overall, Penn State and Michigan State are 4th and 5th, 30th and 31st overall), largely a product of instate recruiting, which makes them better positioned for future success, more so than other Big Ten schools. RU is already better than Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and probably better than Iowa (certainly on a better trajectory). I see no reason why they can’t challenge Wisconsin, Michigan State, and now Northwestern from day one.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Still, I think it’s safe to say the program is on an upswing.”
Sure it is. That’s not a reason to add them, though.
“I see no reason why they can’t challenge Wisconsin, Michigan State, and now Northwestern from day one”
Fans of new additions often make such claims. They usually underestimate the difficulty of the transition and the B10 schedule. PSU fans said they would dominate, and they won 1 title in 10 years. Many NE fans said they would dominate, and that hasn’t happened. Most teams struggle when the competition level goes up.
RU could develop into a solid mid-tier B10 team in a few years. It doesn’t mean they will, but they have the potential.
But again, that’s not a reason to add a school.
LikeLike
They were considered to be the best 14th school available, after Maryland became available to make 13. As far as all of the reasons why they might have been considered to be the best 14th school available … pointing out that none of them would be sufficient reason to pick Rutgers as the 13th school seems to be just rehashing the Big 10 thinking, since they clearly picked Rutgers because Maryland became available.
LikeLike
RU is already better than Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and probably better than Iowa (certainly on a better trajectory).
Rutgers is currently better than Maryland, but since 2000, Maryland has shown a greater upside, winning the ACC in 2001, appearing in the Orange, Peach and Gator bowls from 2001-2003, and even in the latter part of the Friedgen era, its bowl destinations were comparable to what postseason games Rutgers has reached the past few years. The first two years of the Edsall regime (a housecleaning disaster in 2011, an injury-riddled roster in 2012) shouldn’t be used as fodder for a long-term view of the program, any more than the Terry Shea regime should be used as an indictment of Rutgers in the long term.
LikeLike
Same could be said of Missouri’s injury riddled 2012 year. They were averaging around 10 wins per year in the previous 5 years and around 8.5 wins per year over the previous 10 years. Last year lost their star QB, RB, and 6 OLs to injury all at once, and still came within 3 scores of going 8-4.
I remember a few years back Oklahoma was preseason #3 in the country and then they lost their QB and a bunch of other players to injury and ended up going 7-5.
Maryland is arguably the only team with a worse injury situation than Missouri last year. It’s no wonder they struggled.
They’ve been decently competitive in recent years otherwise. Although I expect them to have a tougher time in the B1G than they did in the ACC.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“They were considered to be the best 14th school available, after Maryland became available to make 13.”
I would say they were considered to have the most potential, but it was slim pickings at that point. It remains to be seen if the COP/C made a wise decision.
“As far as all of the reasons why they might have been considered to be the best 14th school available … pointing out that none of them would be sufficient reason to pick Rutgers as the 13th school seems to be just rehashing the Big 10 thinking, since they clearly picked Rutgers because Maryland became available.”
They are also reasons not to pick them as the 14th school. We don’t really know which other schools would’ve accepted an offer. There were plenty of rumored candidates that could be preferable to RU. One can also still make the argument that the B10 was better off staying at 12.
LikeLike
But the argument that they were better off staying at 12 is primarily an argument about Maryland, not primarily an argument about Rutgers.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“But the argument that they were better off staying at 12 is primarily an argument about Maryland, not primarily an argument about Rutgers.”
I disagree. It’s about both of them as a pair. They aren’t complementary schools, and neither is such an obvious addition that the other is minimized in the discussion. One could argue that UMD might be a fine #13 but that RU is a weak enough #14 to make it not worth the additions. It’s about the cumulative benefits for the B10 versus all the costs (diluted brand, diluted schedules, etc).
Besides, this thread came from a RU fan saying that critics of the RU’s addition focused only on the NYC TV aspect and ignored their strengths. To me, that made it fair to discuss all the weaknesses of RU (besides the NYC thing) as well as examine their supposed virtues.
LikeLike
Some interesting articles on what college football means for schools in the AJC. Unfortunately, its subscriber access.
One is with Kristi Dosh. She talks about how it didn’t make sense for her school, Ogelthorpe, but does for many. The “Flutie Effect” is the increase in applications-BC had a 30% increase. Baylor and A&M have had similar impacts the last couple of years. There have been studies showing the more a school wins, the better the graduation rate. Winning improves academic rankings, especially with USNWR (peer review improves). Increased donations and licensing come with athletic success. Kristi uses SMU as an example of the negative correlations.
They also talk about Georgia colleges adding football. Berry did it to increase males on campus. They’ve gone from 33% to 45%. And they are in the SAA with Sewanee and Ogelthorpe, which are schools they want to associate themselves with. Georgia State, the 2nd largest school in Georgia, wants to develop more of a traditional campus rather than just being a commuter school (a former AD was opposed because he said students coming in already had a favorite team and it wasn’t Georgia State). Kennessaw State in the Atlanta suburbs, the 3rd largest school in Georgia, is starting football for the same reasons. Mercer, a Division I school an hour and a half south of Atlanta, started football again to increase exposure and draw students. Shorter started in 2005 and has grown undergrads from 850 to 1500.
LikeLike
Wonderful post, Brian. Bravo.
LikeLike
Despite PSU’s major troubles, I’ll take their bowl record since joining the BIG. At least they can beat an SEC team – 5 wins in their abbreviated BIG tenure. On the other hand, I surely enjoyed Minnesota w/Mason’s run against PSU : ).
Big difference between Rutgers and PSU, historically, so comparing the two is a bit skewed. However, Rutgers won’t be isolated when they join as Md and PSU are nearby & they can also capitalize on the fact that PSU has been slapped w/sanctions and Md has significant financial issues, solvable mind you, to deal with.
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_history_penn_state.html
LikeLike
Trouble with Rutgers is that they have NEVER been good at sports. Sure we’ve had this argument before on this board and some people pointed out they had one good basketball season in the 70s and they had some success in men’s soccer or something at some point. But really, they have historically one of the worst athletic programs in the country. Probably the worst of all of the major conference schools. I certainly can’t come up with a worse one. So you can talk about potential all day long if you like, but as it is they’re piss poor.
LikeLike
Andy……..MO has won 2 NCs all-time, the last being in 1965…..yet you go on ENDLESSLY about POTENTIAL. So it’s somewhat ironic when you blast others for talking about Rutgers potentai…………
LikeLike
OK, let’s compare:
Mizzou basketball: 23 conference championships (regular season and tournament), 26 NCAA tournaments, 5 elite 8s, 2 pre-tournament mythical national titles (unclaimed by Mizzou, unlike some schools), average 2012 attendance: 11,996.
Rutgers basketball: 0 conference championships (regular season and tournament), 6 NCAA tournaments, 1 elite 8, 1 final 4, 0 national championships claimed or unclaimed, average 2012 attendance 4,992.
Mizzou football: 15 conference titles, 29 bowls, 10 Cotton or higher, 2 unclaimed national titles, average 2012 attendance 67,476.
Rutgers football: 4 conference titles, 8 bowl games, highest bowl ever was either the Pinstripe Bowl or the Insight.com bowl (I’m not sure which is better), 0 national titles, claimed or unclaimed, average 2012 attendance 49,188.
Mizzou baseball: 20 conference titles, 22 NCAA tournaments, 6 CWS, 1 national title
Rutgers baseball: I can’t find any stats on them so they haven’t done much, but I see that they did win one Big East championship.
Overall sports, director’s cup 5 year average: Missouri #45, Rutgers #111.
So there you go, facts. Please continue to make a fool of yourself claiming that Missouri and Rutgers have similar athletics programs. It’s amusing.
LikeLike
Speaking of potential, my favorite Jerry Claiborne quote came at press day for Maryland football in 1976, when the Terps were coming off a Gator Bowl win over Florida, had most of its key personnel back, and had a terribly easy OOC schedule (Penn State was off it that year, and the Terps ultimately went 11-0 in the regular season before losing the Cotton Bowl to Houston.). Claiborne was asked if this team had more potential than any he’d had in his previous four years in College Park, and he immediately replied, “Potential gets you fired.” As pithy sports quotes go, that should be right up there with Leo Durocher’s “Nice guys finish last.”
LikeLike
There’s some truth to that.
LikeLike
Adding Rutgers really had nothing to do with their athletic program. The leaders will probably consider it a success if Rutgers becomes (remains?) an Indiana in football and a Northwestern in basketball. Competitiveness is merely a plus. I don’t think it really had that much to do with the BTN. Its about access to NYC for the 12 existing schools and connections with wealthy and influential alumni. And to a lesser extent to try to draw on the student population in a heavily populated area when the student population is dropping in the Big 10.
LikeLike
The only disagreement I have with this is BTN not being a factor when its clear that to was. With a 14 team conference the BTN is not merely an outlet for individual schools leftover scraps. Strike that line and I totally agree.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it wasn’t a factor. I said “that much” to do. It clearly was a factor. I just don’t think it was nearly as important as the non-athletic reasons and nearly as important as some make it out to be. The Big 10 isn’t going to get the same rates in NY that it does in Ohio.
LikeLike
Rutgers has clearly been a better football program than IU the past decade and they’re trending up, better than at least 4 other BIG programs as well. Schiano coaches last year’s team, they are likely in the BCS game against Fla. Yet, despite a major coaching change, they contended til the very end & lost close games to respectable programs – Lville and VaTech. The point of my post that triggered this discussion is Rutger’s positive attitude, their upward trend, and built in advantage of having one of the top 3 states for hs football in the BIG@14.
You can be critical of the bowl games they’ve played the past decade, quality wise, but the fact is they won most of them. A 5-2 record, beating the likes of KSU, ISU, NCSt. Their two losses were narrow & to decent programs: VaTech & ASU.
Can they capitalize on their upward trend? Why not. Naysaying isn’t helpful. The BIG needs better football performances from its teams, esp during bowl seasons. Money, attendance, and mythical overrated historical reputation falls flat at the end of the day when the teams lose most of their bowl games, esp on a consistent basis. The conference needs better recruiting grounds as well History moves forward.
LikeLike
@ Bullet. Agree wholeheartedly. The PtB in the B1G knew perfectly well Rutger’s futility and 100+ years of mediocrity in all things athletic. But the PtB in the B1G added them anyway. I am sure the PtB hope for “improvement,” but I suspect will accept and tolerate “don’t completely embarrass us.”
Mull over this too: the Kings need teams to beat. The conference is better for the Kings with a couple of new Purdues and Indianas, particularly with the 9-game schedule and particularly with the non-Kings spread more evenly between the new divisions (Pur/Minny/IL vs. Ind/MD/Rut).
Not necessarily better for us fans. We want King vs. King games every weekend, every broadcast window. But there are only so many Kings to go around. Plus in a world of only King vs. King games, some Kings would eventually become non-Kings *cough* ND *cough* TSUN *cough*. 🙂
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Rutgers has clearly been a better football program than IU the past decade and they’re trending up,”
Over what time frame are you talking? They’ve averaged 8 wins per season lately (7, 11, 8, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9) which is a big improvement over their past, but I don’t see an upward trend in there anywhere. Switch the competition to B10 level, and that more like 6-7 wins per season. That’s better than IN, sure, but it’s hardly impressive.
“better than at least 4 other BIG programs as well.”
IN – bad history, but improving under Wilson
MN – much improved under Kill
IL – still horrible
PU – maybe Hazell can restore them
“The point of my post that triggered this discussion is Rutger’s positive attitude,”
Positive attitude doesn’t win games.
“their upward trend,”
Which needs to be documented.
“and built in advantage of having one of the top 3 states for hs football in the BIG@14.”
They’ve always had that state and still managed to stink almost every year.
“Naysaying isn’t helpful.”
Neither is blind optimism.
“The BIG needs better football performances from its teams, esp during bowl seasons.”
And adding a mediocre BE team is the way to accomplish that? That doesn’t improve any of the current programs.
LikeLike
Well, there’s no use crying over spilt milk.
Rutgers is here and all this hand-wringing is getting tiresome.
LikeLike
Yes, all decisions must be blindly accepted for all time afterwards by all people. How dare someone say that a decision might be wrong?
Nobody makes you read any comment on here if it’s getting too tiresome for you.
LikeLike
Brian,
You are genuinely sour here – I’m with Metatron – Rutgers is here to stay and you need to accept it and say it 10x before you go to bed each night until they play their first BIG football game.
So let’s do the Brian-textual-analysis dance, albeit devoid of typical Brian opinionisms.
“Rutgers has clearly been a better football program than IU the past decade and they’re trending up,” (gfunk)
Over what time frame are you talking? They’ve averaged 8 wins per season lately (7, 11, 8, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9) which is a big improvement over their past, but I don’t see an upward trend in there anywhere. Switch the competition to B10 level, and that more like 6-7 wins per season. That’s better than IN, sure, but it’s hardly impressive. (Brian)
*****
Upward trend: pretty sure I posted this link in a separate post, above, that you obviously didn’t read & for you to claim their past 7 years isn’t an upward trend is neglectful, esp since they will now have BIG membership, thus even more resources down the road.
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_history_rutgers.html
5-2 bowl record since 2005 – wins against NC State, Iowa State, Kansas State, as well as UCF in Florida. Rutger’s two bowl losses since 2000 have been narrow mind you & to two pretty solid programs.
My beloved alma mater, Minnesota, cannot say the same. Yet you want to give us good folks in Minnesota something to have a “positive attitude” about. Are you sure you’re not using “blind optimism” here? You don’t need to answer because frankly such a statement would be ridiculed by the vast majority of Minnesotans. As for our beloved bowl record since 2005, it is right here:
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_history_minnesota.html
Perhaps we Minnesotans would be more optimistic if we had high school football on par with New Jersey.
“The BIG needs better football performances from its teams, esp during bowl seasons.” (gfunk)
And adding a mediocre BE team is the way to accomplish that? That doesn’t improve any of the current programs. (Brian).
Now this ^ little capture on your part falls flat on it’s behind. Spend some time at the bowl history page I’ve provided and research other BIG teams, esp the lower half – heck go across the board. The BIG, unfortunately, has subpar bowl history. I’ll give us a break for almost always leaving the footprint for bowl games, esp the Rose (Pac12 home field, esp for USC) Bowl (<–some sarcasm) and the fact that the BIG only sent one team to a bowl for decades.
This little quote-capture and rebuttal of yours is my favorite:
“Naysaying isn’t helpful.” (gfunk)
Neither is blind optimism. (Brian)
Yet you proceed to say the following:
IN – bad history, but improving under Wilson (read your words carefully Brian)
MN – much improved under Kill (again, read your own words carefully Brian)
PU – maybe Hazell can restore them (again, though a little less optimistic)
Sounds like you're exercising at least cautious optimism here. Good for you. I omitted Illinois, but nonetheless, you just made my next set of points while contradicting yourself in the space of one post.
If you have decent high school football in your state (better than most of the BIG's 2013-2014 members) and the flagship university is the only game in this very state, and this flagship has now become a member of the richest, oldest BCS conference . . . Why not be optimistic? Rutgers has in fact scored a 5-2 bowl record since 2005 (clearly proven above & yes better than IU, Mn, Purdue and Ill – same time frame – though Illinois has a 2-1 bowl record, but less bowls) and Rutgers is currently sitting on the 3rd best recruiting class amongst BIG schools, 2014, & a top 25 class in every single publication you can quickly access on your time:
Scout (19th)
Rivals (17th)
247 (19th)
Oh my! Btw, Rutgers has a better bowl record than other BIG teams as well, same time frame. I'll do give certain BIG teams who've played in higher profile bowl games due credit.
If I'm from New Jersey and root for Rutgers, I think I'll go the Brian route of blind optimism and forever think we'll suck – NOT!.
Let's not forget that Rutgers didn't even join a major football conference until 1991 – a conference that dissolved all ootball by 2013. Let's not forget history moves forward. Rutger's past 7 years ( 5-2 bowl record) and their recent upswing in recruiting does in fact translate into something for their fans, alum and current roster to cheer about. Throw in the traumatizing-for- Brian fact that they have been accepted to join the grandaddy conference.
Brian I could go on here and further rip apart your other statements, but it's quite obvious you dislike the Rutgers add & you.Too bad, they're in, like it or not. I like it & you can't do nothing about it.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“You are genuinely sour here”
Yes, I am.
“Rutgers is here to stay and you need to accept it”
I accept that it’s true. I don’t accept it by any other meaning of that phrase and probably never will.
Over what time frame are you talking? They’ve averaged 8 wins per season lately (7, 11, 8, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9) which is a big improvement over their past, but I don’t see an upward trend in there anywhere. Switch the competition to B10 level, and that more like 6-7 wins per season. That’s better than IN, sure, but it’s hardly impressive. (Brian)
“Upward trend: pretty sure I posted this link in a separate post, above, that you obviously didn’t read & for you to claim their past 7 years isn’t an upward trend is neglectful,”
RU’s win totals the past 7 years: 11, 8, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9
They’ve won 8 or 9 games in 5 of the last 6 years. That’s a plateau, not an upward trend.
“My beloved alma mater, Minnesota, cannot say the same. Yet you want to give us good folks in Minnesota something to have a “positive attitude” about. Are you sure you’re not using “blind optimism” here?”
No, I’m just showing that spin works just as well for real B10 teams as it does for RU.
“Now this ^ little capture on your part falls flat on it’s behind.”
No, it doesn’t.
“Spend some time at the bowl history page I’ve provided”
No, and for 2 reasons. First, I already know the B10’s bowl history quite well. Second, I think most bowls are completely meaningless and really are just exhibitions. MN hasn’t played a meaningful bowl game in a long, long time. If I was going to worry about bowls, I’d start at the top of the pecking order and go down. If the B10 didn’t lose so many BCS games (WI in the Rose x3, OSU in the NCG, etc) and split 1/1 games versus the SEC nothing else would matter. Nobody cares about how the B10 does in the Pizza Bowl.
“I’ll give us a break for almost always leaving the footprint for bowl games, esp the Rose (Pac12 home field, esp for USC) Bowl (<–some sarcasm)"
USC is 24-8 in the Rose Bowl, 16-7 versus the B10. The rest of the P12 is 24-34 overall and 21-23 against the B10. Clearly USC has an advantage in the Rose Bowl that others lack. At neutral sites in bowls, USC is 3-2 versus the B10 since 1946.
"and the fact that the BIG only sent one team to a bowl for decades."
Why would that matter? It ended 40 years ago and no casual fan looks at total bowls played stats. I don't think this is a significant factor in the B10's current performance or reputation.
"Sounds like you're exercising at least cautious optimism here."
I told the truth. IN last year was better than they've been in a while. Kill has improved MN from the end of Brewster's regime, and you should know that as a MN fan. All I said about PU is that maybe Hazell can improve them. None of that is blind optimism like you are showing for RU.
"If you have decent high school football in your state (better than most of the BIG's 2013-2014 members) and the flagship university is the only game in this very state, and this flagship has now become a member of the richest, oldest BCS conference . . . Why not be optimistic?"
Because high school isn't college. Because lots of schools recruit NJ. Because RU has zero track record of substantial success, even when playing in a weakened AQ conference. Because RU doesn't have a great fan base. Because the school leadership is questionable.
"Rutgers has in fact scored a 5-2 bowl record since 2005"
Only you and RU fans care about that. Nobody else is impressed, especially since the coach that won all of those is gone.
"and Rutgers is currently sitting on the 3rd best recruiting class amongst BIG schools, 2014, & a top 25 class in every single publication you can quickly access on your time:"
1. Classes don't count until they're signed.
2. So what? Does this mean RU will suddenly be better than all 100 schools they lead? UK and MS both rank higher. Are they about to be powers?
"Btw, Rutgers has a better bowl record than other BIG teams as well, same time frame."
Back to this again? You're desperate for arguments when you use this one twice.
"I'll do give certain BIG teams who've played in higher profile bowl games due credit."
That's so generous of you since the Pinstripe is the best bowl RU has played recently.
"Let's not forget that Rutgers didn't even join a major football conference until 1991 – a conference that dissolved all ootball by 2013."
That's hardly a point in their favor.
"Rutger's past 7 years ( 5-2 bowl record) and their recent upswing in recruiting does in fact translate into something for their fans, alum and current roster to cheer about."
Which is irrelevant here. Nobody was discussing whether or not RU fans should be happy.
"Brian I could go on here and further rip apart your other statements,"
I'm still waiting for the ripping to start.
"but it's quite obvious you dislike the Rutgers add"
It's hardly a secret.
LikeLike
I’ve tried to soft-pedal the ramifications of Maryland’s football transition to the Big Ten because I’m not only aware of many of the underlying factors, but the difficulties in possibly changing them. Going from the ACC to the B1G might make Maryland a bit more attractive to recruiting targets, especially in-state, but as is the case with Rutgers, being in a small state with relatively little “state U” tradition makes it difficult to keep all students within borders, athletes and non-athletes alike. Rutgers has relatively little “big-time” tradition compared to Maryland, and I believe there will be a severe cultural shock on the banks of the Raritan come the fall of 2014.
LikeLike
vp, there have been very fewe quick conference change success stories. I think the general trend is to struggle and then gradually adjust and improve and then potentially thrive.
LikeLike
Warren Buffett doesn’t seem to think satelite TV is a dying venture.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3ad29a3c-05f0-11e3-8ed5-00144feab7de.html#axzz2c5Ti45vD
LikeLike
Here’s big news-Sony internet TV and Viacom:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/business/media/sony-and-viacom-reach-tenative-internet-tv-deal.html?_r=0
And in case it hasn’t been linked above, FS1 finally reached deals with DirectTV, Dish and Time Warner.
LikeLike
Link isn’t working-not sure why. Google Sony and Viacom. Its a NY Times blog. Comments that bundling isn’t going away for the old fogies (over 40), but all bets are off for those under 40.
LikeLike
Try that.
LikeLike
Live content providers will always have a strong hand, and the distributors aren’t sweating very much.
“The reality is, if everybody watched TV over the Internet, and we were out of the TV business, then we would have to recover more money from the Internet service,” Mr. Britt said. [departing TW chief]
LikeLike
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/august/fox-sports-1-strikes-deals-with-twc-dish-directtv.html
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130815/nerds-stanford-northwestern-vanderbilt/?sct=cf_t11_a2
A look at the rise of the academic schools in football (NW, Stanford and Vandy mostly). It conveniently ignores any other data points (Duke, Rice, Cal, UVA). It notes that ND has been a power, but doesn’t mention UCLA and USC which are also top 25 USN&WR schools.
It does look at the various issues the schools face. Some quotes are a little sad, likes this:
Duke coach David Cutcliffe spent 25 seasons in the SEC. He knew he’d arrived in a different world upon boarding the bus for the Blue Devils’ first road game in 2008. “I’d never seen a kid on a road trip carrying books,” Cutcliffe said. “Guys were carrying laptops, working on papers. That was brand new to me.”
Even on a cross-country trip he’d never seen an SEC player take books? I’d expect coaches to force players to use their travel time to get studying out of the way so they can work more on football when they land.
LikeLike
Uh, the article does talk about Duke. In fact, you have a snippet from the article of the Duke head coach. I would not call that “ignored”. Plus, Duke has also risen from where it has traditionally been; just not as much as the others.
As for the other schools you mentioned, Rice isn’t in a power conference and Cal & UVa aren’t in the USN&WR top 20 (which is what Mandel used to determine “academic excellence”).
Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cutcliffe never saw an SEC player take books along. If you read day-in-the-life profiles about college athletes, pretty much all of them talk about how they game during all their free time (when they’re not at practice or study hall/tutoring sessions that their coaches make them go to). In a typical SEC football program, I daresay that only a handful of the kids care about learning and grades while the vast majority are content with doing just well enough in basket-weaving-for-jocks classes to stay eligible to play football.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I would not call that “ignored”.”
I meant that he ignored them not being a top 25 team.
“As for the other schools you mentioned, Rice isn’t in a power conference”
True, but he didn’t say that was a requirement.
“and Cal & UVa aren’t in the USN&WR top 20 (which is what Mandel used to determine “academic excellence”).”
I stretched all the way to top 25 to match the number in the poll. Especially since USN&WR includes non-IA schools, that seems fair to me.
“If you read day-in-the-life profiles about college athletes, pretty much all of them talk about how they game during all their free time (when they’re not at practice or study hall/tutoring sessions that their coaches make them go to).”
As I’m sure you noticed, that was the cause of my surprise. I thought some coach would’ve forced players to use a plane trip as a study hall.
LikeLike
I hate the phrase “academic schools,” as it is invariably used to refer to private colleges and thus implies public institutions are inherently not academic.
LikeLike
If the phrase really means something, it means schools that face constraints on which players they can chase because there is no particularly soft path through their general degree requirements, even for the softer majors. I’d reckon on that connotation then in the Big Ten, both Wisconsin and Northwestern are “academic” schools.
It obviously doesn’t mean “academic” the way that academics think of it, which is focused at the grad school level, since then almost all Big Ten schools would be “academic” schools.
LikeLike
and the admission requirements not being relaxed.
LikeLike
More from Delany, this time talking about at-risk students
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/21961259-419/with-realignment-quieting-big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-eyes-policies.html
LikeLike
Great article from the WSJ on how Penn State Football survived.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323455104579014553720253962?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y#articleTabs%3Darticle
LikeLike
wow. whatever you think of PSU, pretty amazing story.
LikeLike
Agreed.
I disagree with this one premise though:
“But the NCAA sanctions were encouraging “student-athletes” to behave like athlete-students. They were putting the lie to the NCAA’s own propaganda, which officially discouraged transfers because “student-athletes” are supposed to pick their schools for the education, not the athletic opportunities.
But there Emmert was, inviting Penn State’s student-athletes to jettison the university that graduated 91% of its student-athletes—a big reason many of them chose Penn State in the first place—to transfer penalty-free to bowl-eligible football programs, whose graduation rates were often much lower.
Not only did it suddenly fall to O’Brien, Mauti, Zordich and every Penn State player who stayed to protect their storied program from disintegrating, they could only do so by upholding the very values the NCAA itself could apparently no longer proclaim with a straight face.”
I think paragraph 3 trumps paragraphs 1 and 2. Penn State–led by its players–decided to be Penn State first and football second. Isn’t that EXACTLY what the NCAA wanted in the first place? The Sandusky issue happened because football clouded the judgment of some. Penn State’s 2012 was successful because character prevailed.
LikeLike
It didn’t paint a flattering picture of JoePa.
Sometime after Penn State’s undefeated 1994 season, Paterno’s passion for coaching began to wane. In 2006, after a Wisconsin player ran into him on the sidelines and injured his leg just below the knee, he hardly coached at all, watching games from the press box without a headset. After he recovered, he returned to the sidelines, but he still didn’t wear a headset or carry a clipboard, and he rarely attended team meetings. Privately, the staff joked that the less the 84-year-old Paterno got involved, the better things usually went. When Paterno did weigh in, he often confused the situation, got players’ names wrong or just yelled at them by their numbers.
Still, his assistants clung to certain symbols of the Paterno Way. “Shave your face, cut your hair,” Mauti said, recalling the mantra. “If we weren’t shaved for a practice, we would have to work out on Saturdays in the off-season. It got almost to the point where that’s all that mattered.”
Few programs in college football at the time could have claimed a richer tradition than Penn State’s. It looked like Camelot—but only from the outside. Almost every Penn State senior I talked to last season repeated some version of the following: “We felt like we were protecting an image. And only we knew it.”
Through a spokesman, Paterno’s son Jay Paterno called the characterizations inaccurate, saying Joe Paterno scripted every practice to the minute, led every team meeting and had “direct play-calling input” on game-winning or clinching drives in five close games during his last season (2011).
Leave it to Jay to say the players are wrong about what they heard, saw and/or felt.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1
Well, the AP poll is a dead ringer for the Coaches Poll (esp. for the B10).
2. OSU (1)
17. MI
18. NE
22. NW
23. WI
26. MSU
42. PSU
Top 25:
SEC – 6 (all top 12)
B10 – 5
P12 – 5 (2 top 5, 3 21-25)
B12 – 4 (all 13-20)
ACC – 2
LikeLike
Speaking of the Preseason AP Poll, I’ve been working on a little data crunching project about it.
The AP Poll has been at 25 teams since 1989 (the past 24 years), so that was my starting year. All unranked teams are considered #26 to match the inspiration for my project, Chris Stassen’s overrated data (http://preseason.stassen.com/over-under/all-teams.html). My main issue with his data is that it doesn’t account for the fact that teams that are highly ranked in the preseason repeatedly almost have to fall in the polls while. In addition, he doesn’t normalize for the number of appearances in the poll but instead shows the cumulative total.
In order to address this, I started by finding the average finish for each pre-season poll slot. To me, this is what every school should be compared to in order to determine if they were overrated.
Average finish for each pre-season poll spot:
1. 6.08
2. 6.08
3. 11.88
4. 13.25
5. 9.08
6. 11.67
7. 13.17
8. 13.21
9. 15.75
10. 18.08
11. 16.00
12. 17.71
13. 17.54
14. 15.13
15. 20.96
16. 21.25
17. 18.71
18. 22.88
19. 21.33
20. 18.46
21. 18.04
22. 19.04
23. 23.63
24. 21.92
25. 24.50
The best linear fit is y=8.51+0.623x.
As expected, the top spots fall a lot on average while the average is more and more correct as you reach the bottom of the poll. The bottom spots are skewed by 26 being the lowest possible value. At the lower ranks, the majority of the teams finish unranked (#25 is only 4/24). Strangely, pre-season #3 and 4 are bad places to be while #14 and #17 do well relative to their neighbors.
In case anyone wonders, the number of teams that finish out of the poll hasn’t changed much over the years. The average is now 9.2 but a linear fit starts at 8.2 in 1989.
Knowing what the expected finish for each spot should be, I went back and calculated the difference between where a team did finish and where they were expected to finish.
Example: 2002 OSU
Pre-season #13
Average finish for #13 is 17.54
Actual finish was #1
Difference = 16.54
I did this calculation for every team in every pre-season poll and then averaged the results for each school. In a nutshell, positive numbers are good and negative numbers are bad.
Most frequently ranked teams
1. OSU – 24
2. FSU – 23
3. UF – 21
3. USC – 21
5. OU – 20
5. NE – 20
5. MI – 20
8. TN – 19
8. UT – 19
10. PSU – 18
10. Miami – 18
Overachievers
1. OR – 4.67
2. AL – 3.80
3. Stanford – 3.75
4. OSU – 3.37
5. VT – 2.68
6. KSU – 2.65
7. UGA – 2.47
8. PSU – 2.09
9. BSU – 1.97
10. Miami – 1.60
I think many will be surprised to see AL and OSU so high on this list. 22 schools averaged a positive value out of 44 schools that were ranked.
B10:
OSU – 3.37
PSU – 2.09
NE – 0.37
MI – -0.03
IA – -0.08
PU – -1.01
MSU – -1.15
WI – -1.96
IL – -4.68
Others of note:
ND – -4.21
FSU – 1.13
Miami – 1.60
So as much as many people like to complain about the kings being overrated every year, it’s really not true. They tend to do as well or better than other teams ranked that same way with the notable exception of ND. Instead, what people are noticing is that most teams can’t live up to their preseason ranking and some subset of the kings usually occupy the top spots.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/rankings/2013/08/17/college-football-comparing-preseason-coaches-and-ap-polls/2667055/
This is what I mean by a dead ringer. The biggest difference is ND being 3 spots lower in the AP poll. 5 other teams are 1 spot off. The other 19 teams are exactly the same rank in both.
LikeLike
There was an article talking about how Mark Richt (UGA coach) did his. Basically he had an assistant summarize what other preseason polls did and primarily based his on that. The two main polls used to be different 20 years ago, but now everyone is just copying each other.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC & Expansion: August Discussion~Texas | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
I agree (in the end) it will be four conferences and not five. I tend to think the B12 is more vulnerable than the ACC, but only because Texas holds all the cards.
LikeLike
I think at some point the Big 12 and ACC will merge after a few schools from each find greener pastors. I could also see an even unlikelier outcome of 3 giant conferences with the SEC dominating the sout, BIG the north, and PAC the west. The 3 conference makes a lot of sense with television and conference networks.
LikeLike
Before the B12 GOR I was thinking the same thing. It really looked like the cream of the (Big 12 and ACC) crop would be divided up between the B1G, PAC and SEC. Three 16-20 team conferences.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1196882.html
CFN’s look at how the CFP might have worked over the BCS era. The committee would have had some tough decisions, but not most of the time. I think 2012 would have been interesting if OSU was eligible:
BCS:
1. ND
2. OSU*
3. AL*
4. UF
5. OR
6. KSU*
7. Stanford*
* – conference champ
CFP:
1. ND
2. OSU
3. AL
4. Stanford – 11-2, won @OR, lost @ND in OT and close loss @UW
11-1 KSU got killed @Baylor and 11-1 UF didn’t win their division. Still, UF might have gotten in.
I think the committee might reseed them so OSU plays Stanford, too.
LikeLike
I stopped reading after 1998. UCLA was included because they were conference champs when they got run over by Miami in the last game of the season (in a game that wasn’t as close as the score) the week after Miami had lost by 50 points. I think the writer forgot that season.
LikeLike
12/7/1998 AP Poll:
1. 12-0 TN 1750
2. 11-1 FSU 1671
3. 10-1 OSU 1602
4. 11-1 KSU 1476
5. 11-1 AZ 1412
6. 10-1 UCLA 1398
To me, those are the only candidates. I think we agree TN, FSU and OSU all get in, although I would put OSU second since FSU’s QB was hurt. That makes it KSU, AZ or UCLA for #4. UCLA won the P10 and beat AZ head to head, so AZ is out. That leaves 11-1 KSU, but they lost the CCG in OT. Depending on how much weight the committee gives championships, I think it’s plausible that they choose UCLA over KSU.
LikeLike
I am surprised that no one yet has managed to obtain a FOIA copy of the ACC grant of rights. I agree with FTT that if it’s worded like the Big XII GOR, then it is practically unbreakable until the mid-2020s. No ACC school is valuable enough that it is worth risking media access (and the corresponding revenue) for all of its home games until 2027.
@MHver3 and @TheDudeofWV are currently twitter warring over what, exactly, the ACC GOR says. I wouldn’t ordinarily even mention it, but Dennis Dodd is an actual journalist, and when he says realignment isn’t done, I assume he has a basis for it. “A basis” doesn’t mean a certainty, but he’s not a twitter troll.
Anyhow: @MHver3 says that what the ACC schools signed was actually just a one-year GOR, along with a term sheet indicating the intent (but not the iron-clad obligation) to sign on for the full term. The Dude says that they signed for the full term, but Notre Dame can opt out before 2016.
I believe @MHver3 was the first guy who reported Maryland to the Big Ten, so he is slightly more credible than the Dude. Having said that, the Dude seems to win on plausibility grounds. Most conference switches have a greater than one-year lead time. So it is hard to believe that the ACC would have considered a mere one-year binding GOR, coupled by a mere non-binding statement of intent, any sort of deterrent to further poaching by the Big Ten or other leagues. One year is nothing.
LikeLike
Those guys are for entertainment purposes only. Both had ceased talking about expansion once the ACC GOR was signed. Only after Dodd’s snippet in his media day column, did their “sources” contact them again about future expansion.
That being said, it would make sense if you believe Dodd that one of the GOR’s would have an out because there are no programs outside the 5 that would fit well into the BIG.
LikeLike
That’s exactly why I said that only Dodd’s comment makes them worth reading. Dodd must have reliable sources that say one of the GORs is breakable at a reasonable price.
LikeLike
I do have to say that their back and forth is highly entertaining.
I agree that the Dude seems more plausible on this matter at least. I can’t imagine why anyone would think a grant of rights that was anything less than ten years would be worth anything, much less one that only lasted a single year.
I can however see that a GOR might be conditionally effective with the requirement that ESPN fronts an ACC network within a certain time frame. From everything that was out there, it seemed like the only reason certain ACC schools agreed to it in the first place was because it would stabilize the conference enough to make a network feasible. If I were a school that was only signing to get a conference network (FSU? Virginia?) I would make sure that the GOR was no longer enforceable if ESPN wasn’t going to live up to their half of the bargain.
With Uncle Walt seemingly balking at paying for an ACC network, that could really throw a monkey wrench into things. Which brings up an interesting question? Which would be more valuable to ESPN, the LHN or an ACC Network? I would guess that the ACC Network would be a lot more valuable. I would argue that with TAMU in the SEC, ESPN is pretty much guaranteed a strong presence in the Lone Start State, making the LHN not as valuable as the East Coast, or at least that would be my guess.
LikeLike
For those who revel in unfounded speculation -with LINKS! I present the latest Wildcat Report expansion thread. Pretty entertaining.
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=190526921&mid=190526921&sid=901&style=2
LikeLike
I still maintain the Big Ten presidents would only agree to take Texas if Kansas (AAU) is its partner. Until Oklahoma earns AAU status, it’s a non-starter; sorry, Austin, but you can always revert to having the Red River game out of conference, as you did through 1994.
LikeLike
vp19,
“I still maintain the Big Ten presidents would only agree to take Texas if Kansas (AAU) is its partner.”
That’s certainly a possibility. It’s hard to tell because of the value OU and UT combined brings. OU certainly wouldn’t get in without UT, but if OU is a dealbreaker for UT? That’s 29.9M people added to the footprint, and from a growing region. That’s a huge gain if the presidents are worried about future student recruitment. TX also has a decent number of B10 alumni. In addition UT is a great school with lots of research. As a bonus, you get 2 more football kings. That would give the B10 5 of the 6 winningest programs of all time (ND is the other one). It’d be 6 of 7 if you ignore the PSU vacation of wins. The BTN would almost be a truly national network at that point.
“Until Oklahoma earns AAU status, it’s a non-starter; sorry, Austin, but you can always revert to having the Red River game out of conference, as you did through 1994.”
They didn’t play 9 conference games back then. If they did that, OU would be their only marquee OOC game in the forseeable future. Goodbye ND series, etc.
LikeLike
I still maintain the Big Ten presidents would only agree to take Texas if Kansas (AAU) is its partner. Until Oklahoma earns AAU status, it’s a non-starter; sorry, Austin, but you can always revert to having the Red River game out of conference, as you did through 1994.
I can’t see the Big Ten saying no to a TX/OU combination, assuming it’s just them without their sister schools. If there’s a plausible #18, maybe they take Kansas too, and then the league’s territory would be contiguous.
LikeLike
Marc,
Who could be a viable #18 in that case?
Assumptions:
1. The best candidates are AAU schools in contiguous states to B10 members.
2. MO doesn’t want to leave the SEC.
3. ND isn’t looking to join the B10.
Based on those assumptions:
1. The top option is UVA.
2. UVA won’t join without UNC.
3. UNC would want as many ACC schools as possible, especially UVA, Duke and/or NCSU.
4. You need to get at least 3 ACC schools to get KU.
5. Is KU more valuable than a 4th ACC school?
If you’re the B10, which of these 4 is the best choice?
A. KU, UVA, UNC, Duke
B. KU, UVA, UNC, GT
C. UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
LikeLike
@Brian: I admit I can’t think of a plausible 18th; otherwise, I would have suggested it. I agree, it is easier to imagine a plausible 18, 19, and 20 together, than to imagine #18 all by itself.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but the idea that a TX/OK combo wouldn’t receive the votes is bizarre. We’re to believe the B1G would take soon-to-be-non AAU Nebraska, but wouldn’t consider taking Texas if they insisted on bringing along another valuable King. To believe that you have to dismiss the CBS report that OK was one of the five under serious consideration WITHOUT Texas.
LikeLike
What report? Dodd said “Big Ten expansion: It isn’t done. That’s about all I can say.”
Then speculation and inference commenced, everywhere.
LikeLike
There are two separate reports.
The Oklahoma World-Herald reported that the Big Ten had done “homework” on Oklahoma. The report said that the newspaper had two sources for that.
Dennis Dodd merely reported is that “expansion…isn’t done.”
Now, what it means for the Big Ten to do “homework” on Oklahoma is open to speculation. But assuming it’s true, it probably means that under some set of circumstances (presently unknown), the league would consider Oklahoma. Now, that doesn’t mean Oklahoma had the votes, but it probably means Oklahoma wasn’t an obvious non-starter, such as (to give a random example) Baylor.
LikeLike
Marc:
I knew about the Oklahoma World-Herald report.
I was questioning CBS naming OU in a report.
“To believe that you have to dismiss the CBS report that OK was one of the five under serious consideration WITHOUT Texas.”
I was wondering what report I needed to dismiss. OU may have been looked at (due diligence), but I find unlikely UT gets to set the parameters, even less that the Sooner’s are invited a alone.
LikeLike
Hilarious how seriously some of you take this nonsense.
So its the ‘Oklahoma World Herald’ you think are full of it and not ‘CBS Sports’, big whoop.
Oh, by the way, you’re both wrong.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22122683/report-big-ten-did-expansion-homework-on-oklahoma-others
LikeLike
BTW, it’s the Omaha World-Herald, not an Oklahoma newspaper.
LikeLike
That’s a CBS story, not breaking any new news. The “report” in there is simply repeating the same World-Report info from earlier: “As a sidenote, two sources have told The World-Herald that the Big Ten has done prior “homework” on Oklahoma, Kansas and Vanderbilt among other schools who might some day be expansion targets. The Big 12 grant-of-rights deal didn’t stop a look-see for OU and KU.”
I choose to dismiss it. There may or may not be anything new, but other than new attention I’m not seeing it. If I’m wrong…who cares?
LikeLike
Let’s get the ball rolling.
First post:
B1G Expansion Heating Up Again?
With the recent rumors and tweets regarding B1G expansion firing up in the last week, I was wondering if any of the “experts” on this board were hearing anything? I know some posters like Purple Book Cat and maybe Evanston Cat(?) had some “inside info” during the last couple rounds of rumors. Listed below is what I’ve found:
From a PSU message board:
According to our good friend *****, conversations are heating up with Texas. He says that Delaney and the BIG General Counsel met with Texas twice this week and he thinks that mutual interest is high.
He says the items to work around are the LongHorn Network, Grant of Rights, and who will be Team #16 in the BIG. Texas is apparently lobbying hard for team #16 to be Oklahoma.
[snip]
Some tweets:
Chris A. Curtis @Iamgrizzly1974
B1G has $100 mil for paying players – then B1G has more than $200/$300 mil for expansion & UT unhappy
B1G has $100 mil plus in coffers with 2x to 3x more for expansion. Expansion coffers large enough to open any door!
Okay, so more about UT.
Captain Obvious on a PSU board says the obstacles to adding UT are the LHN, the GoR and deciding on a mutually acceptable #16. Shocking.
I’m not surprised to see OU as UT’s preferred partner. It’s their biggest rivalry and they already lost TAMU. We’ve repeatedly discussed whether OU would be acceptable to the B10 or not. I’d like to think the COP/C would accept OU with UT, but we’ll never know unless someone asks. This would depend on OU being able to leave OkSU, of course. UT would also have to escape their little brother(s).
The LHN workaround would largely depend on ESPN. I’d like to see the B10 take a P12 approach and add regional BTN channels.
BTN Cowboy = UT and OU
BTN Corn = NE and IA
BTN Ice = WI and MN
BTN Middle = NW, IL, IN and PU
BTN Lakes = MI and MSU
BTN Ohio = OSU
BTN East = PSU, UMD and RU
The hardest ones to sell get the most schools to help get carriage. I’d hope ESPN wouldn’t complain about splitting profits from a channel more likely to succeed (or whatever other deal they can agree on).
We’ve been over the GoR issue repeatedly. If UT is really interested, then their lawyers may know something we don’t about the deal and how to get out of it. If not, then this would have to be future planning for when the GoR is about to end.
Divisions:
W – OU, UT, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
Those are a lot more balanced than the 2014 lineup. I’m guessing the CCG would explode in ratings and value. It could move to St. Louis. I think Chicago would move further down the list if these two join. Maybe San Antonio on occasion?
LikeLike
Sorry, that comment was by “yalikeMoxie” to give credit where it’s due.
A few comments later, EvanstonCat posted some links, including:
http://nebraska.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=181&tid=165741193&mid=165741193&sid=928&style=2
Where “buckleaf” says:
Re: Texas and Oklahoma?
I am a member of Ohio State 247 site and Ohio State Rivals site. Over on the 247 site there are a couple posters that have some connections to people that know what is going on with expansion. They said the Dude from WV is reporting that Texas has approached the B1G about joining. The Dude also said they want another school to come with them but did not say who that would be. Now I know the Dude seems to through stuff out there to see if it sticks but the guys on the 247 site have talked to their sources to see if the Dude is just blowing smoke. Well their sources say he has this one right and their sources have told them that Texas wants the other school to be Oklahoma. That’s the rumor as of right now. The Dude said he will explain on Monday morning why Texas is wanting out of B12. The Dude said that Texas thinks they have a way out of the GoR. Another part of the rumor is that ESPN told Texas that the LHN is not working and they are going to have to drop the network soon. Now all these talks could be going on and nothing ever come out of it but this is what I read over on the 247 site.
LikeLike
EvanstonCat’s comment also had a KU link that indirectly led to this:
http://boards.kusports.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/1941983/Heard_It_Here_1st_KU_MU_B1G_Me#Post1941983
In a long post excerpted below, SilasRobertson says:
Heard It Here 1st: KU+MU->B1G/Mem. Stad Reno Plans
Take this for what it’s worth…
Kansas’ subtle, carefully-calculated shift away from Texas and Oklahoma (both the schools and the states, as recruiting grounds) began in earnest after Colorado and Nebraska left the conference; …
Recently, as the Big 10 was positioning itself for the renegotiation of Tier 1 and 2 media rights, and the Big Ten Network concept was being developed, the conference again made overtures (not OFFERS) to Kansas and Missouri as they explored various ways to boost their renegotiation value for T1/T2 and create additional content and viewership for the BTN.
In the end, however, it was determined that the most critical move for the league was to boost its football profile, and bring the league to 12 members. …
Kansas, for its part, could not have handled the situation any better – there were no leaks, and no real public interest shown. In fact, if an invitation had come, Kansas brass was not yet convinced that the move was in its best short-term interest. …
…
And they were right, the Big 12’s days are indeed numbered. As I have explained in previous posts, it’s not a matter of whether or not the Big 12 members are happy with the status quo – in large part, they are pleased as punch. But this is much, much bigger than that. The landscape of college athletics is about to undergo a dramatic change and Big 12 schools such as Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas have no choice but to play ball if they want to remain relevant.
…
Now as for the real news…as part of this reorganization, Missouri and Kansas will both join the B1G conference within the next two years, and possibly even sooner. Texas and Oklahoma will likely partner with the Pac 12 to create a “Gulf” pod along with UofA, ASU, Utah, CU, BYU and whoever they think brings the most to the table between Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State. So, the “grant of rights” isn’t an obstacle for Kansas at all – because there will be no conference left to speak of, no one left to enforce the rights. In Mizzou’s case, they don’t have any kind of exit penalty or grant of rights to the SEC, so the door is wide open for them. It’s only a matter of working out all the details.
…
There are still a lot of particulars to work out…first and foremost trying to decide if there is some way they can salvage the partnership with the NCAA somehow. If not, the process will take longer to play itself out…but make no mistake, as it pertains to us, ultimately the “Big 12” will be gone within an absolute maximum of three years, and Kansas fans will be venturing to places like Madison, Minneapolis, Lincoln and Iowa City on fall Saturdays.
So he says it’s KU and MO to the B10 with UT, OU, BYU and ??? to the P16.
LikeLike
And for a change of pace, there was this from “shales3858”:
This is based on absolutely no insider knowledge or from reading anyone who has any or the talking heads on ESPN. Just my reasoning.
I think the next school that will be added is Boston College. Here’s my thought process:
Things Delaney cares about:
Building the conference around Michigan/OSU. Ie. he’s not going to try to bring in Texas/Oklahoma because they’re big names that can compete for the national title. He wants OSU and Michigan to be the Big Ten’s chances at the title.
Biggest FBS school in the state. He wants the big guy in the state, not the second best. Delaney doesn’t want Virgina and Va Tech, he wants an individual school to represent the state.
TV viewers: That’s why the Big Ten went East in the last round. There’s simply more people in the NY/NJ and DC markets than in Kansas or Oklahoma. As such, he added Maryland and Rutgers.
So, I decided to take a look at these criteria. The school that stood out to me was BC. It’s not a school that’s going to challenge for supremacy and take away from the perceived Michigan/OSU media domination in the Big Ten. Getting BC will aid in adding the NY market as well as garnering the Boston market. BC is not only the most traditional FBS school in Massachusetts, it’s the most traditional FBS school in New England (Gonna say BC over Uconn despite recent history). While there are a bunch of little states, I think you can look at BC as New England’s Big Ten time like the Patriots became New Englands and not Boston’s team. As such, we’re looking at TV viewers from Mass, Maine, NH, Vermont, Rhode Island…
I think he’s wrong in several ways, but what the heck.
LikeLike
People who think Boston College is Big Ten material have no concept whatsoever about either Boston or college sports.
LikeLike
Now as for the real news…as part of this reorganization, Missouri and Kansas will both join the B1G conference within the next two years, and possibly even sooner. Texas and Oklahoma will likely partner with the Pac 12 to create a “Gulf” pod along with UofA, ASU, Utah, CU, BYU and whoever they think brings the most to the table between Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State.
Iowa State has more of a shot at the Pac than Brigham Young — and ISU would be a longshot. More likely, Okie State and Texas Tech tag along with their larger brethren.
The bigger question in that scenario is, who replaces Missouri in the SEC? If ACC schools are off the board because of the GoR, it may have to add West Virginia by default.
LikeLike
That’s what most of the other comments said, too.
I’m just always curious to see how someone else’s thought process end up at a conclusion almost everyone else has already dismissed. Seeing all the factors he ignored can be educational. It’s a good reminder of how little most people really know about expansion.
LikeLike
Some more recent news with KU and KSU was a major meeting the shared BoR had with Gov. Brownbackistan. The Governor signed budget legislation he initially opposed that cut higher education spending across all BoR institutions… not a good sign for either KSU or KU. The biggest blow in the budget was towards KU’s efforts to expand the capacity of its Medical School, which is the real source of KU’s federal research dollars. Behind closed doors there was discussions about KU and KSU separating. The BoR members are concerned about having a good landing point for KSU, but they are coming to the understanding that if KU gets the B1G nod they will have no choice but to accept it because there wont ever be another chance. The Board is hoping the B1G will raid another conference besides the Big 12 for member #16, but as we all know here UT is shopping around.
KU has also been slow to announce any action on renovating Memorial Stadium, which is the oldest west of the Mississippi. Rumor is that some of the big donor money pledges are being asked to help finance the legal offensive KU would have to take against the Big 12 GoR before any action is done on the stadium. KU is also looking for all the help and resources it can get within the KC metro area to display its dominance in the market, and there are more KU billboards around KC than I’ve ever seen before.
LikeLike
If the ACC isn’t poachable, and Missouri is gone, I don’t know if there are any viable candidates other than West Virginia. My guess that the wild card could be Rice. I have heard repeatedly that the SEC invited Rice at the same time as Arkansas (before South Carolina) but was turned down because Rice was still loyal to the SWC. The question for the SEC presidents would be whether West Virginia’s athletics and small new market would be worth more than the academic prestige of Rice and the added exposure in Houston. If Rice was moved to the East to replace Missouri, Vandy would have a smart little buddy to play around with, TAMU could have a logical east/west crossover opponent every year, and everybody get a whole bunch of access to Texas recruits.
I would personally love to see either in the SEC.
LikeLike
I’m just always curious to see how someone else’s thought process end up at a conclusion almost everyone else has already dismissed. Seeing all the factors he ignored can be educational. It’s a good reminder of how little most people really know about expansion.
On the homer boards, you’ve got a lot of people who haven’t discussed expansion very much. On this board, I’d say that about 70-80% of the comments are at least well informed, even if I wind up disagreeing with them. On the homer boards, it tends to be the opposite.
LikeLike
Mark,
I certainly agree about the difference between here and single-school sites. But I was thinking about how even all the other NW people told that guy he was clueless. Clearly they’ve discussed expansion at least a little bit before, and he didn’t seem to be a newbie so I always wonder how people like that miss out on some important things.
LikeLike
I’ve seen people posting stuff like this a few places, but fail to see how exactly would the Big 12 would cease to exist in this senario. It’s got to take a super majority at a minimum to end the conference and even that is likely tricky and subject to lawsuits. If more than two or three of Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, and West Virginia are not included in major conference set-up they would fight like crazy to keep the Big 12 going, the exit fees and grant of rights active, and the name and without almost all of them, the Big 12 isn’t going to disappear. They wouldn’t jump ship and join the AAC or Mountain West anymore than a single Conference USA member considered not joining the Big East/American despite it loosing its AQ spot, name, and most its members. They’d simply sue like crazy, collect their exit fees and negotiated buyout for grants of rights (likely something even the big schools can’t afford with more than a decade of buyouts remaining), and backfill with Group of 5 schools.
LikeLike
Jeffrey, I’d love to see Rice in the SEC as well, but I can’t see it happening. The SEC requires about $85M/yr minimum in athletic budget to keep up. Rice wil never come close to that. They’re quite a bit behind even Vanderbilt. But it would give the SEC a nice academic boost to add Rice.
WVU adds nothing. Basically the equivalent of adding another Arkansas/Ole Miss. Already have enough of those.
LikeLike
cookie, so basically ku is on the run and desperate. Football program in shambles. AAU status in serious jeopardy. Big 12 still as unstable as ever. Hoping and praying for a B1G invite that will probably never come. And burning with jealousy of your neighbors to the east who you refuse to play…
LikeLike
Chip Brown update. About a week ago he mentioned he might have a realignment update soon, but he had to verify some stuff with other sources. OB posters kept on him to hurry up and spill it, this is what he just released. Sounds like his sources are hinting at Texas interest in B1G, but Chip misinterprets that to mean ACC:
I do think it’s becoming more likely that someone will test the legal strength of the “grant of rights” the same way schools fled leagues in the face of exit penalties. But after talking to numerous people, I’m not sure that happens immediately. I’m hearing there could be some behind-the-scenes talk that leads to something maybe a couple years from now or longer.
And I think Texas will have a plan in case some more shuffling of the deck happens, and I’m hearing if any shuffling of the deck happens, Texas would want to end up surrounded by academic powers that Texas can join forces with in attracting top research dollars.
I’m hearing there’s been a bit of a sea change by Texas brass about chasing TV dollars (in part because Texas has plenty thanks to LHN) and instead there’s greater concern about chasing research dollars.
Obviously the best academic conference top to bottom is the ACC, followed by the Big Ten and then the Pac-12.
LikeLike
So basically…nothing. Other than repeating rumors from the last few years, and suggesting that possibly, maybe, someday somebody might test a GOR.
I’d guess there is going to be a fair amount of disinformation and positioning leading up to the meetings regarding NCAA reorganization and the potential D4.
LikeLike
Christian in Wylie,
“Chip Brown update.”
It’s been a while since we’ve heard from Chip. The NW site above had a link to something he said on OB, but it was behind the pay wall and thus not helpful for most of us. Perhaps this is what was in that comment.
“Sounds like his sources are hinting at Texas interest in B1G, but Chip misinterprets that to mean ACC:”
I’ll save this bit for later.
Italics for Chip:
I do think it’s becoming more likely that someone will test the legal strength of the “grant of rights” the same way schools fled leagues in the face of exit penalties. But after talking to numerous people, I’m not sure that happens immediately. I’m hearing there could be some behind-the-scenes talk that leads to something maybe a couple years from now or longer.
Sure someone might challenge it later. The question is how far in before someone is willing to risk it. Everyone knows a GOR can be broken, the question is the cost.
And I think Texas will have a plan in case some more shuffling of the deck happens, and I’m hearing if any shuffling of the deck happens, Texas would want to end up surrounded by academic powers that Texas can join forces with in attracting top research dollars.
Of course UT will have a plan. Everyone will have a plan. If UT is hunting research money, the B10 is probably the best choice as you said.
I’m hearing there’s been a bit of a sea change by Texas brass about chasing TV dollars (in part because Texas has plenty thanks to LHN) and instead there’s greater concern about chasing research dollars.
Wouldn’t the B10 offer them the most of both? I could see this as a justification for joining the ACC (chasing research, not TV money) if the ACC would let them keep the LHN and the B10 wouldn’t.
Obviously the best academic conference top to bottom is the ACC, followed by the Big Ten and then the Pac-12.
Obviously? Top to bottom? I don’t think so. Let’s assume Chip uses the USN&WR rankings, since that’s what most regular people think of:
ACC – 8, 17, 24, 27, 30, 31, 36, 44, 58, 58, 68, 72, 97, 106, 160 – ave = 55.7
B10 – 12, 13, 29, 41, 46, 46, 56, 58, 65, 68, 68, 72, 72, 83, 101 – ave = 55.3
UT – 46
UT would fit well in either. #4-10 of the ACC are ranked a little higher, but the bottom is much lower. Of course the B10’s real strength is in graduate school and research.
LikeLike
Obviously the best academic conference top to bottom is the ACC…
I’d really like to know what he’s smoking
LikeLike
A few thoughts on this:
(1) The Big Ten would be pretty stupid to pass on Oklahoma (provided that it’s not a combo with Oklahoma State) with or without Texas.
(2) The biggest chip that the ACC could offer to Texas is a Notre Dame-type non-football membership deal, where Texas would become an independent in football. It doesn’t shock me that Texas sources would intimate that the ACC would be the preferred destination with that potential scenario on the table (and I wouldn’t blame Texas for taking that deal).
(3) I’ll restate again that I don’t think that anything is imminent for Big Ten expansion, but if I had to bet today who the conference would add to get up to 16 within 5 years, I think that it would be Kansas and Oklahoma. (I really don’t think that a lack of AAU status will be held against OU. The biggest shackle for OU is the prospect of political pressure of the school having to take Oklahoma State along with it.) From that, Texas would take the ND-style deal with the ACC described above, and the Big 12 would backfill with Cincinnati, BYU and a few others from the AAC and/or MWC to be to the new CFP system what the Big East was to the BCS system after the ACC raided that league in 2003 (i.e. power conference status contractually, but hanging onto it by a thin thread). I’d like to be wrong and say that Texas will end up in the Big Ten (which is, after all, what I’ve argued would be the best for all parties from the beginning), but I’m not getting that vibe.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“(1) The Big Ten would be pretty stupid to pass on Oklahoma (provided that it’s not a combo with Oklahoma State) with or without Texas.”
I don’t know about that. Without UT, OU is NE with much worse academics and a larger state (3.8M, a little bigger than IA’s 3.0M). The brand is nice, but those academics will be a tough sell to the COP/C. It’s not like OK provides a demographic boost to help with student recruitment or BTN numbers.
“(2) The biggest chip that the ACC could offer to Texas is a Notre Dame-type non-football membership deal, where Texas would become an independent in football.”
Agreed, but would they do that? I think the 4 teams that have in-state rivals locked might complain about having 10 games locked in their schedule 2/3 of the time. It’s a lot of travel, too. And assuming they don’t get any UT football rights due to the LHN, it doesn’t help the ACCN much.
Also, I don’t think UT seeks east coast access as much as ND does. UT is also not quite as good a fit in the ACC as a school as ND is. The culture would be a mismatch, too.
“It doesn’t shock me that Texas sources would intimate that the ACC would be the preferred destination with that potential scenario on the table (and I wouldn’t blame Texas for taking that deal).”
I wouldn’t blame them, but I’m not sure they would really do it. Wouldn’t staying in the B12 pay more?
“(3) I’ll restate again that I don’t think that anything is imminent for Big Ten expansion,”
Nor do I, just to be clear.
“but if I had to bet today who the conference would add to get up to 16 within 5 years, I think that it would be Kansas and Oklahoma. (I really don’t think that a lack of AAU status will be held against OU. The biggest shackle for OU is the prospect of political pressure of the school having to take Oklahoma State along with it.)”
OK and KS combined are only slightly larger than IN. Both OU and KU would have to escape little brothers. KU’s academics aren’t much better than NE’s. KU football stinks. Without the demographics of TX and the academics of UT, I don’t see how KU or OU get in, let alone both.
“From that, Texas would take the ND-style deal with the ACC described above, and the Big 12 would backfill with Cincinnati, BYU and a few others from the AAC and/or MWC”
Once down to 7, they probably have to add at least 5 schools. Is it enough of an improvement to get UC, BYU, etc? BYU wouldn’t join before when the pay was better (I’m assuming the TV deal would plummet with the 2 kings gone).
Remainder – TCU, TT, Baylor, OkSU, KSU, ISU, WV
Do they go SWC redux and add SMU and UH? I doubt it. Tulsa? They already have OkSU. Memphis or Tulane? I doubt it. UCF/USF? Those are the best values, but do they want the B12? I could see the AAC taking WV instead.
As far as the MWC, only Boise has much value to them. I could see the MWC trying to take TT, TCU and/or Baylor. ISU, KSU and OkSU are of no use to anyone.
“I’d like to be wrong and say that Texas will end up in the Big Ten (which is, after all, what I’ve argued would be the best for all parties from the beginning), but I’m not getting that vibe.”
I’m not either, but I don’t see them going anywhere unless the LHN goes away first.
LikeLike
Brian – Texas may not be openly pining for East Coast access, but I can see why associating with The Big Ten – and now Maryland – makes sense. Texas is a highly political state, and this would put their programs into DC annually. Additionally, let’s remember what is likely the only sports brand in that state bigger than the University of Texas: The Dallas Cowboys. And the Cowboys have successfully fought off all realignment changes to maintain their rivalries with New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. So there is a mindset in Texas to associate with those cities. And in college sports, if they can be labelled as anything, NYC, Philly, and DC are becoming Big Ten cities.
This isn’t a deal maker or breaker by any means, but it certainly gives the Big Ten an edge over the ACC when discussing “fit” for UT. Adding this info to the potential added Research dollars and the CIC, and the added revenue for national TV contracts and BTN, it points everything towards The Big Ten. So it really comes down to, what really motivates Texas? Do they want to stay and be the big fish in the little pond? Do they want more control on an ND-style deal in The ACC? Or do they want to make the biggest splash possible but be a single, relatively equal member of the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Cliff,
I agree totally. I was just pointing out that east coast access means a lot more to ND than UT, so we shouldn’t draw an exact parallel. UT doesn’t have millions of alumni and/or fans up and down the east coast like ND. Also, UT recruits at home first while ND always has to search nationally.
LikeLike
Frank, I’m going to have to agree with Brian regarding Oklahoma. With Texas they are a dream addition. Without Texas, they are Nebraska – great tradition, great fanbase, great ratings, no in state recruiting. In the waning days of the Big 8, OU really struggled. From 1992 to 1999 they went 44-45-3. I suppose this can be attributed to poor coaching hires and NCAA sanctions, but a few years in the Big 12 and an infusion of Texas recruiting, remedied things very quickly (as did Bob Stoops). A move without UT to the Big Ten would alter Texas recruiting. Sure, they could still sell proximity to Texas recruits but they wouldn’t be playing home and homes with the Texas Techs, Baylors, etc., teams they have historically pounded on. I also imagine a move to the B1G without UT would probably end the Red Rivalry Rivalry. With only 3 open slots in a 9 conference game B1G, not sure either OU or UT wants to restrict its ability to schedule another premier home and home. I guess the big question would be whether OU could continue to recruit Texas without playing in Texas?
As far as Texas to the Big Ten, I don’t see it happening. The current administration seems to prefer the Pac 12, where it could theoretically bring along Tech, OU, and Okie State, or the ACC whether it could theoretically become independent in football (although I think this is less realistic that a move to the B1G).
Further, the LHN defeats the purpose of the BTN, which would want to put as much Texas centric programming onto the network. How would that work if the Texas programing goes to the LHN? I also doubt there would be enough content, even with 16 schools to fill the so called BTN2 regional networks. As it is, with 12, soon to be 14 schools, there isn’t enough content to avoid repeated material. I also find it hard to believe that UT would just give up on the LHN. Sure, it’s been a failure, but why not give it some time? They are still collecting the $15m a year from ESPN.
LikeLike
One more point, while Kansas does have some upside, at this point I think it would be a mistake for the B1G, which needs to focus its expansion strategy on California, Texas, and Florida. California is too far, so that leaves Texas and Florida, and that means UT and FSU. All future expansion scenarios need to begin and end with these two. If the B1G decides OU and KU are getting invites, then UT better have one. If the B1G decides UVA and Georgia Tech have invites, then FSU better have one.
LikeLike
Tom,
“I also doubt there would be enough content, even with 16 schools to fill the so called BTN2 regional networks. As it is, with 12, soon to be 14 schools, there isn’t enough content to avoid repeated material.”
The P12 is starting regionals, so we’ll quickly see how they do. The key is to remember they have a very different business model. They’ll be much cheaper and on a higher cable tier or only in a sports package. Since they’re regional, they can show more non-revenue sports because the local school is always in the game. Diehard fans will watch almost anything with their school in it. Besides, the cost is so cheap many fans will get it just for the 1-5 events per year they want to see. It can also show tons of classic games with plenty of repeats. UT fans would never get tired of watching UT beat OU in the RRR, for example.
LikeLike
A non AAU but FB king, offset by AAU FB ? (What’s below surf)? “Markets” that are smaller than suburbs to what most consider markets? Lots of corn, scarecrows, dust and tumbleweeds, though. Wisconsin, Michigan, PSU, etc looking for an influx of KS, OK students? And those states “growing” demographics?
The academics and markets trumped success on the field for Rutgers and Maryland. Did I miss a seismic shift in goals? A president once said athletics is 1% of the budget, but takes 10% of his time. It may have a bit of an exaggeration, but the point stands. The value of the school to the B1G’s COP/C’s (B1G already has kings enough) is not in the percent differences of potential adds in the small percentage of athletics in the overall budget.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten is interested in expanding their footprint into Kansas City. The secret part about the metro area is that contains Johnson County, and they have expanded population by 100,000 for the past 2 decades and remain ranked highly in per-capita income lists.
Basically, you can count Northeast Kansas as having excellent growth, I don’t know about Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Agree, BIG can’t pass on OU w/either Tx or KU & I do believe they have a pretty good case to ensure Tx comes along. I think AAU is absolutely part of the process, but it is overstated. At this point, I’m sure someone will now post Harvey Perlman’s quotes – no need. Future expansion will not be able to conceal the other obvious factor – money. Btw, other BCS conferences have at least two low ranked schools, at least in terms of US News Undergrad Rankings, – Lville & NCSt in the ACC (both behind OU), a handful in the Pac12 behind OU, same in the SEC and Big12. In fact the Pac12 has a few schools w/AAU status that are ranked behind OU in US News Undergrad rankings. I’m sure if anyone is interested, just go to US News & AAU Wiki. So the debates related to the merits of AAU status, as well as plenty of other academic measurements, goes on.
In terms of historical success, OU also has other sports compatible with the BIG: wrestling, softball, gymnastics, & most importantly FOOTBALL – they bring 80+ thousand fans to the stands (<–should be in BOLD). OU is also an underrated basketball school in the modern era (2 FFs, 5 EEs, & 8 S16s).
My unscientific reviews of various OU boards (rivals, landthieves & scout) – they would prefer the Big12, but the BIG is the next best option, followed by the Pac12. Someone even posted a poll on their rivals general board, a fellow Minnesota alum – roughly 45% could go with a BIG move (funny poll format). Landthieves seems to have a strong consensus of BIG fans – if expansion must happen.
http://oklahoma.rivals.com/pollresult.asp?SID=895&Poll=156384
LikeLike
Big Ten presidents aren’t going to be intimidated by football “king” status. If they can get Texas to agree to AAU member (and men’s basketball “king”) Kansas as an expansion partner, Oklahoma can twist in the wind (and end up on the Pac with Okie State and a few others) for all they care. As Frank has said so many times before, think like a university president.
LikeLike
@Frank – This sentence was interesting to me:
I’m hearing there’s been a bit of a sea change by Texas brass about chasing TV dollars (in part because Texas has plenty thanks to LHN) and instead there’s greater concern about chasing research dollars.
It may very be about research dollars (I’m not sure UT has a big problem attracting them), but I’m wondering if “research” will be the cover story because Texas is afraid of demand waning for their home ticket packages. The new Big 12 is a much tougher sell to the more casual fan (while probably an easier sell for high interest fans) and the nine game schedule with OU in Dallas limits their flexibility to bring in those sexy, buzz driving opponents while meeting their home game requirements. A series with ND will help, but who will be the marquee name when UT plays at ND?
LikeLike
Chasing research dollars makes sense in the context of sequestration and federal budget cuts hitting university research programs very hard. More schools are competing for less federal research monies. This environment makes groups such as the CIC even more important, as it helps schools save money through collaboration and also jointly apply for federal money.
As applied to Texas, if the school can both save and get more money partnering with a group like the CIC than it does through athletic revenues, then moving to the B1G is a no brainer. The ACC’s version of the CIC is still in its infancy, and based on UMD’s reference to the CIC as a reason for leaving, has a long way to go before its a force in the academic world.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/sequestration-cuts_n_3749432.html (this article deals with medical and scientific research).
LikeLike
Frank,
Wouldn’t the risk of pissing off the blue bloods of the ACC by giving Texas a ND package far exceed the benefits for the conference? Yes, Texas brings a lot, but now there are two special schools in the ACC over everyone else. How will UNC feel about that? UVA? I think Notre Dame’s deal has created a few hard feelings in the conference. Throw Texas in there and the BIG might become a lot more appealing to UNC, Duke, UVA, and so on.
LikeLike
Frank – Oklahoma to the Big Ten and Texas to the ACC… that certainly changes the value of the Champions / Sugar Bowl. The marquee opponents for the SEC are now… K State and West Virginia?
Meanwhile, Texas in the ACC means Texas in the Orange Bowl with potential opponents of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and LSU.
LikeLike
Oklahoma to the Big Ten and Texas to the ACC… that certainly changes the value of the Champions / Sugar Bowl.
Unless the contracting parties (and their lawyers) are idiots, I’m sure there’s an ‘out’ clause in case of such a drastic change to the Big XII.
LikeLike
Marc – while there’s always an out, I’m sure there would be some costs involved… And while the ACC would become the SEC’s preferred partner in a Champions Bowl, wouldn’t the Big Ten want to keep the status quo with the Orange? Which also keep the Rose as the marquee (non-playoff) bowl game without any real competition from the Champions Bowl.
LikeLike
Marc – while there’s always an out, I’m sure there would be some costs involved…
If so, none of the parties we’re discussing would absorb those costs. The main loser would be the Fiesta Bowl.
And while the ACC would become the SEC’s preferred partner in a Champions Bowl, wouldn’t the Big Ten want to keep the status quo with the Orange? Which also keep the Rose as the marquee (non-playoff) bowl game without any real competition from the Champions Bowl.
I think the ACC wants to keep its Orange Bowl tie-in, as it’s so much closer for most of their members. Obviously, in this scenario the Orange Bowl gets a lot more valuable, which gives the ACC even more reason to stay there. It’s not as if Texas is going to be in the Orange Bowl every year. UT hasn’t made it to a BCS bowl the last three years.
LikeLike
Frug:
1: agreed.
2: (a) UT may no have a LHN to hang on to if ESPN dissatisfaction rumors are true. (Perhaps this is a strategy to leverage more from the B12?) and (b) HS content is an NCAA wide issue, not a conference option.
3: perhaps. It may be easier to break off the multiple valuable parts necessary to break the ACC than it is to deal with UT.
LikeLike
1. It might be stupid but it wouldn’t be surprising. The Big Ten has made pretty clear that AAU membership is a precondition for everyone but Notre Dame and if they weren’t wiling to overlook AAU membership for FSU I’m not sure why they would for Oklahoma
2. I’m not sure Texas would necessarily go for that. What Texas wants is to keep content for the LHN and an ND style deal wouldn’t accomplish that. What Texas would prefer would be full membership put the right to keep their Tier III rights (and they might also push to allow HS content on the LHN).
3. No idea what the most likely play for the Big Ten is though I still say that the ACC is just as vulnerable as the Big XII. Maybe even more.
LikeLike
Obviously the best academic conference top to bottom is the ACC, followed by the Big Ten and then the Pac-12.
Obviously Chip Brown is just parroting whichever UT administrator is using him to push an agenda this week.
LikeLike
A realignment primer by a poster named cwobrien at WavingTheWheat:
http://www.wavingthewheat.com/showthread.php?14545-Realignment-Primer
Synopsis: He thinks no one from the major conferences will move in the next five to seven years.
LikeLike
His logic is flawed, though.
So if money is the goal, why am I telling everyone not to worry about expansion right now? TV contracts. It has nothing to do with anyone’s GOR or hefty buyout clause. Almost every conference out there has had a new TV contract within the last couple years or one that is expected to be renewed in the next year. Conferences aren’t going to risk adding a new member and having the TV networks tell them that they aren’t going to renegotiate the contract…because then everyone makes a little less money. If the goal of conference realignment is to make more money, no one is going to do anything that is going to cost them money long term.
The B10 starts a new deal in 2017. Negotiations start in 2015. There’s enough time to add someone without them being a drain on the rest. If the B10 can manage to pay for RU and UMD and NE, I don’t think UT or OU or even KU would be too bad.
His comments on the B10 from a later post:
As far as the B1G potentially adding teams before their contract…could they? Yes. Will they? I doubt it. If they do, will it be some mixture of UT, OU, and KU? Probably not.
The reality is that yes, they can add teams right now and do so essentially free and clear of any long term screw ups. However, they will have at least 3 new teams in the conference in 2014 that will be mooching off of the last contract (Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland). They make some of it back from the B10N, but not all…especially since Nebraska will be getting a full share. No way they want to add three more mouths, even if it is just for a year or two.
I think he believes that the league is splitting the same amount 14 ways instead of 12 (the CCG basically pays for NE). Does anyone really think ESPN wouldn’t pay a little something if UT and/or OU were added? Especially since they could pay the B12 less?
If the B10 could afford to feed NE for 6 years and RU and UMD for 3 years each, then I think they could deal with UT, etc.
Later he moves on to other reasoning since he realized his money argument falls flat:
1. The B10 will be adjusting to 3 new teams and going to 14. They don’t want more newbies or a bigger league.
2. They won’t add B12 teams because of the GoR. Unfortunately for him, he discarded that as an issue in his money argument.
3. The B10 doesn’t want to damage their own GoR because they could be vulnerable in the future. He follows that but explaining how cable will die and that will crush the B10.
4. Lack of AAU will keep OU out.
5. The LHN will keep UT out.
I’m not sure why he presented his better arguments last.
LikeLike
5. The LHN will keep UT out.
There are probably a dozen good reasons why UT won’t be joining the Big Ten anytime soon. I’m not sure this is one of them.
If we’re talking UT to the Big Ten, we’re assuming the Big XII GOR can be broken somehow. Well, the LHN is another one of those contracts that’s changeable at some price. ESPN does a ton of business with both parties already, If the net value of both UT athletics and Big Ten athletics is higher with UT in the Big Ten, then the parties have an incentive to negotiate.
The Big Ten’s line in the sand is equal revenue sharing. As long as UT agrees to that, there’s probably some formulation where LHN can continue to exist; UT shares its LHN revenue with the Big Ten; the Big Ten shares its media revenue with UT; and they figure out some kind of joint carriage format so that Big Ten fans can see games on LHN.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“5. The LHN will keep UT out.
There are probably a dozen good reasons why UT won’t be joining the Big Ten anytime soon. I’m not sure this is one of them.”
I agree. It’s just a contract, and not one ESPN should be thrilled with right now at face value. Maybe they like it for other reasons (keeping the B12 together, etc), but they aren’t getting their money’s worth so far. I’ve proposed turning it into a regional BTN2, and all the regions getting one. ESPN could split the profits somehow if they want to keep a hand in, or they could sell out to Fox.
“If we’re talking UT to the Big Ten, we’re assuming the Big XII GOR can be broken somehow.”
We know it can be broken. It’s just a question of cost, right?
LikeLike
Assuming any of these rumors have any credibility (which I sincerely doubt), I can’t see Kansas or Oklahoma not being “good enough” for the Big Ten. The leadership took a shellacking over Maryland and Rutgers, and to a lesser extent, not pouncing on Missouri when they had the chance.
This board tends to be a little insular sometimes, but a lot of people in Michigan at least were nonplussed about adding two eastern schools over fellow Midwestern institutions. Fans and viewers are not a given, and even the richest athletic directors have to respond to alumni donors and fill stadiums.
2016 is not that far away, and with Rutgers and Maryland both long-term prospects (that seemingly require a substantial retooling), the Presidents might feel that a very powerful addition might be needed for immediate payoff. Oklahoma provides that, but Kansas less so because the basketball rights are already signed away – NCAA MBB Tournament credits however, are lucrative and the Jayhawks would boost and already excellent league (as well as weaken and diminish the seeds coming from the Big XII).
LikeLike
metatron,
“Assuming any of these rumors have any credibility (which I sincerely doubt),”
I think we all doubt it.
“I can’t see Kansas or Oklahoma not being “good enough” for the Big Ten. The leadership took a shellacking over Maryland and Rutgers, and to a lesser extent, not pouncing on Missouri when they had the chance.”
I don’t think tons of people are clamoring for KU. They’re a hoops king, but their FB stinks and the state isn’t huge. One thing that angered many people with UMD and RU is how bad they are in FB. The B10 has enough issues with FB perception without adding another doormat.
While the common fan would love OU, we know the presidents view things differently. Research and academics are vital to them. I’m not saying it would necessarily be the best decision, but I could see the COP/C turning down OU (especially without UT as a partner). OU doesn’t have strong demographics to bolster their case unless they could sell the B10 on them getting the BTN into Dallas.
“This board tends to be a little insular sometimes, but a lot of people in Michigan at least were nonplussed about adding two eastern schools over fellow Midwestern institutions. Fans and viewers are not a given, and even the richest athletic directors have to respond to alumni donors and fill stadiums.”
Didn’t you just object to complaints about the RU addition earlier? Now you’re objecting to not enough complaints about RU here? Back when RU was rumored, I remember plenty of complaints about expanding into the east (among other things). They’ve dropped off over time because it’s already been said (and people like you complain about those sentiments being repeated).
LikeLike
I have little doubt that if, Oklahoma and Kansas (without OSU & KSU) would want to join the B10 they would be admitted. I know there are complaints about Academics (in particular Oklahoma, but also Kansas with the Medical School), but the B10 looks at things from a long-term perspective, and if they believe they can help OU get AAU Status, the plusses (a National football program, making the Western Division stronger, restarting the Nebraska Rivalry, the TV Contract, and many others) outweigh the negatives. As far as KU is concerned, I know their football program is awful (losing to Rice at home speaks volumes), but there are also a few Schools in the B10 that suck at football as well (Minnesota, Purdue and Indiana come to mind). I think Texas would prefer the ACC to the B10 (remember UT stresses their baseball program, and the ACC also has great baseball programs (such as North Carolina)). I think the biggest problem UT would have getting in, would be UNC. UNC would lose a lot of its power base with UT, Notre Dame, and Eastern Schools (none of which care about Tobacco Road interests), being in position to run the Conference. Finally if some combination of KU, OU & UT left the Big XII Conference the FIRST School you would see join would be Houston. The Cougars are opening a New Stadium, and are of course, located in a top TV Market. I could see SMU, USF and Central Florida as well, so they can have a Conference Championship Game.
LikeLike
I know there are complaints about Academics (in particular Oklahoma, but also Kansas with the Medical School), but the B10 looks at things from a long-term perspective, and if they believe they can help OU get AAU Status,…
The Big Ten couldn’t prevent Nebraska from losing that status; and Nebraska is better academically than Oklahoma. If the Big Ten takes Oklahoma, it’ll be on the assumption that they’re non-AAU for the foreseeable future.
As far as KU is concerned, I know their football program is awful (losing to Rice at home speaks volumes), but there are also a few Schools in the B10 that suck at football as well (Minnesota, Purdue and Indiana come to mind).
I’m not saying KU won’t get in…but the argument probably won’t be: “Don’t worry, we already have football teams that suck.” Adding another bad football team is not exactly the best antidote to that problem.
I think Texas would prefer the ACC to the B10 (remember UT stresses their baseball program, and the ACC also has great baseball programs (such as North Carolina)).
On a full membership basis, Texas would probably prefer the Big Ten, because it’s the wealthier conference. The ACC might give them the same deal Notre Dame got, which is obviously a non-starter in the Big Ten. but I agree with you that UNC might not want another prima donna, and many of the other ACC schools might have doubts about allowing in a second member who isn’t all-in.
LikeLike
Didn’t several of the B1G schools vote against Nebraska retaining AAU Status around the time they were starting the transition to the B1G?
LikeLike
The reason why KU’s would be welcomed would be “The Bridge to Oklahoma” and its Basketball Team. I am also one who realizes they are a “soft” AAU as opposed to a University of Texas. I believe however both KU and OU can upgrade the Academics, as Penn State did (compared to when they joined the B10), and I believe Nebraska will. OU is an even better choice than KU, for many reasons. Keep in mind, the B10 of today (and tomorrow), is quite different, they are far more interested in what a School can potentially do for the Conference, and are more tolerant of a University’s warts. How? They did not throw Nebraska out of the CIC (let alone the Conference) after losing AAU) they did not toss Penn State out after the Sandusky incident, they allowed Johns Hopkins to join (on favorable terms to JHU), and they invited Rutgers and Maryland to join on TV market share and potential alone.
LikeLike
I believe however both KU and OU can upgrade the Academics, as Penn State did (compared to when they joined the B10), and I believe Nebraska will.
Penn state was already a solid AAU school when they joined. If you look at what Oklahoma needs to do to join, or Nebraska to re-join, vs. the profiles of schools that have received AAU invites in recent years, they have a loooooong way to go. No one in the Big Ten could believe that those schools are anywhere close to receiving AAU invites.
I’m not saying the Big Ten wouldn’t take Oklahoma under the right conditions. The belief that they could attain AAU status in the short term wouldn’t be one of them.
Keep in mind, the B10 of today (and tomorrow), is quite different, they are far more interested in what a School can potentially do for the Conference, and are more tolerant of a University’s warts. How? They did not throw Nebraska out of the CIC (let alone the Conference) after losing AAU) they did not toss Penn State out after the Sandusky incident, they allowed Johns Hopkins to join (on favorable terms to JHU), and they invited Rutgers and Maryland to join on TV market share and potential alone.
Nebraska’s AAU status was already under review when they joined. Obviously, the vote to admit them must have been conditioned on the view that they’d be acceptable no matter how the review turned out. No one in the Big Ten could have been surprised.
The idea that Penn State would be kicked out after the Sandusky scandal was a fantasy of ignorant fans. The Big Ten never even considered it.
LikeLike
Didn’t several of the B1G schools vote against Nebraska retaining AAU Status around the time they were starting the transition to the B1G?
To be exact: Michigan and Wisconsin voted against Nebraska, and Nebraska lost by one vote. It’s an open question whether UM and UW would have voted the same if they’d known it would be decisive, but there you are.
Although UM and UW couldn’t have predicted the vote exactly, they must’ve known it was going to be close. Therefore, you have to interpret their votes as more than merely symoblic. They must sincerely have wanted Nebraska out of the AAU.
LikeLike
Marc, you just made my point about Nebraska. If the AAU, Academics and the “kids” were paramount to the B10, the day Nebraska was tossed out of the AAU, would have been the day the B10 sent them packing (or at least, put them on come kind of Academic probation (sort of like failing kids)). I did not see Michigan or Wisconsin (both of them who voted against the Huskers), stand up and say the B10 needs to expel Nebraska, in the name of “Academics.” As for Penn State, because of Sandusky and the others not reporting his actions, they could have lost their Accreditation via Middle States, but the B10 still let them compete in all sports, even football (this point is from a hard core Penn State fan (not a Pitt supporter)). The reason why Penn State & Nebraska are still there, is the ECONOMIC value that they bring to the Conference. The same concept applies to Rutgers, Maryland, Johns Hopkins, or any future School that they want in the Conference (KU, OU or UT included). It is about 90% Money and 10% everything else.
LikeLike
@David Brown: You seem to be choosing between two radically different extremes, and assuming the decision-makers are not capable of nuanced thinking.
So in your view, either Nebraska gets kicked out after losing AAU status; or they don’t get kicked out, which must mean only money counts, and academics don’t matter.
And in your view, either Penn State gets kicked out after the Sandusky scandal; or they get to stay, which must mean only money counts, and integrity doesn’t matter.
I think they are capable of more sophisticated thinking than that.
LikeLike
@David
If Penn St. had lost its accreditation it would have been kicked out of the Big Ten, but that’s not what happened.
LikeLike
I did not see Michigan or Wisconsin (both of them who voted against the Huskers), stand up and say the B10 needs to expel Nebraska, in the name of “Academics.”
The issue isn’t whether Michigan or Wisconsin would expel Nebraska, it’s whether knowing what they know now, would they block their admittance.
(Of course knowing that they know I suspect that Michigan and Wisconsin would have just voted in Nebraska’s favor at the AAU)
LikeLike
I don’t think any 2/3 of KU, MO, and OK come in as duo……………
I think “academic cover” will be required for either KU, MO, or OK to be added. By “academic” cover I mean the likes of TX or UNC or GT or VA.
The reports I recall were that UM, NW, and WIS voted against the addition of NEB originally. The public vote was changed to unanimous to make it look better to the public and thew newspapers. Therefore, UM and Wisky voting against NEB on the AAU vote should not be a shocker.
As for it all being 90% about the $$……………..sure, but the academic $$ grossly exceeds the athletic $$……………I’ve always thought the importance of the CIC has been grossly exaggerated……..however, I think the organization in the last 6-7 years has actually gained some momentum….it’s as if all the BS said about it has had a positive effect, and I now see some genuine possibilities going forward……also, perception is important in academic circles….would you rather teach at an institution that hangs with TX and VA, or MO and KU? Perception matters….
LikeLike
@frug
I don’t expect it to happen, but its still very remotely possible PSU could lose it. The feds haven’t weighed in yet.
LikeLike
If UM and Wisconsin were the only B1G votes against, why would they bring it up with a group that just voted 9-2 in favor of UNL?
LikeLike
I never said money is the ONLY thing just about 90%, and it does not matter if it is CIC, Tuition, Fundraising, Tickets, or TV it is still about generating money. Lets take Penn State: The combination of Joe Paterno’s low salary and his fundraising prowess, such as getting the $207m Millenium Science Complex and the Paterno Library finished, are examples of why Paterno was allowed to Coach (despite his health and a record that was fair (at best) long after he should have been forced out). Another example is Rutgers: The TV Market size is exactly why Rutgers was allowed in the B10 (despite a football team that has an local fan interest below Islander & Devil Hockey, and a basketball team whose performance is located somewhere between Seton Hall and DePaul). Lets look at Johns Hopkins: The reason why they were invited in is because of their Research Dollars (the Lacrosse is nice, but they could have waited until another B10 School added it (like they did with Hockey and Penn State)). Once again it is about $$$$$$$$$.
LikeLike
The reason why they were invited in is because of their Research Dollars (the Lacrosse is nice, but they could have waited until another B10 School added it (like they did with Hockey and Penn State)). Once again it is about $$$$$$$$$.
Actually, Hopkins has yet to decide if it intends to join the CIC.
LikeLike
I don’t expect it to happen, but its still very remotely possible PSU could lose it. The feds haven’t weighed in yet.
If you added 1,000 “verys” to your sentence I would still disagree. I mean, if you take away its accreditation, then 45,000 students (96,000 if all campuses are counted) have to find somewhere else to go to college. The chances of that happening are zero.
LikeLike
I think “academic cover” will be required for either KU, MO, or OK to be added. By “academic” cover I mean the likes of TX or UNC or GT or VA.
Kansas and Missouri are fine academically. They’re better than Nebraska, and Nebraska got in. The problem (assuming they’re even available) is that they don’t deliver markets the Big Ten especially wants, and neither is a football king (or even a prince).
LikeLike
Missouri delivers markets. Missouri’s population is larger than Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maryland, and is nearly tied with Indiana.
Kansas on the other hand…
Fun fact: Missouri has two cities that each have larger metro populations than the entire state of Nebraska.
LikeLike
I agree that the population base for KU isn’t its greatest strength, but let’s also not sandbag it. They deliver the Kansas City market much more so than any other school (including Missouri), and there’s about 1.2 million people on the Missouri side of that metro area beyond the state of Kansas. Now, that doesn’t make KU into some type of Texas-type juggernaut, but it’s also a larger population base than just its home state. Just as importantly, that region is an overall rabid KU fan area, which is why the school had the highest 3rd tier rights fees of any Big 12 school before the LHN was formed and they were just able to sign a new lucrative deal with ESPN. KU has quite a bit of value – they’re one of the 6 basketball programs that still matter for realignment purposes (the others being Kentucky, Indiana, Duke, UNC and UCLA) and I say that as someone that’s an alum of a school whose highly successful coach got poached by the Jayhawks.
LikeLike
Do we really have to repeat that UNL delivers a national market, as you would expect of a king?
LikeLike
Or that markets don’t matter as much as some make them out to be. If you have a national television contract it is all about increasing the average viewership for the conference. A team like Nebraska does that. Markets matter in terms of a network, but the primary rights contracts are still outpacing the networks. The Big Ten’s gap in this respect will grow wider with their 2017 deal.
LikeLike
Frank, I’ve broken down the numbers before on here. Mizzou has more alums than KU in Kansas City, Missouri. Mizzou also gets very high tv ratings in Kansas City. Where KU is strong is that they have an extremely high concentration of alums in Kansas City, KS, which still counts as part of the KC metro area.
There’s also a huge number of UMKC alums in the KC area, which is part of the UM system but those alums aren’t as committed to Mizzou sports as Mizzou alums of course.
Basically, KU football has almost no support. They average around 30k less fans per game than Mizzou, and their tv ratings are awful. KU basketball gets great ratings. Mizzou basketball gets decent ratings too, but of course not as good as Kansas. But what’s basketball really worth in all of this, anyway? Something, sure, but not near as much as football. And Kansas football is very, very bad.
LikeLike
Actually, you should look it up Andy. Going back to 1996, Missouri has never outdrawn KU by 30k. And given that Mizzou drew 39k in 1996 and KU 42k, I doubt Mizzou has ever outdrawn KU by 30k in any year. And from 2001-2011, MU never outdrew KU by 20k, let along 30k. From 1996, Mizzou has averaged 57k, definitely better than KU’s 41k, but not 30k better.
LikeLike
OK, so I rounded.
2012 average: Missouri 67,467
Kansas 41,329
Missouri average: +26,148
That’s closer to 30k than 15k. But I’m sure you’ll still say you’re right somehow.
LikeLike
frug if they want to keep playing B1G lacrosse after their trial period they’re going to have to bring their research into the cic.
LikeLike
Indeed, the fact that its a trial period would a strong reason to not yet join the CIC, since postponing entry into the CIC until the trial period is over and the decision is being made on an ongoing associate membership maintains the greatest leverage for JHU.
LikeLike
frug: “The issue isn’t whether Michigan or Wisconsin would expel Nebraska, it’s whether knowing what they know now, would they block their admittance.”
Or rather, whether knowing that the Big Ten faculty at large now know what was not common knowledge then, whether the three biggest academic snobs in the Big Ten could get enough votes over to their side to block their admittance.
I think they likely would have won that fight. They only need to get one or two more on their side and one or two on the fence and the expansion is effectively blocked. And not only would it have been easier to get people on their side or onto the fence if it was common knowledge among the Big Ten faculty, but those three would have fought harder.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Or rather, whether knowing that the Big Ten faculty at large now know what was not common knowledge then, whether the three biggest academic snobs in the Big Ten could get enough votes over to their side to block their admittance.
I think they likely would have won that fight. They only need to get one or two more on their side and one or two on the fence and the expansion is effectively blocked. And not only would it have been easier to get people on their side or onto the fence if it was common knowledge among the Big Ten faculty, but those three would have fought harder.”
I disagree. I don’t think the faculties have that much sway and might even not be all that upset at most B10 schools. NE was a fellow AAU member for a long time and that means many B10 faculty members know and respect NE faculty members. It’s one thing to support NE losing AAU status, but a completely different thing to undermine the athletic side of the B10 (and potentially the funding for their own school) by not admitting NE.
LikeLike
Oh, I should add that a more likely result to me would have been them pushing for an immediate expansion to 14 with two high academic schools to help cover for NE.
MO and KU probably wouldn’t have been good enough for that. Were any of the ACC schools ready to leave back then? RU is an easy get, but who is the #13?
LikeLike
if they want to keep playing B1G lacrosse after their trial period they’re going to have to bring their research into the cic.
Well given that everyone was so sure that Hopkins would only be admitted for Men’s Lax if they joined the CIC and brought their women’s team along I wouldn’t bet on that.
Indeed, the fact that its a trial period would a strong reason to not yet join the CIC, since postponing entry into the CIC until the trial period is over and the decision is being made on an ongoing associate membership maintains the greatest leverage for JHU.
Leverage for what? To ensure that the Big Ten doesn’t toss them out after the trial period? Because if the CIC was what the Big Ten was really after with the Hopkins admission (and I don’t believe that is the case at all), then they would have just just made Hopkins a permanent member in exchange for Hopkins agreeing to join the CIC.
It just seems like everyone is over complicating things; the Big Ten added Hopkins because they wanted to start a lacrosse league and in order to do that they needed a 6th member. Hopkins was best choice available (by far) so the Big Ten grabbed them.
LikeLike
“Because if the CIC was what the Big Ten was really after with the Hopkins admission (and I don’t believe that is the case at all), then they would have just just made Hopkins a permanent member in exchange for Hopkins agreeing to join the CIC.”
No, because Hopkins made it clear they wanted to ease into it with a trial membership. See the last page of this http://web.jhu.edu/administration/president/lacrosse_committee/JHU%20Blue%20Ribbon%20Committee%20Final%20Report%202013_05_10.pdf
LikeLike
How many Big Ten schools have a BCS bowl victories? How many does KU have? Although at this point BCS hardly matters, but KU has accomplished a lot in football in the whole BCS era while being a totally disadvantaged school. We just had an AD on his way out spite us and hire a complete fool that then trashed much of the progress our program had.
LikeLike
KU didn’t even deserve to go to the one BCS bowl they’ve been to. They were ranked below Missouri that year in the BCS standings and lost head to head in the final game of the season. It took some crooked shenannegans to get KU into that game. And they haven’t sniffed the BCS ever since. But keep crowing about it like it means something.
LikeLike
Kansas did beat the ACC champ and has been ranked in the final top 10 twice since 1994. That’s better than the vast majority of schools.
Simple answer to Andy-don’t lose a ccg-the bowls don’t want you. Nothing crooked about it. They’re afraid fans won’t come after a loss, especially when it costs a shot in the MNC game.
LikeLike
KU is atrocious at football, lets look at their “accomplishments.” They have won one Conference Championship since 1947 (1968) and it was shared. Look at their 2012 results against Kansas State (56-16), Oklahoma (52-7), Baylor (41-14), Iowa State (53-21 (in Lawrence)) and West Virginia (59-10). They were competitive in several games (Rice, UT, Ok State & Texas Tech. This team won 1 Game (South Dakota State) last year. The only reason why the Big 10 would want them is if they came with Oklahoma.
LikeLike
bullet: Kansas was coming off a loss too… to Missouri. D’oh.
Also, Kansas didn’t have to play Oklahoma or Texas that year. They didn’t play a single ranked opponent until they played Mizzou and then Mizzou whooped them.
They got into the Orange Bowl by promising to buy like 40k tickets.
Google “kansas orange bowl ticket scandal” and learn.
LikeLike
Missouri got a lesser bowl, just like a lot of other ccg losers. There’s no scandal. Just bowl economics. CCG losers don’t buy tickets and travel.
LikeLike
Missouri sold out the Cotton Bowl. Sold over 30k tickets in no time. Tickets were hard to come by. It wouldn’t have been an issue. Mizzou fans were pumped that year.
Kansas fans, on the other hand, traveled very poorly to the Orange bowl coming off of their disappointing loss to their arch rival in their last game of the season. That schools support for football is rather tepid even in the best of times.
LikeLike
Truth is the Big 12 stepped bak and let it happen, and the national media was outraged. If you want to point to a moment when Missouri lost respect and loyalty for the Big 12, that was the moment. After that, we could take it or leave it.
LikeLike
The Orange Bowl was a sellout. History says ccg losers don’t attend bowls well and there is a long history of that. Kansas had a better W-L record even if Missouri was more highly ranked and played a better schedule. That is why Kansas got selected, not any conspiracy by KU.
And Kansas does draw less than Missouri, but its typically about 15k less. On rare occasion they draw more than Missouri. And yes, Kansas last won a conference title in 1968, but Missouri last won the following year, 1969. Pot calling kettle black?
And oddly enough both have been ranked in the top 10 3 times since 1968 with 2 times being the same year, 1968 and 2007. Missouri was also top 10 in 1969 and Kansas in 1995.
LikeLike
KU was obviously more attactive to the Orange Bowl than MU. They were 12-1, their only loss by a TD. MU lost to Oklahoma twice, including a 21 pt blowout in the conference championship game. AND, KU won the Orange Bowl.
As far as the Cotton Bowl, almost half of MU’s team came from Texas, and Dallas is a lot closer to MU/KU than Miami.
UMKC alumni shouldn’t count. FTT is correct, KC is a KU town. Always has been. Just read the local paper. MU complained about their lack of coverage in the Star when I was at MU (1980’s). And, MU was ranked #1 in the nation in hoops in the early ’80’s…..
LikeLike
Another look back to 2007. Heading into the bowls, MU was ranked #7, KU #8. KU defeated #5 Va Tech in the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
Missouri’s SOS that season was ranked #25. Kansas’s was ranked #74. Kansas didn’t have to play Oklahoma or Texas that season. Missouri played 7 ranked teams that year. Kansas played 3. Missouri closed the regular season beating Kansas by 8 pts with the ball in victory formation. Finished ahead of them in the final week of the season (Missouri was ranked #1 in the country), after the conference championship game (Missouri stayed ahead of Kansas in the rankings) and after the bowl games (Missouri blew out #25 ranked Arkansas by 31 pts, Kansas squeaked past VA Tech by 3). Missouri likely would have won that Orange bowl by more.
Yes the Orange Bowl sold out. That’s because Kansas promised to by 40k tickets. They bought them but they didn’t use them. Tons of empty seats at the Orange Bowl that year. Again, google “Kansas Orange Bowl Ticket Scandal”, yes that’s a real thing. It happened.
The Cotton Bowl, on the other hand, was packed. As in, butts in seats.
So Missouri only outdraws Kansas by around 15k in football? On what planet? Look at the attendance average rankings. Mizzou averages about 30k more per game than Kansas in real life vs imagination land. Look it up.
As for KC being a ku town, yeah, their basketball team has a lot of fans in KC. Football, not so much. During football season KC is a Mizzou town. The town is of mixed loyalty, to be sure. And if you count Kansas City, Kansas as part of the equation then yes Kansas alums do outnumber Missouri alums in the metro area. But strictly in terms of Kansas City, Missouri, alums of the University of Missouri-Columbia outnumber alums of the University of Kansas. And if you add in UMKC alums then they outnumber KU alums by more than 2 to 1. That’s not to say there aren’t a lot of KU alums in Kansas City. There are. And during basketball season they are very active. During football season they tend to keep to themselves.
LikeLike
Oh, and Bullet, I didn’t say anything about Kansas’s last conference title. I know better. Oklahoma and Nebraska dominated the Big 8. Hardly any other teams ever won conference titles. Big 8 titles since 1968:
Kansas: 1
Missouri: 1
Oklahoma State: 1
Colorado: 4
Iowa State: 0
Kansas State: 0
Nebraska: 16
Oklahoma: 13
Missouri did win some Big 12 North titles. Here are total Big 12 North titles:
Missouri: 3
Nebraska: 9
Colorado: 4
Kansas State: 4
Iowa State: 1
Kansas: 1
LikeLike
For fun, let’s look at conference titles by Big 8 schools from 1950 through 2012:
Colorado: 7
Missouri: 2
Kansas: 1
Iowa State: 0
Kansas State: 1
Oklahoma State: 1
Nebraska: 22
Oklahoma: 31
So to say a Big 8 team hasn’t won a title in a long time, well, that’s pretty much how it works if you’re not Nebraska or Oklahoma. Those two have been truly dominant.
LikeLike
Andy,
I’ve noticed that you often use the entire KC metro area population when it suites you (stating that it has more people than the entire state of Nebraska, claiming that Missouri has two major metro areas, etc, etc)
But you also frequently act as if the Kansas side of the KC metro area doesn’t count (when tabulating the number of KU vs Missouri alums, for example).
Basically, you use the millon or so people living on the Kansas side of the metro area to claim KC as a major city for the state of Missouri. Then you conveniently discount everyone living on the Kansas side to claim that the majority of Kansas City resident are Missouri fans.
The whole thing is rather pointless, though. No matter your gerrymandering and no matter your fuzzy math, no one really cares about Missouri. I just thought you should know that.
LikeLike
Arch, you care so little about Missouri that you’ve taken the time to tell me as much on dozens of occasions.
As for the KC metro area, total population is 2.3M. 1.8M on the Missouri side, 0.5M on the Kansas side. The Kansas side is chalk full of KU alums. There are also alot of KU alums bleeding over the border into Missouri, but Mizzou alums outnumber KU alums on the east side. These are all facts. Feel free to look them up and fact check me. But then you’re not interested so I’m sure you won’t.
LikeLike
The thing about the MU vs KU alum conversation is that KU sends the majority of their alums to Kansas City, and the majority of those they send to the Kansas side of the metro area. Missouri, on the other hand, sends the majority of their alums to the St. Louis metro area (where they are the dominant alumni base, with Illinois only having a small fraction as many alums, despite what many on here seem to think). But then Mizzou ALSO sends a lot of alums to Kansas City, MO where they have the majority there as well. Mizzou is the bigger school, has more alums, and more fans. Higher national apparel sales as well. And the state of Missouri has twice the population as the state of Kansas. Yes, Kansas has a large and passionate basketball fanbase. But overall they have less support than Missouri. These are all easily measurable and well documented facts. But then a lot of people on this forum tend to be impervious to facts or logic.
LikeLike
In case that didn’t read clearly, I was saying Kansas basketball support > Missouri basketball support, but Missouri has more overall fans in all sports than Kansas does.
LikeLike
“As for the KC metro area, total population is 2.3M. 1.8M on the Missouri side, 0.5M on the Kansas side. The Kansas side is chalk full of KU alums. There are also alot of KU alums bleeding over the border into Missouri, but Mizzou alums outnumber KU alums on the east side. These are all facts.”
Those are not the facts. Numbers vary depending on the boundaries used to describe the metro area, of course, but it is actually a pretty even split.
The consensus among recent population data studies is roughly 2.3 million for the entire area divided between 1.2 million on the Missouri side and 1.1 million on the Kansas side. The local KC media have done several stories on the fact that experts project the Kansas side will overtake the Missouri side within the next decade or two due to the much more extensive surburbs on the Kansas side with have had the highest rate of growth in the area for awhile now. This growth is predicted to continue.
And, sure, some of the growth on the Kansas side has been and will be Missouri tranplants and some of those will be Tiger fans. But for you to brag on the total metro population of the KC area and then turn around and try discredit the Kansas side population to show that KC is a “Tiger Town” is disingenuous at best.
I say this not as someone who cares about the University of Missouri athletics, but as a former resident of Kansas City, Missouri, who tires of you misrepresenting the area in your pointless internet crusade. What you are doing is akin to someone saying that Chicago is a “White Sox” town by only taking data from south of downtown.
LikeLike
I’ve never lived in KC, was just going by some numbers I saw online. Maybe they weren’t accurate, I don’ tknow.
I do know that on the east side there are more Mizzou alums and on the west side there are more KU alums. I got those numbers from the Mizzou and KU alumni associaitons.
This all started by KU claiming that KC is a KU town. I never said KC is a Mizzou town. I was just saying that on the east side KU doesn’t have the majority. That is a modest and factual claim. The only way to bash me about it would be to completely misrepresent my point, which is exactly what you did.
LikeLike
@ Frank
When will you put up your first ballot for the SB Nation BlogPoll Top 25?
LikeLike
Oh goody, another bowl!
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9581531/espn-creates-bowl-mac-sun-belt-teams
LikeLike
And it gets worse:
The bowl will be the ninth owned by ESPN. The network also is currently negotiating to take over ownership of the Heart of Dallas Bowl and create a new bowl game in Boca Raton, Fla., sources said.
The new bowl game in Montgomery will be at least the 36th bowl game in 2014. If the Boca Raton bowl is added there will be 37 bowl games.
If ESPN purchases the Heart of Dallas Bowl and creates the new game in Boca Raton, ESPN will then own 11 of the 31 non-College Football Playoff bowl games beginning in 2014.
37 freaking bowls. It’ll be hard to find 74 teams, especially with AQs playing harder schedules for SOS purposes. The 9th B10 game will probably cost at least 1 team per season a bowl on average. The tougher OOC scheduling might as well. Those ND games may hurt some ACC schools (or vice versa). Even with I-A growing to 129 members, 74 will be a hard number to reach.
I think CFB really needs to think hard about letting ESPN own 1/3 of the postseason plus show all but 1 or 2 bowls.
Of course the new D4 may make all this moot eventually, or at least have an impact.
LikeLike
Oh, also note that yet again a midwestern team has to go to the south to play a southern team. I understand why, but Boise hosts a bowl. Detroit hosts one. Why can’t Minneapolis or St. Louis or Indy? If Boise can play outdoors, surely a crappy bowl can play outdoors in the midwest, too.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9582547/lawyer-says-25-31-expected-settle-penn-state-end-week
1 down, 24 more expected to settle this week. I think it’s great for PSU to get so many of these suits settled relatively quickly and quietly. PSU can collect insurance money and go after the Second Mile to get their own money back, but that won’t be such a major story.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1097657.html
The cumulative final AP poll rankings for all-time (1st = 25, 2nd = 24, etc so 1925 is the theoretical maximum):
RANK TEAM POINTS
1 Oklahoma 953
2 Michigan 943
3 Ohio State 927
4 Alabama 923
5 Notre Dame 918
6 Nebraska 783
7 USC 782
8 Texas 771
9 Tennessee 678
10 Penn State 646
11 LSU 590
12 Georgia 531
13 Auburn 526
14 Miami 511
T15 Florida 486
T15 Florida State 486
17 UCLA 477
18 Arkansas 439
19 Michigan State 380
20 Texas A&M 356
21 Washington 330
22 Georgia Tech 325
23 Ole Miss 322
24 Wisconsin 305
25 Iowa 302
Clearly 5 teams have separated themselves with 3 in the next tier. After UGA, schools are more closely spaced in general.
They also have decade rankings (links in the article).
LikeLike
If you want total AP poll points, look here. It also let’s you do it by decade.
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/total_points.cfm?decade=all&rows=25
1. Oklahoma 669,719 0
2. Ohio State 629,793 39,926
3. Michigan 595,925 33,868
4. Nebraska 582,780 13,145
5. Notre Dame 542,226 40,554
6. USC 500,289 41,937
7. Alabama 498,979 1,310
8. Texas 494,693 4,286
9. Florida State 480,633 14,060
10. Florida 465,142 15,491
11. Miami (FL) 424,742 40,401
12. Penn State 413,904 10,838
13. Tennessee 394,975 18,929
14. LSU 349,343 45,633
15. Georgia 346,023 3,320
16. Auburn 328,542 17,481
17. UCLA 263,080 65,462
18. Texas A&M 242,219 20,861
19. Washington 229,496 12,723
20. Virginia Tech 218,998 10,499
21. Arkansas 193,889 25,109
22. Colorado 192,421 1,468
23. Oregon 187,209 5,212
24. Michigan State 180,380 6,830
25. Wisconsin 177,617 2,762
LikeLike
Oops. That’s rank, school, total points and the amount behind the previous team.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1317349.html
Some interesting stats from 2005. Looking at only I-A vs I-A games (624 in total), the stats that best correlated to wins:
Teams with MORE rushing yards: 464-156-4.
MORE total yards went 461-162-1.
MORE time of possession: 404-220.
MORE passing yards: 336-287-1.
MORE penalties: 275-269-80.
MORE turnovers: 127-377-120.
Running the ball was very important back then and still is today, although not as much I’d guess. Of course, a big lead tends to cause a team to run more (more rushing yards, more TOP, fewer passing yards) to shorten the game so these stats are hardly independent.
2004 had very similar results, FYI.
LikeLike
And yet, you always hear people say that time of possession is a meaningless stat. I always thought (without doing the legwork) that surely it must have some positive value. Apparently it does, or at least did in 2005.
LikeLike
It is a meaningless star…for the exceptions. For Oregon under Kelly it was meaningless. For most it is indicative.
LikeLike
Time of possession and running yards do not cause wins, they are the product of having the lead. Winners use running and time of possession at the end of games to preserve their leads. Kelly is a different kind of coach.
LikeLike
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-apparent-talent-coaching-effects
A look at the impact of talent and coaching on team success. There are some good links in the comments, too.
LikeLike
One of the comments has this link. It’s a graph of a tweaked version of the data (the comment explains the tweaking) showing the best coaches. There’s also a worst coaches graph link in the comment.
Coaches who added the most:
1. Saban
2. Chip Kelly
3. Brian Kelly
4. Bielema
5. Beamer
6. Gundy
7. Bobby Petrino
8. Bob Stoops
9. Tressel
10. Meyer
Coaches who subtracted the most:
1. Wulff
2. Neuheisel
3. Weis
4. Phillips
5. Willingham
6. Robinson
7. Hakwins
8. Brewster
9. Kragthorpe
10. Dooley
LikeLike
interesting article and data. maybe more smoke and flash than actual substance, but still interesting.
(as an aside, thought it was nice of Matt Hinton to join in since, IMO, he was among the first to popularize the idea that star rankings actually DO have limited predictive power. Hinton links rankings with status as an All American choice and NFL drafts.)
Anyway, at its very basic level, if I understand it correctly, the linked article correlates apparent talent (average star class rankings over a 4 year running total) to expected W/L records (F/+) and then basically calls the difference the “coaching effect.”
And it certainly comports with our general thoughts and it’s nice to see some math to back up what must of us intuit. For example, Weis and RichRod failed spectacularly according to the data. I agree even without the math because no coach should ever lose 9 games at Michigan or ND.
A few others: Fickell under performed his one year at tOSU; Ferentz has both over and under-performed; Zook underperformed; in his one year, Beckman was a giant failure; Minny’s coaches have been underperforming for years now, etc.
A few things that jumped out at me: Bielema and Dantonio are both on the positive side for every year. I was surprised that all of Jerry Kill’s years are on the negative side. I have been thinking that Kill was doing well, but that’s just based on my sense that Minny is a dumpster fire. But, apparently, their recruiting is not that bad, so Minny has been under-performing. Pellini has been overperforming mostly.
On the other hand, as said, some of this is a bit odd and suggests a lot of flash. Let’s just take a quick look at So. Cal.
No one stocked talent (apparent or otherwise) better than Pete Carroll. The data starts with 2006. In my view, Carroll should have underperformed every year he didn’t win a NC. But this data says otherwise.
2006 average stars: 3.98 overperformed by 1% with a W/L of 11-2
2007 4.20 overperformed by 3% at 11-2
2008 average stars: 4.16 overperformed by 15% at 12-1
2009 average stars: 4.09 underperformed by 11% at 9-4
2010 4.08 underperformed by 15% at 8-5 (Kiffin’s first year)
2011 3.83 neither under- or overperformed at 10-2.
2012 3.82 underperformed by 7% at 7-6
The four year star average for Carroll’s 2007 team was 4.20. I did not see any average higher with a quick eye run down the table. In my view, shouldn’t that equate to winning a NC? Carroll’s team did not, but according to this data, Carroll overperformed by 3% with a W/L of 11-2. Seems to me he underperformed by a game or two.
Anyway, bottom line for this data seems to be 4-year average star ranking of 4.0+ means a team should win 11 games. (USC 2006-07)
3.8-4.0 = 10 win season (USC 2011)
Something in the range of 3.4-3.7 = 9 wins. (See Miami Florida’s 2009 running average equaling a 1% overperform for a 9-4 season).
Thus, Saban’s off-the-chart coaching effect is a function of ‘Bama’s average star ratings all being less than 3.7 and ‘Bama winning 11+ games every year.
The author of the linked article made a choice to use average star ratings (rather than class rankings) and I think that skewed the results (or at least magnified some of the effects). Size of class matters particularly when looking at an era of oversigning.
LikeLike
Way too much reliance on a star rating given to individuals in a group (graduating class) that range from mid adolescent to absolute man child. The star rating system sometimes apears to be a circular formula. If schools a, b, and c aren’t recruiting a kid he isn’t a 4*. But if they change their mind and start recruiting, suddenly he is?
LikeLike
yes agreed. add to it an overreliance on Football Outsiders’ stats as a the measure for a team’s expected wins/losses. See, e.g., http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus2011.
nice try and it looks fancy, but I don’t think it works.
too many feedback loops too. we all speak of coaches having many skill sets, the two biggest being “in-game” coaching and recruiting. so what is the “coaching effect” being teased out here?
plus, in conference, the win/losses are not zero-sum. Tressel’s success came at the expense of other B1G coaches. i don’t know; maybe that is expected when trying to define a “coaching effect”?
LikeLike
i am going to backtrack on some of my comments. the author is not trying to predict/explain/correlate wins/losses, but rather is trying to tease something out of the FO F/+ rankings. As the author says: F/+ rating = apparent talent [star rankings] + coaching effect + noise.
So, one cannot over-rely on something one is explicitly including in your formula. My bad on that point.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Not sure I’m following your point. Study after study has shown that the star rankings, taken in aggregate, are statistically valid. Obviously, at an individual level there can be mistakes. But when you look at them in broad strokes, all this study is showing is what they always do: star rankings are heavily correlated with results on the field (as well as NFL draft potential, post-season awards, etc.).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Way too much reliance on a star rating given to individuals in a group (graduating class) that range from mid adolescent to absolute man child.”
And yet those rankings have been shown to correlate to winning. I’m not denying that there are problems with them, but they do work to some degree.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“yes agreed. add to it an overreliance on Football Outsiders’ stats as a the measure for a team’s expected wins/losses.”
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary
F-Plus (F/+) Football Outsiders official college football ratings, combining play-by-play and drive-based efficiency systems developed independently by Bill Connelly and Brian Fremeau. F/+ ratings represent the best measure of overall college team performance we’ve measured in terms of predictive quality and retrodictive analysis.
Run the numbers and F/+ outperforms any other stat. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but what other measure should he have used?
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“interesting article and data. maybe more smoke and flash than actual substance, but still interesting.”
I thought so, too.
“Anyway, at its very basic level, if I understand it correctly, the linked article correlates apparent talent (average star class rankings over a 4 year running total) to expected W/L records (F/+) and then basically calls the difference the “coaching effect.””
He uses F/+, not W/L. F/+ is described here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus
It combines two different measures of a team:
1. FEI is a drive-based metric, and ignores garbage time and other oddities. It looks at how efficiently a team scores or prevents scoring.
2. S&P+ is derived from play-by-play data as well as possession-based info.
Basically, it looks at how efficient a team was and adjusts for things like SOS and game tempo. Thus, an 11-2 team can do really well if it happened to play a tough schedule.
“I was surprised that all of Jerry Kill’s years are on the negative side. I have been thinking that Kill was doing well, but that’s just based on my sense that Minny is a dumpster fire. But, apparently, their recruiting is not that bad, so Minny has been under-performing.”
Kill is only entering his 3rd season at MN I believe. That means he gets saddled with Brewster’s players even if they transferred or quit during the coaching change. His history shows him to be a good coach, so expect the numbers to change the longer he’s there.
“On the other hand, as said, some of this is a bit odd and suggests a lot of flash. Let’s just take a quick look at So. Cal.
No one stocked talent (apparent or otherwise) better than Pete Carroll. The data starts with 2006. In my view, Carroll should have underperformed every year he didn’t win a NC. But this data says otherwise.
2006 average stars: 3.98 overperformed by 1% with a W/L of 11-2
2007 4.20 overperformed by 3% at 11-2
2008 average stars: 4.16 overperformed by 15% at 12-1
2009 average stars: 4.09 underperformed by 11% at 9-4
2010 4.08 underperformed by 15% at 8-5 (Kiffin’s first year)
2011 3.83 neither under- or overperformed at 10-2.
2012 3.82 underperformed by 7% at 7-6
The four year star average for Carroll’s 2007 team was 4.20. I did not see any average higher with a quick eye run down the table. In my view, shouldn’t that equate to winning a NC? Carroll’s team did not, but according to this data, Carroll overperformed by 3% with a W/L of 11-2. Seems to me he underperformed by a game or two.
Anyway, bottom line for this data seems to be 4-year average star ranking of 4.0+ means a team should win 11 games. (USC 2006-07)”
The key is to remember that he used F/+, which is not the same as W/L.
“The author of the linked article made a choice to use average star ratings (rather than class rankings) and I think that skewed the results (or at least magnified some of the effects). Size of class matters particularly when looking at an era of oversigning.”
Well, to be more accurate he would need adjusted class rankings after kids enroll in the fall (I believe Scout does that each year). That would eliminate the oversigned recruits that couldn’t make the grades to get in, at least. I would say you are partially correct, though. Perhaps take average stars times the class size to get Total Stars (the recruiting sites don’t use linear scales quite like that, usually). Of course, it would be even better to track attrition and only give credit for the players actually on the roster.
LikeLike
@ Brian:
Yeah, it took me awhile, but I figured out that I had misunderstood when i first read through it. He is looking at the F/+.
Anyway, a few of your other thoughts: you say: “Well, to be more accurate he would need adjusted class rankings after kids enroll in the fall (I believe Scout does that each year).”
Aside from it being relevant to this, I would love to see a link. The “actual enrollees” is just as interesting as who signed the NLOI in my view.
I queried the author (RedmondLonghorn) on this point and he said he went with the rankings on NLOID because of time constraints/work load. Valid point. If it is not already done, it would be a monumental task to track down the roster of each school each year and then calculate the average star ranking in August.
My problem is with the Saban numbers and, on that point, it just wondered if Saban was off the charts because his star-rankings were/are rather pedestrian (at least on NLOID). He’s in the 3.5-3.8 range. Excellent, of course, but not Pete Carroll excellent. I wondered if Saban’s star rankings were higher in August or if, as you say, there was some way to adjust for class size.
I have a couple of other issues with the whole thing.
There were a few comments questioning the strength of RedmondLonghorn’s predictive correlation. Ed Feng (no slouch in this subject (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/)) wrote this: “I’m not blown away that a 4 year average of recruiting rankings explains 26% of the variance in F/+. That says recruiting rankings don’t matter.”
I note this because, taking Feng’s number as accurate, RedmondLonghorn is essentially assigning the remainder of the F/+ to “coaching effect” plus “noise.” That is problematic in my view, particularly since the “coaching effect” for each coach varies dramatically from year to year. (also, this just seems a bit … i don’t know …. something snarky. I have a 100 units of something, I am going to do some nifty calculations and assign 26 units to “talent” and now just call the remainder “coaching effect”.)
On the other hand, just looking at the list, from top (Saban) to bottom (Wulff), the list feels tremendously “right” intuitively speaking. So, clearly something is there.
The other problem (and maybe this is “noise”) is what to do with the Johnny Manziels? He’s a 3* via the rankings, but he’s clearly a 5* in impact. As done in this study, Sumlin gets the credit for Manziel being underranked; but, of course, maybe Sumlin’s coaching is what turned Manziel into a 5*, so that is part of Sumlin’s “coaching effect.” Who knows.
Then what about the fact that some players matter more than others. QBs, for example.
Then, apparently, there is a stronger correlation with the rankings for defensive players. What do we do with that?
Anyway, lots of interesting stuff here.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Anyway, a few of your other thoughts: you say: “Well, to be more accurate he would need adjusted class rankings after kids enroll in the fall (I believe Scout does that each year).”
Aside from it being relevant to this, I would love to see a link. The “actual enrollees” is just as interesting as who signed the NLOI in my view.”
After looking, it was Rivals that used to do this. The latest one I could find was from 2011. Maybe they stopped doing i.
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1259703
“My problem is with the Saban numbers and, on that point, it just wondered if Saban was off the charts because his star-rankings were/are rather pedestrian (at least on NLOID). He’s in the 3.5-3.8 range. Excellent, of course, but not Pete Carroll excellent. I wondered if Saban’s star rankings were higher in August or if, as you say, there was some way to adjust for class size.”
His early AL years had talent from the prior coach impacting the talent level. AL has had multiple top 5 classes in a row lately so his average should be as high as anyone’s now.
“I have a couple of other issues with the whole thing.”
It has plenty of issues. I just thought it was also interesting.
“On the other hand, just looking at the list, from top (Saban) to bottom (Wulff), the list feels tremendously “right” intuitively speaking. So, clearly something is there.”
Exactly. Sometimes other stats people get so hung up on the minutiae that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Most coaches at the extremes seemed to be in the right spots. Maybe that’s a coincidence, but I doubt it.
“The other problem (and maybe this is “noise”) is what to do with the Johnny Manziels? He’s a 3* via the rankings, but he’s clearly a 5* in impact. As done in this study, Sumlin gets the credit for Manziel being underranked; but, of course, maybe Sumlin’s coaching is what turned Manziel into a 5*, so that is part of Sumlin’s “coaching effect.” Who knows.”
There are plenty of 5* busts, too. It balances out overall.
“Then what about the fact that some players matter more than others. QBs, for example.”
College QBs are very dependent on the surrounding talent for success. Look at the game managers that have won NCs (Krenzel, for example).
“Then, apparently, there is a stronger correlation with the rankings for defensive players. What do we do with that?”
It makes sense since D is more about reacting to what the offense does. Pure athleticism is more important there, and the recruitniks can do a decent job of measuring that with all the camps nowadays.
LikeLike
Below are some interesting numbers of the top 25 institutions hosting international students in 2011/12.
(Source: Institute of International Education. (2012). “Top 25 Institutions Hosting International Students, 2011/12.” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors.)
1 University of Southern California Los Angeles CA => 9,269
2 University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign Champaign IL => 8,997
3 New York University New York NY => 8,660
4 Purdue University – Main Campus West Lafayette IN => 8,563
5 Columbia University New York NY => 8,024
6 University of California – Los Angeles Los Angeles CA => 6,703
7 Northeastern University Boston MA => 6,486
8 University of Michigan – Ann Arbor Ann Arbor MI => 6,382
9 Michigan State University East Lansing MI => 6,209
10 Ohio State University – Main Campus Columbus OH => 6,142
11 Indiana University – Bloomington Bloomington IN => 6,123
12 Penn State University – University Park University Park PA => 6,075
13 Boston University Boston MA => 6,041
14 University of Minnesota – Twin Cities Minneapolis MN => 5,661
15 Arizona State University Tempe AZ => 5,616
16 University of Florida Gainesville FL => 5,588
17 Harvard University Cambridge MA => 5,453
18 University of Washington Seattle WA => 5,372
19 SUNY University at Buffalo Buffalo NY => 5,357
20 University of Texas – Austin Austin TX => 5,324
21 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA => 5,296
22 Texas A&M University College Station TX => 5,013
23 University of California – Berkeley Berkeley CA => 5,004
24 Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta GA => 4,973
25 University of Houston Houston TX => 4,879
These top 25 universities include eight Big Ten universities which cumulatively have more than 1/3 of the total 157,210 internationsal students of these top 25 universities.
Most surprisingly is that only one ACC school is in the top 25 that being Georgia Tech with its world-class engineering program.
Put that in your “rust belt” pipe and smoke it!
LikeLike
My son’s in engineering at Purdue……….there are almost 4,000 Chinese at Purdue…..Purdue’s graduate schools are roughly 70% out-of-state and international students, while undergrads are roughly 70% in state.
Many of those large totals from the BIG schools are related to the engineering programs there……..Ill, Purdue, Michigan, NW, Minnesota are all top 15 or so nationally in engineering….
IU’s total is interesting because IU has no engineering program…………IU has always had a reputation of having a lot of international students…..when I went there it seemed like most were from the Miideast………now about 3000 are from China.
LikeLike
It was a similar story 25 years ago at UM except then it was mainly South Korean students.
Funny, several years ago I worked with an English (as in United Kingdom) chap who was just retiring. We connected because HIS FATHER had studied engineering at UM (with tales about some “big bowl” in Ann Arbor).
Here is further information from the referenced site:
International students contribute over $22.7 billion to the U.S. economy, through their expenditures on tuition and living expenses, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Higher education is among the United States’ top service sector exports, as international students provide revenue to the U.S. economy and individual host states for living expenses, including room and board, books and supplies, transportation, health insurance, support for accompanying family members, and other miscellaneous items.
More than 60% of all international students receive the majority of their funds from personal and family sources. When other sources of foreign funding are included, such as assistance from their home country governments or universities, over 70% of all international students’ primary funding comes from sources outside of the United States. And the percentage is even higher for undergraduate students – more than 80% of all undergraduate international students receive the majority of their funding from person and family sources.
LikeLike
When I dropped my son off at Purdue a few days ago I saw that 8500+ figure and have been reading up on it as well…..
As you say, these fureners are mostly self-funded or recive funding from their govts….Also, at PU, their tuition is roughly $50000 v. $40000 for out-of-staters. As a result they are more profitable for the U than even out-of -state students. The Us say they can afford give more sch. $ to domestic kids as a result………..
I do think they are risking a political backlash as the BIG schools are becoming more selective and turning down more in-state kids………..some of those slots may be going to foreign students….some may just increase the class size.
LikeLike
Well, if the Big Ten doesn’t want these international students, then other universities will probably take them … like The University of Texas.
(Hmm … US$ 50,000 x 8,500 = US$ 425 million => Purdue could buy-out the Longhorn Network with that kind of money!)
LikeLike
It’s even more dramatic than that. The majority of the top 14 (8) are B10 schools. The other 6 are all in the big cosmopolitan cities of NYC, LA, or Boston. I daresay that none of the students who went to UofI or PU decided to go there because of the vibrant cosmopolitan urban life of Chambana or West Lafayette.
LikeLike
I daresay that you are far more likely to find these international students in a library on football Saturday than at the stadium.
LikeLike
By the way: If you’re planning a roadtrip to watch Oklahoma State play Texas this November in Austin, bring along a tent and sleeping bag. There are no hotel rooms available within a 55-mile radius. See the following (January 10, 2013):
“As Oklahoma State’s director of football operations, Mack Butler is used to being treated like a preferred customer by hotels. Butler, however, is finding there’s no room at the inns when Oklahoma State will visit Austin for a Nov. 16 game against Texas. He’s looking at trying to get a block of 100-plus rooms in Temple or Horseshoe Bay. That’s as close as the Cowboys currently can get with Formula One also scheduled to be in town at the same time.
The two mega events are set to collide on the weekend of Nov. 16-17. A typical home football game for Texas can draw around 100,000 fans. Last year, Austin’s inaugural U.S. Grand Prix had more than 117,000 in attendance and was the largest sporting event in the city’s history.”
And they’re building a new F1 circuit in New Jersey as we speak.
Hook’em BMW!
LikeLike
I’m surprised the B12 doesn’t make schools assure road teams of having hotel space. I’m even more surprised they gave UT a home game that weekend. That’s just dumb.
LikeLike
I am guessing that the COTA (Circuit of the Americas) thought they could swap the race with Brazil, which is next on the calendar and also the last race of the year. The November 17, 2013 date also coincides with NASCAR’s final race. Although that may not affect attendance for the race itself, it could affect TV ratings, since NBC paid a bundle for the rights to broadcast Formula One, and they would want to move the race as well.
In any case, Formula One babes are hot!
LikeLike
Big Ten Fan,
“I am guessing that the COTA (Circuit of the Americas) thought they could swap the race with Brazil, which is next on the calendar and also the last race of the year.”
They might think that, but there’s no way F1 is going to do that. A simple call to Bernie Ecclestone would have cleared that up really quickly.
“The November 17, 2013 date also coincides with NASCAR’s final race. Although that may not affect attendance for the race itself, it could affect TV ratings, since NBC paid a bundle for the rights to broadcast Formula One, and they would want to move the race as well.”
Bernie doesn’t care. He got paid and isn’t moving anything. F1 doesn’t consider the US all that important, so NBC can sit and spin as far as he is concerned.
“In any case, Formula One babes are hot!”
Yes they are. And many of them are rich, too.
LikeLike
Formula One ain’t cheap, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
I checked: There is an open date for Texas on the following weekend of November 24, 2013. If Texas getting international exposure around the globe has greater purpose than Formula One getting national exposure in the United States, then yeah, it is dumb to have that UT home game on the same weekend.
It also seems that the Maryland Terrapins and the Texas Longhorns have a home-and-home football series in 2017 and 2018. The Longhorns will host the Terrapins at Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium in Austin on September 2, 2017. On September 1, 2018, Texas will travel to Maryland, likely at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland.
This is probably also old news, but it seems that Oklahoma and Ohio State have a home-and-home series scheduled for 2016 and 2017. I wonder if Oklahoma would bring the Sooner Schooner to Ohio Stadium (probably not).
LikeLike
Texas plays at home on Thursday, Nov. 28th (Thanksgiving), so Nov. 24 is not an acceptable date being just 4 days from another game. Scheduling issue is putting a Texas home game on that weekend.
LikeLike
The 2018 game is indeed at FedEx.
LikeLike
Schools don’t control hotel rooms, I don’t see how they could insure opponents of space.
LikeLike
The B12 could reserve a block of rooms way in advance, or make the school do it, if they know a major event coincides with a game.
LikeLike
The OkSU director of football operations waits until 3 months before a game to book hotel rooms? Even fans aren’t that dumb.
LikeLike
“The Longhorns draw a lot of water in this town, Bernie. You don’t draw s***. We got a nice quiet beach community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet.”
LikeLike
“You see what happens, Sooners! You see what happens?! This is what happens when you stick the Cornhuskers into the North Division!”
LikeLike
Here is some humor from last year’s US Grand Prix (from Motorsport News, November 19, 2012):
After successfully making the top three drivers wear sponsored Stetsons at last weekend’s US Grand Prix, sources close to Formula 1 claim that patronisingly localised podium hats will become a fixture at all future races.
‘The cowboy hats were an inspired move in Texas,’ said one senior F1 insider. ‘They looked jaunty, they reminded casual TV viewers that the race was in America and they robbed the drivers of only a medium-sized amount of dignity.’
According to our mole, the clunkingly obvious hat policy will roll over to the last race of the season in Brazil where a range of crudely branded carnival-style headgear is already being prepared for the post-race celebrations. ‘After the on-stage interviews conducted by former drivers, we didn’t think we could make the podium any more awkward or embarrassing,’ our source crowed. ‘But I’m delighted to say we were wrong. ’
With the hat-orientated podium policy seemingly assured for the entire 2013 season, our source claims F1 bosses are already hard at work on the specific millinery idiocy for each race. ‘The strategy is coming together nicely,’ our mole insisted. ‘Bowler hats at Silverstone, keffiyehs in Abu Dhabi, turbans in India, those funny little Alpine hats with feathers in them for Germany and of course for Bahrain, the traditional blindfold and then a bag over the head whilst you are mercilessly beaten by the authorities.’
LikeLike
There are some poor delusional souls is going to get a Big Ten invite.
(Interestingly, they’ve altered their uniform logo recently, to play up “New York” and downplay “Buffalo”, probably a good long-term move. But nothing can hide the fact that they’re a MAC team, and only joined FBS in 1999. In basketball, they have zero tournament appearances.)
LikeLike
That was supposed to be, “poor delusional souls who think SUNY Buffalo is going to get a Big Ten invite.”
LikeLike
SUNY-Buffalo in the Big Ten? LOL.
While it does have sufficient academic credentials (on the research side, respected AAU member), and is a geographic fit, the school has absolutely no athletic history of note, is located in a city and region declining at a faster rate than Detroit, and is rather irrelevant in its own town and area, let alone nationally.
Maybe they’d get an invite if the Bulls have a run like Miami(FL) in the 1980s. Though, I wouldn’t bet my neighbor’s farm, let alone mine, on that ever happening.
LikeLike
“The emphasis on strengthening the football program means the status quo will prevail throughout the rest of the department. There are no plans to add any new sports although White is well aware of the community call for hockey in particular.
“I’ve learned very quickly how big hockey is here,” he said. “If we didn’t have the potential we have as an athletic department, I would be thinking about how quickly could we add hockey to make ourselves more relevant in the local community. I think at some point it makes a lot of sense for us.”
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20121209/sports/121209178/1092
Seems to me the school should try to build what would seem to be a popular hockey program while embarking on a multi-decade plan for mild relevance in football. If there is in fact community demand for hockey, its seems smart to do it now, as the sport is increasing in popularity.
LikeLike
Buffalo is Connecticut in reverse, though neither has enough of a pedigree in football to be considered Big Ten caliber even if you successfully blended UB’s academics with UConn’s non-football athletics.
LikeLike
SUNY-Buffalo to the B1G is a lot like Rice to the SEC: it makes a lot of sense in everything except for the athletics side of it.
LikeLike
I wanted to continue the conversation above about ESPN/Fox being against consolidation.
I agree that they are against consolidation. But the conversation so far has failed to address the larger issue, a larger priority for ESPN/Fox to is to work towards preventing Comcast from getting access to more Tier 1 sports content. At present, the only way to do that is to outbid NBC like they did for the Pac12 content. Simple enough, right?
Not really. The higher the B1G rights number gets the bigger the incentive for schools in other conferences to move.
As you see, ESPN/Fox are in something of a Catch-22. Either let NBC get access to B1G content OR virtually guarantee future instability with the potential for consolidation.
Now, let’s just throw out a hypothetical, say Texas and the B1G decide to become affianced and let’s just say they sign some kind of LOI to that end towards the end of 2014 with a full press conference and a whole lot of hoopla. No timeline is set, it could be 2016 or it could be 202n when the Big12 GOR agreement terminates. If you are ESPN/Fox what are your priorities:
1. Block NBC from getting that B1G contract
2. Stability
One big constraint: A Minimum of 8 Big12 schools have to find good homes so they will vote to disband the conference which would of course allow ESPN to get out of their Sugar Bowl deal and avoid a host of other issues.
LikeLike
Question for the BIG 10 fans on here…………..if you had the pick of any 14 schools(only that # please) in the country, what 14 would you prefer to be in the Big 10? Note……I’m not asking what 14 would be most profitable, neccessarily…..just what 14, as fans and alums, would you most like to see…….My 14 would be:
PSU; OSU; IU, PUR, ND, NW, ILL; MICH; MSU; WIS; MINN; IOWA; NEB; MO
LikeLike
I essentially would like the 14 going in for fall of ’14, with these two changes:
Iowa State for Iowa (because I went to grad school in Ames)
Virginia for Rutgers (because I currently live in Charlottesville)
Nothing against the good folks in Iowa City or New Brunswick, merely some personal choices.
LikeLike
I certainly have nothing against Maryland. I think it’s a great school and a great catch for the BIG…..yet, it sure does look like more of an ACC school to me…historically, culturally, and in the sports in which it has the most success—esp women’s bball, lacrosee, soccer..It seems to me to be a big ? whether MD will be a good long-term fit………hope it works out..
I am also a fan of Rutgers…but more because of demographics and the fact they’ve been the underdog over the years……….in football alone, I think its possible they can become very competitive in the Big 10—similiar to Wisky and Iowa the last 10 years……the rest of their athletic dept will take 10 years to become competitive, however
As for Iowa Stae and VA—–I don’t know if you remember, but Bobby Knight really liked ISU and wanted it in the BIG instead of PSU……..ISU has always had the academic chops and fan base…..again ,it’s all demographics with them. VA? Great school, but really “belongs” in the ACC and the South………..
LikeLike
“ISU has always had the academic chops and fan base”
ISU has a small yet dedicated fanbase, but they’d be last in the Big Ten. Their academics would be last, too.
LikeLike
I don’t think ISU’s fan base wopuld be last in the BT. Over the years, I’ve noticed that they travel very well……..definately travel better than IU, Purdue, Minny, and NW.
As far as academics go, ISU is 101 in us news. Neb is 103, KU 106, MO 97
Enrollment wise, ISU is at 31000, 2000 more than KU, 6000 more than NEB, 40000-5000 less than MO.
LikeLike
I’ve always wondered why ISU wasn’t in the Big Ten from way back when. Obviously, because of the prominence of television viewership and market exposure, ISU isn’t a realistic candidate today. But I am surprised ISU wasn’t a more serious candidate, say, back in the 40’s after Chicago left (or even earlier).
Geographically and culturally, its a great fit. Academically, its a decent fit, but ISU (from what I understand) is a research powerhouse. Athletically, the school has had some success but does seem to have a rabid fan base that travels well.
The main strike against ISU is the biggest one–Ames is a useless market, one already covered by Iowa, and would result in a net decrease in tv monies for all other conference schools. Moreover, scattered athletic success does not build a national following ala Nebraska or Oklahoma that can compensate for the lack of larger local markets.
LikeLike
“ISU (from what I understand) is a research powerhouse.”
The rank in CMUP’s group 4, the only other B1G schools in that group are Indiana and Nebraska. Everyone else (inluding Rutgers and Maryland) in group 3 or above.
Click to access research2011.pdf
LikeLike
@mushroom: its debateable if ISU travels better than those schools. Nate Silver’s geography of cfb fans (which is imperfect) has ISU 52nd in the country, only edging out tiny NW (54th). PU, IU and Minnesota definitely have more casual fans. Missouri and Kansas aren’t in the B1G, so I don’t see the point of comparing their academics.
LikeLike
Regarding Iowa State’s travelling reputation, the folks in Shreveport speak very highly of the Cyclones. They’ve played in two I-Bowls. The 2001 game against a Dennis Franchione-led 6-5 Alabama team with an unmotivated fanbase still drew 45,627. The 2004 game against Miami (OH) drew 43,076. Iowa State carried the attendance for both of those games.
B1G teams have played in 4 I-Bowls. In 1982, Wisconsin played K-State in the Wildcats first ever bowl game. 49,523 tickets were sold. I was at that game and seem to remember a sea of purple. In 1985, Minnesota (without Lou Holtz who just quit on the Gophers to take the Irish job) played Clemson in front of 42,845 fans. I was also at that game and the Gophers were well represented, but it was a Clemson crowd. In 1993, Indiana played VA Tech in one of the worst attended games in I-Bowl history with only 33,819 tickets sold made up of mostly locals. In 1995, a Nick Saban-led Spartan team got steam-rolled by Gerry DiNardo’s LSU Tigers 45-26, in front of 48,835 fans. Due to stadium construction, the capacity was reduced, but this was the first hard sellout in I-Bowl history and a highly partisan Tiger crowd in their first bowl game in six years.
I bring the I-Bowl up not only because I have personal knowledge of the games, but also that only a good-travelling fanbase will fly to Shreveport. The folks in Shreveport would gladly invite Iowa State back.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I’ve always wondered why ISU wasn’t in the Big Ten from way back when. Obviously, because of the prominence of television viewership and market exposure, ISU isn’t a realistic candidate today. But I am surprised ISU wasn’t a more serious candidate, say, back in the 40′s after Chicago left (or even earlier).”
I believe ISU was on the short list for #10 but MSU won out. I don’t know why.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PwMNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2580,3858021&dq=chicago+big+ten+conference&hl=en
According to the Pittsburgh Post gazette, 3/9/1946, the top choices were Pitt, NE, Marquette, MSU, ND and ISU.
LikeLike
West:
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
East:
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
LikeLike
@Andy: Are you sure you’re feeling OK? Do you realize you just proposed Kansas for the Big Ten? There must be some mistake.
LikeLike
I would have preferred if Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska were all in the same conference again, but replace KSU, ISU OU and OSU with Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. That would have been nice.
LikeLike
I’d replace Maryland and Rutgers with Pitt and Missouri.
LikeLike
WEST
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
EAST
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Ohio State
Maryland
Rutgers
Purdue gets the boot in favor of Missouri, which honestly should be in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Come on man, you can’t leave PU out… You do realize that Purdue is a founding member of the BIG, right? It was the Purdue president that got the other presidents together to form the BIG. There is no BIG without PU…
LikeLike
Agreed.
“…..if you had the pick of any 14 schools(only that # please) in the country, what 14 would you prefer to be in the Big 10?”
To leave out any of the original ten, or PSU and UNL, is NOT an exercise about the Big 10 membership. It would be merely choosing who you’d like if the B1G didn’t exist.
LikeLike
As a Michigan fan, I care about the following Big Ten teams: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska. Games against Wisconsin and Iowa have become more interesting recently, but If Michigan never played them or the rest of the Big Ten again, I would be fine with it.
However, assuming Michigan will always be in the Big Ten, which will exist largely as it does today, that is the lineup I’d like to see, as it is still a primarily Midwestern conference that has expanded into the northeast with PSU, RU, and UMD. I’ve also long advocated for Missouri to the Big Ten, so someone had to get the boot. It basically came down to Indiana or Purdue. Although Purdue has more of a football tradition, neither is a football power, and Indiana’s basketball brand puts it over the top.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“To leave out any of the original ten, or PSU and UNL, is NOT an exercise about the Big 10 membership. It would be merely choosing who you’d like if the B1G didn’t exist.”
That’s a pretty strict line to draw based on his wording. It’s a different hypothetical to ask which 2 teams would you add to get to 14. He asked which 14 teams you’d take. To me, that indicates more freedom of choice.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“if you had the pick of any 14 schools(only that # please) in the country, what 14 would you prefer to be in the Big 10?”
I have to have 14? Damn.
Am I at least allowed to ignore reality (demographics, TV money, etc)?
The first 10 are a given to me – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, NW, IL, WI, MN, IA
Top options:
ND, NE, ISU, Pitt, PSU, MO
I’ll take ND, NE, ISU and MO. That gives me a solid midwestern block and no missing AQs from the footprint. I’d also rearrange the other AQ leagues, of course. This is all predicated on me having to take 14 and being allowed to ignore reality.
LikeLike
Or go pure fantasy and make the Pay Me league:
E – OSU, MI, ND, PSU, UF, FSU, UGA
W – USC, UCLA, NE, OU, UT, TAMU, AL
Biggest states:
1. CA – 2
2. TX – 2
3. NY (ND, PSU, MI)
4. FL – 2
5. IL (ND)
6. PA
7. OH
8. GA
9. MI
16. IN
23. AL
28. OK
37. NE
Top CFB markets (according to Nate Silver):
#1-10
Teams with the most fans (according to Nate Silver):
#1-6, 8-9
I skipped #7 AU, but I don’t believe AU has more fans than AL anyway. I also skipped #10 Clemson due to no major market.
LikeLike
For me Big Ten athletics mean tradition: Legacies, rivalries, stadiums, marching bands, fight songs, etc. Those would be among my selection criteria, along with respectable academic credentials. And I would not object to Missouri and Kansas in any combination.
LikeLike
That said: I wouldn’t be surprised if one day Kansas would reunite with Missouri in the East Division of the SEC. Kansas would also add basketball inventory to the SEC Network. Texas A&M is tops in petroleum engineering and also nuclear engineering, so I could also easily imagine T. Boone Pickens supporting a move by the Cowboys to the West Division of the SEC. Note that Pickens first attended Texas A&M on a basketball scholarship, although he later lost the scholarship, and thereafter transferred to Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State).
LikeLike
“If you had the pick of any 14 schools(only that # please) … as fans and alums, would you most like to see”
I love the 12 teams in the Big Ten today. As a scholar as well as an athlete, I love the fact that Maryland was picked up, as their academics and basketball team will cover up what I hope will be a mediocre football program at worst. As a PSU alum, I believe that Maryland is more culturally like the original Big East than they’d care to admit, as they have more in common with the post-2003 adds than their other original ACC brethren.
14? Virginia Tech over Virginia. Football, sure, but also culturally Appalachian. If you can accept PSU into the Big Ten culture, VA Poly is not as tough a squeeze as Virginia is. (I’d like to see the CIC do a study on helping them and Nebraska focus on areas that would make them more likely to gain admittance to the AAU; as an alum, I think it would make the Big Ten look even better.)
LikeLike
I like to imagine a Rip Van Winkle who awakes after 25 years of sleep to discover that his beloved Big Ten has: expanded East by adding Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers; and expanded South by adding Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. (His reaction: “Who was the genius behind that plan?”.)
LikeLike
Ohio State
TSUN
Sparty
Indiana
Purdue
+
Pitt
Notre Dame
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
+
Chicago
Nebraska
LikeLike
MI; OSU; ND; PSU; MD; IU; NW; ILL; MSU; WIS; IOWA; NEB; OK; TX
It was tough between MD and MO, but I think PSU and ND need an Eastern partner to be happy and the B1G needs the DC market. My other choices are fan or tradition based.
LikeLike
Oh double goody! Now there is another-nuther bowl, with access to offshore accounts…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9585922/conference-usa-participate-new-bowls-bahamas-boca-raton-sources-say
LikeLike
Postseason football…”It’s better in the Bahamas.”..
LikeLike
The Michigan Rivals site interviewed Dave Brandon, the Michigan AD. Regarding expansion, he said:
Nothing shocking there, but I thought I would pass it along. Of course, saying he doesn’t know of any discussions doesn’t mean there are none. Saying they’re “pretty comfortable where we are” is always the party line, up to the day that news of an impending expansion is leaked.
LikeLike
I have mentioned before a passing thought. Now I’m not having that thought pass as quickly. With GOR’s in place and ESPN making noises like the LHN could be on shaky ground if things don’t improve, could the rumors of longhorns exploring other residences be a method of aquireing additional games for the LHN (beyond what the licensing agreement requires, but what that agreement also requires UT to work to obtain)? An “if we don’t get concessions we might be gone” sort of incentive? It would explain who the rumors involve, and why they might pop up just when everyone felt the GOR’s had created a temporary stability.
LikeLike
Those ESPN noises are figments of the Dude’s and others’ imaginations. There’s no out in the published contract. Whenever the DISH, DirecTV, Comcast and Time Warner contracts with ESPN come up for renewal will tell how successful it will be. And none of these rumors are coming out of the Big 12 or Texas. All Chip said was that IF something happened changing the Big 12, Texas was doing contingency planning. i.e., doing what every school always does.
LikeLike
Well, there are outs in the agreement but I don’t see them having any current bearing. There is one redacted part in that section, though who knows if it contains any other outs.
LikeLike
There’s no out in the published contract.
There are always outs if both parties agree the status quo isn’t working.
LikeLike
UT would like better exposure, but ESPN still has to play $15 million a year.
LikeLike
Without knowing the specifics of the agreement, I imagine the LHN is ESPN’s liability, not Texas’.
LikeLike
Besides the worst game (New Mexico St) ESPN has scheduled Ole Miss and Kansas on the LHN, so half of Texas’ 6 home games (OK is neutral site) are on LHN. So the problem is carriage, not getting games. Fox Sports 1 has TT. KS St and OK St are TBD, but will not be LHN.
LikeLike
There’s no out in the published contract.
How many people are going to want LHN for three games?
LikeLike
Of all the “facts, speculation, rumours and clues” the one that puzzles me the most is the following (paraphrased from a Diamondback posting):
“When the news first came out, Loh said the university and the conference had been in talks for about a week. But it all started with a phone call from a Big Ten representative in early October … They signed confidentiality agreements before Big Ten representatives divulged the conference’s “stunning” finances … Although the Big Ten’s members are primarily from the Midwest — such as universities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Nebraska — officials told Loh and Anderson geographical boundaries no longer mattered. It was time to begin moving farther into the East Coast and the mid-South … Because the money, officials said, is now mostly made from televising games.”
What the hell does “mid-South” mean?!
LikeLike
I’m guessing Virginia and North Carolina, possibly Vanderbilt as well.
LikeLike
mid-south = MD, VA and NC
deep south = SC and beyond
LikeLike
Typically Tennessee is “mid-South.”
LikeLike
Memphis once had an arena called the “Mid-South Coliseum.”
LikeLike
Exactly, take “mid-South” NC on the Atlantic Coast directly west and what do you have? Equally mid-south Tennessee. AFAIR, but from living in a part of Tennessee surrounded by Appalachia (if that makes any difference), Deep South is SC, GA, AL, MS and sometimes northern (but NOT central OR southern) FL. And Louisiana is its own particular brand of southern.
LikeLike
I’d basically agree with that definition although many will lump in LA and FL for convenience. Certainly the FL panhandle fits it.
LikeLike
@Big Ten Fan: Interesting post. Can you link to the Diamondback posting or copy-paste it?
LikeLike
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_0ab4340e-37ed-11e2-ad88-0019bb30f31a.html
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
This sentence from that story knocked me for a loop:
The idea was first proposed in the fall of 2010 under then-President Dan Mote’s administration, according to Loh. At the time, university officials dismissed the idea and said they weren’t interested.
Nebraska had already been admitted into the conference. Could Maryland’s addition have been done before College Park cut a number of sports or while Friedgen was still football coach? And would Rutgers have joined them in the Big Ten as soon as fall 2012? Interesting to ponder.
LikeLike
Like every BE football school, Rutgers was looking for an invite from any B5 conference. However, if MD had accepted a B1G invite in 2010, the B1G might have taken VA, MO, et. al. rather than Rutgers….and if it was MO, it is likely that either FSU or OK would now be in the SEC.
LikeLike
Time will tell, and I’ll give the B10 some benefit of the doubt, but I’m still not sold on the Rutgers/MD admission. I understand their reasoning for doing it, but seems to me the B10 should have waited until some better schools opened up. Obviously, they know more than me. But this strikes me as something that a committee approves after looking at it for a long time. Soon enough a consensus forms that says we have to do this. But someone needed to come along and say, wait a minute, we’re adding Rutgers to the B10? With MD? I understand the positives each brings – or allegedly brings. I’m just not sold on it. Obviously, I could be very wrong – and likley am. Just making an observation (or repeating the obvious one that was made when this occurred).
LikeLike
In the fall of 2010, Missouri might still have been a candidate. With Maryland officials declining to move at the time, perhaps Delany simply pushed back the next wave of expansion…or simply felt Maryland was a more important “get” than Mizzou.
LikeLike
vp19, I reckon so ~ Maryland was a 13, Mizzou a 14, but IMO a stronger 14 than Rutgers.
LikeLike
MO a better athletic choice, but Rutgers an eastern partner, NJ/NY markets, and a bridge to the already identified interest in the central Atlantic region. MO, a bridge to corn and dust? Or are we thinking UT still?
LikeLike
U of Nike football Deathstar doubles in price.
http://www.csnnw.com/blog/dwight/true-cost-new-nike-u-football-building-estimated-138-million
LikeLike
Sub-licensing agreement between CBS and ESPN to air games from the American Athletic Conference, through the 2019-20 season.
http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports-network/releases/view?id=36355
LikeLike
Along a similar vein, here’s Rutgers’ basketball schedule for their one and only season in the AAC:
http://www.scarletknights.com/basketball-men/news/release.asp?prID=13444#.UhVX2RAVEyZ
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/08/20/ed-obannon-ncaa-ea-lawsuit-trial-delay/2675469/
The NCAA wants a 15 month delay in the O’Bannon case. As is, it isn’t supposed to start until June 2014. Remember, this case officially started in 2009.
LikeLike
It’s coming soon.
LikeLike
Nice.
I’ve suggested that on June 30, 2014, Maryland should have a Big Ten welcoming party on campus, with fireworks set off near Byrd Stadium at midnight, right after Mark Turgeon and Brenda Frese unveil the B1G logo at opposite ends of the court at Comcast Center.
LikeLike
Nice, here is PSU’s new ice
LikeLike
As a hypothetical for commentary purpose: What is the possibility that a Division 4 discussion would include a 13-game regular season (for football) as an item on the agenda? Thanks.
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t think the odds are good.
1. Presidents still make the decisions, and they don’t want another game. They won’t let the season run later due to finals, and they don’t want it starting well into August.
2. The fear of injury makes going to 13 tough, especially with lawsuits over concussions ongoing.
3. They just got a big influx of cash from the CFP. This is a terrible time for ADs to try to press the presidents to approve more games.
4. Fans need to choose – a 13th game undermines the chances of an 8-team playoff in the near future. I think enough will lean each way that there’s no groundswell for the 13th game anyway.
LikeLike
“4. Fans need to choose – a 13th game undermines the chances of an 8-team playoff in the near future. I think enough will lean each way that there’s no groundswell for the 13th game anyway.”
Actually this is the point that had me speculating. If presidents don’t want another game, then they maybe wouldn’t support an 8-team playoff either. If asked to choose between these two options, then presidents could possibly lean towards a 13-game regular season, since the extra game provides additional revenue (either TV and/or ticket revenue).
LikeLike
I think the next step is not a 13th game, but rather an exhibition game. Likely in late August against an FCS school. I could also see it happen as a replacement to the Spring Game (scrimmage), and the precedent is already set with “Fall Ball” in Lacrosse for an off-season exhibition/tournament . But I like August better.
The Pac-12, and Big XII play 9 conference games, and The Big Ten will in a couple of years. Plus, schools are now creating tougher schedules, which is likely to yield more home-and-home non-conference games in place of the cupcakes. The net effect is that instead of 7 or 8 home games annually, it will probably be “usually 7, sometimes 6”, or roughly one home game every two years.
An exhibition game would allow schools to add some revenue to replace that lost home game. Even with lower ticket prices and lower attendance, it’s not unreasonable to expect many schools to see the game day revenue of an exhibition well above 50% of a regular season game. And that suddenly refills the coffers of the “lost” home game every two years.
Plus, the FCS schools would likely be in favor of it, as they are the ones about to get shut out from their one chance at a big payday.
Yes, many students won’t be on campus, and many season ticket holders may gripe about paying, but again, the bar is set lower by making it an exhibition game, so fans won’t be too upset if they miss the game, and the market will likely dictate lower ticket prices.
Other benefits:
Coaches and players get to use the exhibition as a true walk-through prior to the season. No pressures of polls, or actually trying to win the game, assuming that most starters would only play a half or so.
Tier 2 and Tier 3 TV gets some inventory. NBCSN or maybe even NBC would show Notre Dame-Holy Cross, and BTN if not ESPN 2 would certainly show Penn State-Penn or Michigan-Yale.
The NCAA gets some cover from Academics and Student-Rights activists, as it’s “only an exhibition” and not a “real game”
A potentially good recruiting weekend, where coaches can spend more time with recruits.
Some regional rivalries can be maintained to a degree. If The Big Ten does follow through with the “no FCS games” rule, then Northern Iowa vs Iowa can be protected by an exhibition, and Ohio State can still play Youngstown State.
LikeLike
Big Ten Fan,
“Actually this is the point that had me speculating. If presidents don’t want another game, then they maybe wouldn’t support an 8-team playoff either. If asked to choose between these two options, then presidents could possibly lean towards a 13-game regular season, since the extra game provides additional revenue (either TV and/or ticket revenue).”
The 8 team playoff would mean only 8 teams playing that extra game, so a lot fewer players exposed to the extra risk. I don’t think the financial argument would win the day right now since the CFP money is so fresh.
LikeLike
Actually, not all 8 would play the extra game, right?
Right now, mostly, the two teams in the 4-team CFP will be playing their 15th game. Add another layer and now 4 teams are likely playing 15 games with two teams then playing the 16th game.
(This assumes that CCGs continue.)
Picking teams randomly for an eight-team CFP (what a Freudian exercise):
USC = 13 games
tOSU = 13
‘Bama = 13
OKLA = 12
FSU = 13
SCar (lost to ‘Bama) = 13
Michigan (gr8 season, but lost The Game) = 12
Boise = 12 or 13 (I don’t know/care if MWC has a Champ Game)
and … um, Oregon (lost to USC) = 13
For ease and for no reason other than ease, the list is the seeding; that is 1 through 8.
So, USC vs. OR (yeah, okay, never would happen, ….)
tOSU vs. Boise
‘Bama vs. SCar (wow, bad luck on my choices)
OKLA vs. FSU
For ease, the first listed wins: So, USC, tOSU and ‘Bama have 14 games; OKLA at 13
Again, seed based on the list. So, USC v. OKLA and then tOSU vs. ‘Bama. First listed wins giving both USC and tOSU now 15 games.
They play 16 games in the NCG with an eight-game CFP.
Possible for a 17-game season if you throw in the Hawaii exception (and I think there may be another exception allowing an extra game). How did tOSU accomplish being the first team to go 14-0? I am pretty sure we didn’t play Hawaii.
Anyway, as for the Presidents/Chancellors choosing a 13th reg. season game vs. an extra playoff game: doubt there is an “either/or” choice there. The extra playoff game is only going to affect zero, one or two teams (most likely 2) per season. An extra reg. season game impacts everyone. The two decisions will be made on their own merits without being seen as a tradeoff to the other decision.
LikeLike
wait, TSUN is only 11-1 in my scenario. Damn, gave them more credit than deserved! 🙂
LikeLike
Gawd, I sometimes really hate the “no-edit” function. Sigh, I was counting games played, not games won. So TSUN still played 12 games; so 12 is correct next to their name.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
OSU played 14 because they played the Kickoff Classic which didn’t count against the total. That exception is gone now.
And yes, it wouldn’t impact all 8 teams. The 4 losers would be playing the same number of games as if they played in a bowl.
Postseason week 1: 72 in bowls/BCS, 4 in CFP (others in bowls), 8 in CFP 2.0 (others in bowls)
Postseason week 2: 0 in BCS, 2 in CFP, 4 in CFP 2.0
Postseason week 3: 0 in BCS, 0 in CFP, 2 in CFP 2.0
My point wasn’t about the number of teams as much as about extending the season. Both expanding to 8 teams and going to 13 games would add a week to the total season. I really don’t see the presidents approving both any time soon. I think the presidents would prefer to expose fewer players to a longer season rather than everyone, so I think they’d lean towards the playoff expansion. ADs would rather add the 13th game since everyone gets that, but they don’t make the final decision.
Anyway, this is all just my opinion.
LikeLike
I think you’ll see a 13th game within ten years. As conferences expand, having another conference game to sell to TV will be the driving force. If it prevents a 8-game playoff, from the presidents’ perspective, its an added bonus.
LikeLike
I really disagree with this. The idea of a 13th Game is one way to help pay for an adverse O’Bannon Decision. Lets take Penn State: At present, they fund over 30 Sports (with Ice Hockey coming). It is entirely possible that they may not only have to pay for their former football and basketball players, but Men’s Swimming, Tennis and other Sports few people really care about. There is also the Title IX Compliance issue, which would make NOT funding Women’s Sports difficult. Maybe because of O’Bannon, they decide its easier to end the Men’s version of those Programs (including of course, NOT building new courts and replacing the McCoy Natatorium (pool). Note: They were going to build those prior to Sandusky and the necessary payouts to victims). If however, they can get an extra Home Game at Beaver Stadium (coupled with a higher payout from the TV Contract, the end to paying out $$$$ from Lawsuits and probation (which affects merchandising and of course, Bowl Game revenue), they might be able to keep all sports (including the not so popular sports like swimming and tennis). That alone makes the idea of a Game 13 make sense.
LikeLike
If payment to former players happens, I can’t see it being anything except where images were sold out such as in the video games. I’ll be surprised if you’d see anything beyond football and a little for basketball. Most of it would probably be recent too and I’m not sure it would add up to a lot in the grand scheme of things.
A 13th game biggest obstacle right now is the perception. The colleges have made a lot of changes for the sake of greater revenue. The players are treated as amateurs in every sense though. It’s going to be really hard to argue against players being allowed to make money from their own autographs and images in video games while at the same time demanding another game for the purpose of more additional revenue for the athletic department. Granted, they’ve done that a lot before (12th game, conference realignment, playoff, rule changes, etc), but the scrutiny is building.
LikeLike
Money for the athletic department IS money being returned to the student athlete in the form of improved facilities, opportunities, offerings, etc. an athletic dept is not an independent entity siphoning off profit for any purpose. It is part of the school. We aren’t suggesting students living in 200+M dorms and studying in cathedral like libraries should get paid.
LikeLike
Perception is very true, but you put it in the wrong context. First off, no one expects that every College Athlete who has had their image used, will be paid residual income. How this was addressed with TV, may provide a guideline to the future. Here it is: If a TV show came on the Air prior to 1966 (such as “I Love Lucy”) there would be no residuals for the Actors. But anything post 1966, the Actors get paid every time the show appears on TV anywhere in the World (think about how much money has been made by Sam Waterson off of “Law And Order” reruns down through the years?). If O’Bannon is decided for the Plaintiffs you will have to have some kind of Residual Income System set aside for the Athletes of the Present and Future (plus some given point in the past (such as when O’Bannon began his College career at UCLA)). After that, the question becomes who pays and how is it allocated? Obviously the University (merchandising being an obvious example), but do Networks (ESPN, Fox, BTN, etc?), and is that only related to “Revenue Producing Sports” or should the Women’s Soccer Player have the right to collect as well? Here is where perception comes in. Many people (the Women’s Sports Foundation comes to mind) will claim that it is unfair that Johnny Manziel would get paid but not the A&M Women’s Soccer Player, so the likely reality is she will get something as well. The final question of course, would be what would the Compensation be. The likely outcome would be something like the TV Residual System where the stars (like Manziel) would get paid more, and “Smith” playing soccer at A&M would get less.
LikeLike
What about the Division 4 angle? (Note: Although I read this blog and commentary on daily basis, I don’t have a firm grasp of the details.) Referring only to Division I FBS schools (120 total): If Division 4 schools (B1G, SEC, etc) separate from non-Division 4 schools (MAC, AAC, etc) but remain within a restructured NCAA, then they could conceivably agree to play non-Division 4 schools only if those schools agree to give Division 4 schools an additional No. 13 regular season game. In other words, only Division 4 schools would have a 13-game regular season. The non-Division 4 schools would still be limited to a maximum 12-game regular season. As part of the bargain, the non-Division 4 schools playing a 12-game regular season could have an 8-game playoff to compensate accordingly. Etc.
LikeLike
The first question would be who is in Division IV? Obviously the ACC, B10, Big XII, Pac & SEC, but what about Notre Dame, BYU, Boise State, and in particular Service Academies (I can imagine the firestorm in Congress if Air Force and Navy (Army less so for obvious reasons), are put behind the likes of Washington State and Wake Forest)? One thing you could see is BYU join the Mountain West (which already has Boise and (especially) Air Force), and they would be included, as would the AAC (for Navy). The Mac, Sun Belt and the rest would be left behind.
LikeLike
If Division IV works like every other NCAA division, they are not going to kick anyone out. They’ll establish criteria, and the schools will choose whether to participate. Notre Dame clearly will be in Division IV; that one’s a no-brainer.
As you point out, for political reasons, the schools are not going to force out Army and Navy. It’ll be up to the service academies themselves, as it has always been, to decide which division they want to play in.
Beyond Notre Dame and the P5 conferences, each league will need to move up or stay where it is. It’s a fairly good guess that the Mountain West and the AAC will choose Division IV. I am not sure what the others will do.
LikeLike
Why bother if every FBS conference / school can get in D4. If D4 is set up it will have minimum qualifications that a most of the Gof5 will not be able to meet. If these are high enough, it will exclude even the AAC and MWC. However, there will be enough schools in these conferences so that a qualifying conference can be constructed between the two. Attendance average of 30K per game will cover AF, Navy, Army, BYU, and ND while excluding all but about 12 Gof5 schools. In the last split the Ivy and MAC were given a big push to IAA status. Due to low standards and lax enforcement (like a 10 year probation for not meeting attendance requirement for a recent move up) the MAC got back to FBS.
LikeLike
As a hypothetical, I am not saying that “Division 4” schools would refuse to play “non-Division 4” schools for football, only how the issue would influence a discussion for restructuring the NCAA.
“The first question would be who is in Division IV?”
Others have commented much on this topic. I have nothing more to add.
Instead I speculate whether a 13-game regular season for football is a chicken/egg issue for either establishing a “Division 4” and/or conferences expanding beyond 14 schools.
I also speculate whether such initiative would be driven by the SEC and/or ACC since they presently don’t want to have more than 8 conference games for football, despite having 14-school conferences, with Notre Dame also as a partial member for football in the ACC.
LikeLike
I have already mentioned why I see a 13 Game Schedule (O’Bannon). Lets take Penn State as an example of the Division IV 13 Game Schedule: They can play a 9 Game Conference Schedule, plus an annual Game Against Pitt (ACC). Plus Temple (AAC) does not mind playing 2 Games at Beaver Stadium and 1 Game In Philadelphia, so they remain. They can also schedule two yearly games against quality opponents. Note: They already have West Virginia (BIG XII) and Virginia Tech (AAC) scheduled (and since it is only a 3 hour trip from Morgantown, West Virginia (meaning a guaranteed sellout at Beaver Stadium). perhaps they can make the Mountaineers an Annual Game?)), leaving us with another historical foe (Syracuse?) or intersectional team to play home and home. That would give us a 7 Home Game Schedule (if set up correct, we get at least two of Ohio State, Michigan, Pitt and West Virginia at home each year), and no non-Division IV teams. Would work very nice.
LikeLike
In my hypothetical 13-game regular season: I assume that the Big Ten would increase to 10 conference games. This would provide balance (5 home / 5 away conference games) and also additional meaning to the “Big Ten” brand. For PSU, the three other games could include an historical rival (Pitt) on permanent basis, and rotating regional SOS rivals (Syracuse, West Virginia, etc) and/or cupcakes (Temple, SUNY, etc).
LikeLike
Big Ten Fan,
“What about the Division 4 angle? (Note: Although I read this blog and commentary on daily basis, I don’t have a firm grasp of the details.) Referring only to Division I FBS schools (120 total): If Division 4 schools (B1G, SEC, etc) separate from non-Division 4 schools (MAC, AAC, etc) but remain within a restructured NCAA, then they could conceivably agree to play non-Division 4 schools only if those schools agree to give Division 4 schools an additional No. 13 regular season game.”
You’re assuming the other schools are holding them back from playing 13. I don’t believe that’s the case. Plenty of AQ presidents have spoken against lengthening the season.
LikeLike
Brian,
I would not dispute that point. But I would like to add to the pot that I recall Joe Paterno disliking bye weeks, something about “disrupting his team’s momentum and rhythm”.
LikeLike
“2. The fear of injury makes going to 13 tough, especially with lawsuits over concussions ongoing.”
I think that this point would be high on the agenda. Injuries to key players can ruin the season of any top team. Plus athletes should not be treated like laboratory rats for medical research purpose.
LikeLike
One rating actually bothers to dig down into the non-AQ teams and ends up putting Rice football at #36 this year, ahead of MichSt and Nebraska. That may be a bit out on a limb, but I’ll take 10-2 this year.
http://www.sports-ratings.com/college_football/
LikeLike
Well Rice could start by taking out a distracted Johnny Manziel and the Aggies with an upset. Might be good for him. He definitely seems like someone who could use some humility before heading off to the NFL.
LikeLike
The SEC just released its 2014 “bridge” schedule. 2016 can’t get here soon enough.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/246413/sec-releases-2014-conference-football-schedule.aspx
In addition to the annual games (LSU/Florida, LSU/Bama, Bama/Auburn, Auburn/UGA, UGA/UF), highlights include A&M at South Carolina to start the CFB season on Thursday Aug 28, Florida at Alabama on September 20, A&M v. Arkansas at Cowboys (AT&T) Stadium on September 27, and LSU at A&M on Thanksgiving night.
The B-12 hasn’t set their schedule yet, but UTx gets home games in 2014 against Baylor and TCU. It will be interesting to see if the LSU/A&M game is scheduled opposite the UTx/Baylor or TCU game on Thanksgiving.
Also, the LSU/Wisconsin game in Houston on Aug 30 is confirmed.
LikeLike
One thing I do like about the Big Ten is how early the schedules come out. 2017 is already done (although expansion has ended a few schedules).
Interesting things in the SEC schedule:
LSU vs. Texas A&M and Arkansas vs. Missouri are season ending games. I expect this to continue with Arkansas and Missouri becoming locked crossovers. Assuming Wake Forest continues playing Vanderbilt to end the season, that locks everyone with a season ending game.
LikeLike
Eric – yes, if permanent crossovers survive to 2016, the new annual OOD games will be Ark/Mizzou and A&M/South Carolina. LSU and A&M and Ark/Mizzou will be new season finales. Expect Thanksgiving night games when LSU travels to College Station and Friday/Saturday games when the Aggies come to Baton Rouge. Mizzou and Arkansas will probably push for the Black Friday slot, but I can see CBS mixing it up. Since Arkansas joined the SEC, LSU/Ark have had the Black Friday slot almost every year. Bama/Auburn did play in that slot for a couple of years.
LikeLike
Also, with Louisville’s move to the ACC, Kentucky/Louisville will be a season finale in 2014, at the request of the ACC & SEC offices.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9588048/louisville-cardinals-kentucky-wildcats-move-matchup-finale
LikeLike
I’m surprised Kentucky didn’t fight that. So I guess the TN/VU and TN/UK games will be flipped with Vandy/Tennessee being the finale for them, along with UK/UL, UF/FSU, UGA/GT, USCarolina/Clemson, MU/AR, Ole Miss/MSU, AL/AU, LSU/A&M.
LikeLike
So for the ACC, that is UL/UK,FSU/UF,CL/USC,GT/UGA + UVA/VT, UNC/NCSU (or Duke), WF/Duke (or NCSU), Miami/Pitt, SU/BC.
LikeLike
bullet,
I think both conferences really pushed the schools to make this change. Scheduling is so much easier with 4 ACC/SEC rivalries on the last weekend rather than 3 with the other one early.
UL’s AD is totally against the move, but it happened anyway. UK’s feelings probably didn’t matter, either.
LikeLike
Could have been Vandy-Wake. That happened last year. NCSU probably wouldn’t care that much about UL to finish vs. Wake.
LikeLike
From an ACC perspective, UNC — which traditionally ended its football season against UVa as late as 1957 — could close with NCSU or Duke. For football, it probably would prefer the former (as long as you let UNC end the basketball regular season with its second game vs. Duke; that altering such scheduling is off the table provides a sense of the ACC’s perverse priorities — does any other conference have such a fixed basketball scheduling process?). State would probably prefer a UNC finale, leaving Wake and Duke, two private colleges, to close against each other, assuming Vanderbilt reverts to its season-ender with Tennessee.
LikeLike
bullet,
I don’t think Vandy and WF are as committed to it being a long term annual game. The other 4 are true rivalries and more likely to remain annual events.
LikeLike
Eric – in 2014, Tennessee and Vandy play their season finale.
LikeLike
The A&M at South Carolina game on Thursday Aug 28, 2014, will be the first game televised on the SEC Network.
LikeLike
Has the SEC confirmed what will happen in 2016, or is it still fans hoping?
LikeLike
Brian – the SEC has confirmed that it will use the “bridge” 6-1-1 schedule format through the 2015 season.
Beginning in the 2016 season, the SEC will begin using a multi-year schedule. We just don’t know if it will be a continuation of the 6-1-1, a 6-2, a 6-2-1, or a 6-3. The expansion committee, led by former Miss State AD Larry Templeton will continue to have discussions on the schedule format. I wouldn’t expect a decision until the Spring meetings in 2015.
LikeLike
Alan,
Yeah, I couldn’t remember if the SEC had decided what format to use in 2016+. Everyone has been assuming a jump to 9 games for the sake of the SECN, but I couldn’t remember if anything was actually decided officially.
Thanks for the info.
LikeLike
I have a weird feeling the SEC stays at 8, as does the ACC once the realignment dust settles. ESPN has both the ACC and SEC and probably wants to protect both by preserving the cross conference rival games that are unique to those two conferences :
Florida State vs Florida
Clemson vs South Carolina
Clemson vs Auburn
Georgia Tech vs Georgia
Louisville vs Kentucky
I think you will see the SEC east teams lock down 1 OOC game with an ACC school and that prevents a 9 game schedule. In fact it would not surprise me to see SEC west schools scheduling more ACC games in the future. The issue is top B12 schools scheduling top SEC schools instead of the current lower level type cross conference games. The TCU vs LSU game was scheduled before the Horned Frogs moved to the B12 and West Virginia dropped Florida State when they moved.
PAC vs B1G = none
PAC vs B12 = none
PAC vs SEC = none
PAC vs ACC = Southern Cal / Stanford vs IND Notre Dame
B1G vs PAC = none
B1G vs B12 = Iowa vs Iowa State
B1G vs SEC = none (did have Indiana vs Kentucky)
B1G vs ACC = PU, MSU, UM, ?? vs IND Notre Dame (phasing out?)
B12 vs PAC = none
B12 vs B1G = Iowa vs Iowa State
B12 vs SEC = none
B12 vs ACC = none
If UT vs TAMU and KU vs MU return to the schedule it seems even more unlikely the SEC will go to 9 games. It would be nice to see historic games like Oklahoma vs Nebraska return but not sure that will ever happen. If moving to 9 forces all those ACC vs SEC games to vanish I just can not see the economic advantage to the networks and they would fight something that could force this to happen. The wild card will be the Irish and their public demand to play Georgia instead of a non SEC school. With ESPN so deep into the ACC is that move coming from ESPN / ACC and moving away from NBC?
LikeLike
I love looking at all these data maps provided by FB during the last MBB tournament. I wouldn’t trust any of the maps alone, and the metric is far from prefect but shows you a good indication of what to expect. Some of my notes using these maps is that UNC highly coveted, they have national appeal. Sadly this map doesn’t help us show the real divide Texas. Missouri’s numbers must be fudged.Illinois already has a good footing into St. Louis and even much of eastern missouri
KU has quite an expanse, 2/3 into Western Missouri will you find KU followers, then significant areas of Colorado, northern Oklahoma, Minnesota is a KU outpost, California has numbers, and the big question of Texas, where KU has numbers but has widely reported to be quietly attempting to move away from, especially in football recruiting. The KU human geography does fit very well into the Western division of the B1G.
The last thing about this map is I don’t think the B1G would even care about the geography rule if there was a chance to grab UNC. UNC is a huge national brand, probably can’t have both UNC and UT so who is going to be? And who wants to bring an old friend along more, because I don’t think the B1G would want to take two from the Big12, it would basically kill it, but they want someone for the west.
LikeLike
whoops forgot this!
http://deadspin.com/very-curious-about-the-pocket-of-indiana-love-on-cape-c-457062098
LikeLike
Those numbers are complete garbage. No way most people in Missouri are Kansas fans, including Boone County (where Mizzou is). That’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
I already said that Mizzou’s data is clearly bugged. The best analysis it has for mizzou is in the midwest regional map. Duke over powered the rest of the field and skews most of that data, but there still a lot to read into. Mizzou still showed up well considering the data error with Duke, and even made into Arkansas. I thought Mizzou should have grabbed a Iowa county, but Creighton was dominate around there.
What the map does confirm is that the KC and St.Louis markets are under siege. The Big 12 used to have KC on lockdown until Nebraska, and then Mizzou made it a three way market. St. Louis has the chance to become SEC country, will that work with the Big Ten right next door?
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/08/20/conference-usa-supports-idea-on-stipends-for-ncaa-athletes/2678341/
Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky endorsed the idea of student-athletes receiving a stipend to cover the “full cost of attendance” in July, and the league’s university presidents and athletics directors followed suit by supporting that notion at a retreat this past week in Irving, Texas.
New Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland reiterated no official vote or legislation passed, but McClelland said C-USA members unanimously agreed to support a stipend should one become available.
LikeLike
Translate the above to “Hey, gang, don’t leave us out, even if it bankrupts our athletic departments.”
LikeLike
Another translation: “We surrender; no need for a Division 4; we surrender !!!!”
LikeLike
If GoRs are controlling, then the only source of quality programs for the B1G is the SEC.
how about Florida and Tennessee?
Don’t tell me no one will ever leave the SEC until they’ve been asked.
LikeLike
I’m not saying that no one would ever leave the SEC, but I think that the chances of the original 10 SEC schools (Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Tennesseee, and Vanderbilt) are about the same as Ohio State or Michigan leaving the Big 10 which is to say infinitesimally small. While the Big 10 is certainly a great conference, it’s appeal is not as great as many seem to think, especially to schools in the South and West. The SEC schools are just as happy (if not more so) with their conference than the Big 10 schools are, and I assume will quickly be making almost as much money from their network. Florida in particular has no desire to leave the SEC because, like Texas and North Carolina, they have more than sufficient funds as it is and money won’t motivate them to give up treasured traditions in the same way that it did Maryland or Syracuse. While there may be benefits to the CIC, Florida’s research budget is doing fine without it. The only SEC schools I could really envision leaving under any circumstances would be Missouri, who may or may not still prefer the Big 10, and Texas A&M, which could always be forced to rejoin the Big 12 by a bitter Longhorn legislature/governor, though I extremely doubt that would ever actually happen.
LikeLike
Yep
LikeLike
I have to agree, but I think they should be asked.
In the same vein, I think some B1G schools might considerva move to the MAC. Is Minnesota reallynhappymwith the investments needed to be competitive in the B1G? Or Purdue, or Indiana? They do like the money, but they are MAC teams.
LikeLike
I think you don’t know the Big Ten if you think these decisions are based on recent performance.
LikeLike
I do not see any teams leaving the B10 and heading for the MAC (even when Northwestern was at its worst they never considered leaving (nor were they in danger of being thrown out)). The only School in the next Decade that could leave would be Johns Hopkins after their trial period. As for Purdue. Indiana and Minnesota, it is true, they need to upgrade their programs (I will say, we are seeing baby steps in Bloomington with Hoops and Baseball). But to be honest, most Schools have a program that sucks (Penn State, Northwestern & Nebraska Basketball, Illinois Football and Ohio State Hockey come to mind). If someone said in the next half Century there is a School that could go (and that means follow the University Of Chicago model, not the MAC), it would be Purdue, and everything would have to go wrong (such as Notre Dame dropping them, and no Western Expansion (if they are in the East, at least they can have Michigan and Ohio State visiting more then they will going forward). But I do not see that happening.
LikeLike
@David Brown:
“I do not see any teams leaving the B10 and heading for the MAC (even when Northwestern was at its worst they never considered leaving (nor were they in danger of being thrown out)).”
I fully agree. The only NU would have ever left would have been entirely on its own accord (If you search the issue in the New York Times web archives, there are several articles discussing that the Ivy League in the early 1980’s thought of inviting NU, Army, and Navy to join its ranks, but nothing came of that).
Buywhy, in a past post (http://frankthetank.me/2013/05/07/conference-realignment-reset-a-look-at-the-power-conferences-expansion-plans-or-lack-thereof/#comments), did you state:
David Brown says:
May 12, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Purdue has nothing to worry about, the same fear happened years ago, when it came to Northwestern ( a far worse program in sports than Purdue). When Penn State wanted to join the B10, NW was being warned they will be replaced if vote them in. When NW was assured they still will have a place in the Conference with an affirmative vote, they voted yes, and they are still here to this day. Does it mean Purdue should accept being on the bottom of the Conference? Not at all, they need to step it up like NW has in football (particularly if Notre Dame leaves the future Purdue schedule), but being kicked out? Not happening
LikeLike
Is Minnesota really happy with the investments needed to be competitive in the B1G? Or Purdue, or Indiana? They do like the money, but they are MAC teams.
Minnesota is paying for most of those investments with Big Ten media revenues. If they went to the MAC, they would no longer have to make those investments; but they’d also no longer have those revenues.
LikeLike
Purdue or Minnesota going to the MAC is as similarly absurd as some recent scenarios where it becomes Iowa State’s destination. In the event of a Big 12 implosion, ISU wouldn’t sink any lower than the American or Mountain West, and if either conference accepted the Cyclones, Baylor, Texas Christian and other prospective orphans, it would be assured of #5 status and some sort of seat at the BCS table. (Or, more likely, said conference would assume the Big 12 name for an improved brand and image, not to mention any broadcasting deals the conference has left.)
LikeLike
I’m comfortable speaking for every single past, current, and future Boilermaker in stating that we would rather come in last place for the next eleventy thousand years in the B1G than join the MAC (and any other conference for that matter).
LikeLike
If we were going to see an implosion, it would have been the old Big East imploding, and instead they reloaded and stepped down in status to form the American. So for a Big12 implosion to strand the remaining teams, it has to be a BIGGER implosion than the old Big East implosion. If it is merely a massive, ginormous implosion like the Old Big East, it will reload and step down in status.
LikeLike
There was a story, I believe attributable to Barry Alvarez, that Florida approached the Big Ten in the 90s. As someone who lived in Florida for nearly 10 years, I can tell you that if Florida was a contiguous state the cultural match would be immense. Flagship Land Grant school of a populuous state, law school and med school. A lot has changed from the 90s, but I’m not sure the relative difference has too much between the SEC and B1G. Not saying this will happen, just that there is a small bit of history. The FSU fan base would be a great fit in the SEC.
Vandy also comes up from time to time. I think that is because it is a better academic fit with the B1G, reasonably close geographicaly, and in a nice metro area, along with the fact that they are eternally in Tennessee’s shadow in the SEC.
I don’t think either will happen. The only way I see it is if Delany really has some kind of grand strategy including a number of teams as opposed to opportunistically picking up PSU then Nebraska, then Maryland bringing along Rutgers. For example, UVa, UNC, GaTech and Florida. If Delany got the other three, I’ll bet Florida would at least answer the phone.
LikeLike
wow. @ DrwIllini.
U wrote: “For example, UVa, UNC, GaTech and Florida. If Delany got the other three, I’ll bet Florida would at least answer the phone.”
I’ll let the crowd source it out, but I think that is the first time anyone on this board has offered that combination. and I’m a bit blown away. I never ever considered FL as a substitute for FSU.
Now, of course, I never seriously considered the possibility that FL would leave the SEC.
But then again, I never seriously thought MD would leave the ACC and be in the B1G.
So, that shows what I know.
Thanks for the thought. (none of this is happening, but thanks for the thought. : -) ).
LikeLike
Can’t see that happening, if only from a football scheduling perspective. How would UF play a 9-game Big Ten schedule, then play two “must” games — Georgia and Florida State –– out of conference? The only alternative would be changing the “cocktail party” game in Jacksonville to Florida vs. Georgia Tech, and UGa won’t let that happen.
LikeLike
I can tell you that if Florida was a contiguous state the cultural match would be immense. Flagship Land Grant school of a populous state, law school and med school.
It would be a very poor match, unless you are suggesting that every state flagship school with a law school and a med school — which is to say, almost all of them — is an automatic fit for the Big Ten. It was really driven home to me when I visited with my son, who was considering going to college there (he eventually chose Michigan).
Of all the schools we visited, UF was the least serious about academics. The tone of the tour was “look how much fun we are,” not “see how much you’ll learn here”. The whole tour practically screamed, “party school”. Of course, I am not denying that you can get a serious education at UF, but it’s not very culturally similar to the Big Ten at all.
LikeLike
Your anecdotal experience at UF likely isn’t an accurate reflection on the school. Its the USNWR #54 school in the country, and in CMUP’s group 2 for research. It is a solid fit in the B1G. And the B1G already has 4 of the top 10 party schools.
That said, UF isn’t interested in the B1G.
LikeLike
What you’re confusing are academics and culture. UF is not culturally a Big Ten school; it just isn’t. Its USNWR ranking is utterly irrelevant, except in the sense that it is high enough to make the fantasy an interesting discussion, before we realize how little sense it makes.
Even if the Big Ten has four of the top ten party schools, it’s irrelevant. The question is what would induce UF to consider joining, and that wouldn’t be among their reasons.
LikeLike
Then why did you mention academics? I doubt you really got the ethos of a campus of 60,000 people on your orientation weekend.
LikeLike
I went to UF for six years. My family lives in Gainesville. On the other hand, my grandfather (Illinois and DePaul like Frank) and two of my cousins (Purdue and Minnesota) went to Big 10 Schools. UF is not a good cultural match of the Big 10 at all. The academics and research are very comparable, and the schools is as hard or harder to get into than most of the Big 10 schools, but the entire feel is very, very different. The handful of Big 10 alums I met in grad school felt the same, as did my UF friends who went to Big 10 schools for graduate work. UF is definitely an SEC school culturally, even though it is more academically oriented than most. I actually think UF is rather fond of being (other than Vandy) at the head of the conference academically, in much the same way that Michigan and Wisconsin (other than Northwestern) do in the Big 10. Being a part of the SEC is a VERY big deal to Florida fans and alumni, who value that association just as much as Notre Dame values its independence or UNC values the ACC. Florida leaving the SEC would not be like any of the other moves that have happened , it would drive a huge wedge between the administration and the vast majority of alumni/donors. I just can’t imagine anyone would ever risk the headache or the loss of donations.
All that being said, if the Big 10 wanted Florida, I think they would absolutely have to add Georgia. That is the school that truly most matters to Florida overall (athletics across all sports, academics, rivalry, traditions, etcetera). Although Florida has great relationships with the entire conference, their closest ties are to Georgia. I also think that the Big Ten would probably have to add Georgia Tech and Florida State as well, but I am less sure on those two.
LikeLike
Tennessee doesn’t have sufficiently strong academics to woo the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Even if Tennessee would interest the Big Ten, I doubt that the interest would be mutual.
LikeLike
If Florida did move, it would be Florida and Georgia.
LikeLike
I’m okay with Tennessee and Kentucky.
Hell, my dream Big Ten would add them and Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.
LikeLike
From Dirk Chatelain – Crazy stat of the day: Auburn hasn’t won a non-conference road game since 1997. Fourteen years! The Tigers are 0-4 during that stretch. They travel to Kansas State in 2014.
Auburn has played four non-conference road games since 1997! And they play an 8 game conference schedule, so that means most recent years they have 8 home games vs four away.
Plus, for the first few years of this 14 year stretch, the Alabama “home game” in the Iron Bowl was held at Legion field in Birmingham. So, 1998, Auburn played 3 true road games (all in conference), 7 home games, plus played Alabama in Birmingham.
LikeLike
For those (like me) still searching for that methadone fix (from allsportsdiscussion, April 23, 2013):
EXPANSION IS DEAD – SELF-HELP TIPS FOR THE RECOVERING EXPANSION JUNKIE
When the ACC announced it’s 15 new members had signed a Grant of Rights it sent shockwaves through college athletics. Just like that expansion died… ok maybe not, who can predict the future? Let’s just say for the time being it’s been severely stunted to the point we have a real problem on our hands.
How do deal with the recovering Expansion junkie?
For the last 3 years the expansion junkies have lived and breathed expansion rumors. The expansion junkies come on many different levels. I’m going to offer some tips how the expansion junkie can survive the better part of the next dozen or so years.
THE EXPANSION DEALER
The Expansion Dealer provided non-stop rumors about expansion to a ready and willing audience that peaked around the Summer of 2012 and still had sizable market through yesterday.
Tip – Find new sources. You know whose sources are good? @DavidGlennShow – They broke the ACC GOR of story. Your sources stink. You missed on pretty much everything, and exaggerated what might be true based on your “proclaimed” sources. You aren’t going to find many new buyers without some new product. That is if your credibility isn’t totally shot.
THE HOPELESS EXPANSION JUNKIE
The Hopeless junkie just won’t stop believing that realignment has basically ended even after Monday’s news. At this moment they are still inventing stories that will lead to demise of any number of conferences, while their conference prospers to untold riches.
Tip – Sadly there’s nothing I can recommend for these poor souls. They may want to start something akin to the Flat Earth Society . As the saying goes – ” I want to believe”.
THE ACCEPT IT BUT NEED THE EXPANSION FIX JUNKIE
These folks I can help. You know the power conference moves are over, but you need an expansion fix.
Tip – Channel your energies to a discussion how the 5 power conference may break away from the NCAA. That’s the biggest thing going right now. Also you can look into the movements happening at the Sun Belt and Atlantic 10 level. I’m sure something is going on there.
THE FANTASYLAND EXPANSION JUNKIE
Most junkies stayed in real world. Reasonable arguments could be made for most any scenario, but there were some complete fantasy scenarios that a few folks couldn’t get enough of. During expansionpalooza of the 2012 summer, they discussed such stories being rumored as the Pac 12 inviting teams from the East and the Big East absorbing the ACC.
Tip – A Fantasyland Expansion junkie hasn’t been spotted for sometime. They morphed into the Hopeless Expansion Junkie.
THE MY TEAM WANTS OUT OF SAID CONFERENCE EXPANSION JUNKIE
The junkies were driven by one thing -> Get my team out this &$@*)$ conference. Some reasons were legitimate, many were laughable, but these folks they wanted out and hung on expansion news daily.
Tip 1 – Let it go…
Tip 2 – Beat the other teams in said conference athletically at everything.
Tip 3 – If you are a Connecticut or Cincinnati fan, you are allowed to keep reading and hoping. Find your nearest Big 12 friend and beg them for an invite. If you know someone at Notre Dame plead with them to join the ACC one day, so one more spot opens up. Seriously these two schools deserve better.
THE CLOSET EXPANSION JUNKIE
This might have been have been a neighbor, maybe a parent or a relative. Seemingly they showed no outward signs of expansion addiction. They read they followed and they had alot of opinions about it, but they mostly kept quiet.
Tip – I put myself in this category unfortunately. I refrained from blogging or tweeting much on expansion, but I kept up with most of the stories. We’re not addicted. We have it under control. Oh crap I’m in the denial phase… If you can make it until the first college football previews come out you’ll be fine. I’ll try to write some preview posts its therapeutic for me.
THE MATHEMATICALLY IMPAIRED EXPANSION JUNKIE.
These people spewed projected dollar figures non stop that at best were suspect and at worst completely wrong.
Tip – I recommend a remedial math course. I remember once reading that some conferences were going to earn in excess of $60 Million in television rights in a couple of years. Seriously some people were pushing this…
THE I’M SICK OF IT EXPANSION JUNKIE
You’d read the stories just hoping the nonsense would come to an end. You didn’t care how.
Tip – Your day has arrived.
ALL THE BEST
LikeLike
ha! funny stuff.
LikeLike
For fun, read this NYTimes article from January 11, 1982, which is so chock-full of fun historical tidbits that I am copy-pasting the article (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/11/sports/army-is-seeking-to-join-ivy-basketball.html) in full:
January 11, 1982
ARMY IS SEEKING TO JOIN IVY BASKETBALL
By GORDON S. WHITE Jr., Special to the New York Times
HOUSTON, Jan. 10— Army’s director of athletics, Carl Ullrich, said today that the Military Academy would like to join the Ivy League in basketball, but probably not in football.
Ullrich’s reaction came in response to a report that the Ivy League is interested in expanding in all sports from eight to 10 institutions, with Army one of six likely candidates for membership in the Ivy group. None of the half-dozen teams have been officially approached by Ivy representatives.
The other five schools the Ivy League is interested in are Northwestern, Navy, Colgate, Holy Cross and William & Mary. Fred Hemke, Northwestern’s faculty adviser for athletics, said that the school would be interested in talking with the Ivy League. Army and Navy, which have been members of baseball, wrestling and swimming leagues with the eight Ivy colleges for many years, wanted to join the Ivy League in basketball two years ago, but were turned down. As a result, Army, seeking to join a basketball league, helped form the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference with Fordham, Iona, Fairfield, St. Peter’s and Manhattan.
The eight Ivy institutions are Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton and Yale. Interviewed here at the site of the National Collegiate Athletic Association convention, which starts Monday, Ullrich said: ”We’d love to get into the Ivy basketball league. But we couldn’t afford to join them in football.” Ivy League in Lower Bracket
The Ivy League teams were forced to drop from Division I-A, or major college football, into Division I-AA by a vote of N.C.A.A. Division I-A teams last month. Army, Navy, Holy Cross and Northwestern remained in Division I-A; Colgate and William & Mary were also reclassified as Division I-AA teams.
The reorganization of the major football teams made it mandatory for a team to average 17,000 at home games or have a 30,000-seat stadium for it to be in Division I-A. The majority of Ivy teams did not qualify, so the entire league was demoted to I-AA.
Army, which fills its 41,000-seat Michie Stadium for most home games and appears on television once or twice a season, thinks it may lose the income from such crowds and television appearances if it joins the Ivy League in football, according t o Ullrich.
Northwestern, a member of the Big Ten Conference, is considered out of its element in that powerful league, in which it is the only private university among state institutions.
Some Big Ten officials indicated today that if Northwestern were to leave, they would move to admit Penn State as a replacement. Nebraska, a member of the Big Eight, appeared to the second choice. Pittsburgh, which has indicated a desire to join the Big Ten in recent years, seemed to have little chance.
Joe Paterno, athletic director and football coach at Penn State, said, ”If this ever happened, we certainly would be interested in the Big Ten.”
Hemke confirmed tonight that Northwestern had come close to joining the Ivy League two years ago, when the league voted, 7-1, to admit Northeastern. The Ivy League, however, requires a unanimous vote for admission.
Hemke said, ”I was not the faculty representative then, but that is the way I understand it happened. Although we would like to upgrade our athletics within the Big Ten, we are always interested in continuing a dialogue with the Ivy League.”
Northwestern might present financial problems for the league. Stretching from Philadelphia in the south to Hanover, N.H., in the north, and from Boston in the east to Ithaca, N.Y., in the west, the Ivy is a compact group. If the eight teams had to travel regularly to Northwestern, which is in Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb, the travel costs would be high.
Army, on the other hand, is located in the midst of the Ivy group, 50 miles north of New York City. Holy Cross is in Worcester, Mass., just west of Boston. Colgate is in Hamilton, N.Y., about 50 miles from Ithaca, N.Y., where Cornell is situated. Navy and William & Mary are far enough south of Philadelphia to cause some concern over travel costs.
Howard R. Swearer, the president of Brown University, is scheduled to address the N.C.A.A. members Monday, when the association’s 76th annual convention opens. He will express the Ivy League’s displeasure with the reclassification of Ivy football teams from Division I-A to I-AA.
It is expected that during the convention, the N.C.A.A. member institutions will vote for stronger N.C.A.A. control of football television and cablevision rights to games played in the regular season. Some members of the College Football Association will challenge this with a proposal to prohibit the N.C.A.A. from exercising control over property rights they claim belong to the individual universities. These C.F.A. members contend that television and cablevision rights are among those property rights.
The C.F.A. consists of 61 major football colleges, all of whom also belong to the N.C.A.A. The property rights proposal will probably be defeated by the N.C.A.A. membership, opening the way for the association to enlarge its long-standing control over these football television rights.
Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company
LikeLike
So for all those who complain about how PSU was added in 1990, doesn’t this preempt some of the complaints about secrecy and people not being asked? The B10 had already said PSU was at the top of their list. Then-AD JoePa said they’d be interested. Both sides had plenty of warning before it actually came to be.
LikeLike
The issue wasn’t PSU being added, it was that the ADs thought that they had to give permission to the presidents to add Penn State. The ADs, especially Shembechler, were pissed that they weren’t the most important guys in the room anymore regarding the future of the conference.
LikeLike
Schebechler problems with PSU were that PSU was requesting/demanding some special considerations for entrance into the B10. He wasn’t the only one but I think M was the only one who voted against them.
LikeLike
As I recall, Indiana voted against Penn State too, because they were (and are) no good in basketball and State College is a pain to travel to. Bobby Knight didn’t want an annual game in the middle of nowhere, when said game wasn’t competitive.
LikeLike
So for all those who complain about how PSU was added in 1990, doesn’t this preempt some of the complaints about secrecy and people not being asked?
I suspect they would have said that there’s a difference between Penn State as a fallback if Northwestern should leave; and Penn State as an 11th member.
What’s interesting about the article is how drastically the world changed after the NCAA lost control of football TV rights. Back then, Northwestern could seriously consider joining the Ivy League, and although it didn’t happen, it wasn’t crazy either. Today it would be unthinkable.
(Of course, the other difference in 1982 was that Northwestern was a perpetual doormat; no one saw a path for them to be competitive in football.)
LikeLike
I also find it interesting that among the schools the liberal Ivy Leaguers apparently considered admitting was two military service academies (less than a generation after all the Vietnam War protests and the removal of ROTC’s from League campuses) and a conservative Catholic university.
LikeLike
This sentence amazes me: “Hemke confirmed tonight that Northwestern had come close to joining the Ivy League two years ago, when the league voted, 7-1, to admit Northeastern. The Ivy League, however, requires a unanimous vote for admission.”
Wow. One more vote and Northwestern would have left the B1G and joined the Ivy League.
I know 30 years have now passed, but so much for the idea that no B1G institution would even THINK about leaving.
Thanks for this post.
LikeLike
The original B1G 10 were all AAU schools (eventually). 5 were Land Grant:
Illinois
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Ohio St.
And 5 were not:
Chicago
Northwestern
Michigan
Indiana
Iowa
Since the formation, UofChicago left, and Michigan St., Penn St., Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers have been added. ALL 5 additions were BOTH Land Grant AND AAU (at the time of admission)
There are 16 schools in the country that are currently both Land Grant and AAU, counting the UC system as one, and not counting MIT that originally received a portion of Massachusetts Land Grant. By Conference:
B1G: Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio St., Michigan St., Penn St., Maryland and Rutgers
SEC: Florida, Missouri, Texas A&M
PAC 12: California, Arizona
Big 12: Iowa St.
Ivy: Cornell
Clearly a big differentiator between B1G schools and others is Land Grant and AAU affiliation. When you have 9 of a total of 16, that says something defining.
In light of this data, who is really surprised that Maryland went B1G? They were the only ACC school that was both Land Grant and AAU!
In light of this data, who is really surprised that the B1G took Rutgers. It wanted to expand east to leverage the Penn St brand, and there were only three Land Grant/AAU schools east of the Mississippi: Rutgers, Cornell, and FLORIDA(!)
This data also supports Brother Andy’s position on Mizzou. Mizzou is clearly a better fit for B1G than Kansas (but not because of their football prowess, sorry Andy, I can only go so far with you)
The fact that we aren’t talking about Cornell in this discussion is the exception that proves the rule. The only athletic affiliation that is also an academic affiliation is the Ivy League. No amount of BTN revenue is going to persuade Ithaca to take a call from Delany – as fun as the Blackman Cup would be. As has been quoted on this board before, a university president said athletics is 1% of his budget and takes up 10% of his time. Who making that decision would not want to get that 10% of his time working more for the other 99% of the budget. I firmly believe that under the right scenario and strategy (e.g. that would preserve geographical compactness), Florida would answer the phone. Not saying they would go, but they would listen.
LikeLike
AAU status is far more relevant than Land Grant status. All land grant status reflects is that 150 years ago, states promised to open schools focused on science, mining, military, similar topics in exchange for acres of free federal land on which to open and operate said schools.
For example, that UNC is not a land grant institution would not at all be a negative against it for Big Ten purposes. Even if NC State were an AAU school, UNC would be far an away the preferred target in that state. Land Grant status (and for that matter, Space Grant and Sun Grant status) is simply not a main factor. At best, it denotes a similar culture as a large, state school devoted to scientific research. But non-land grant schools have similar cultures to their B1G brethren (eg. Kansas).
Fun fact: Only 2 of Cornell’s undergraduate schools are land grant. The rest are private.
LikeLike
You got something against sea grants? 🙂
LikeLike
Haha- forgot about those.
Rumor: Georgia Tech to become sea grant institution, change athletic team name to “Yellow Submarines.”
LikeLike
So its Cornell joining the Big 10 instead of Buffalo!?
LikeLike
Cornell of Mt. Vernon, IA, 1947 NCAA wrestling champions?
Cornell (Ithica) is one of only two schools to be land, sea, space, and sun grant institutions. (OrSU is the other)
LikeLike
MSU wasn’t AAU at the time of admission.
LikeLike
I took a look awhile back at enrollments of the D1 football playing schools………amoung those schools the BIG schools(including MD and Rutgers) were #s 2,3,7,8,9,10,11,13,15,16,20,31,43,and 51 MD was #20 at 37631, Rutgers #16 at 39950. Even NW’s enrollment was substantial, at 20959..
The ACC schools were 14(FSU), 23,35,36,42, 46, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57,59….Wake and ND were smaller still……Wake was something like 5000…..so it’s not so surprising MD is now in the Big 10.
Amoung those schools that recently have been mentioned in BIG expansion scenerios:
FSU 41087
TX 52557
OK 27138
MO 33762
VA 24297
GT 20941
UNC 29137
KAN 27939
VT 23859
Institutional fit is one of the reasons I would have preferred MO in the Big 10 over Neb……they are essentially the same in the academic rankind, but Mo’s enrollment is 9000 greater…..Also, ND at 10000 or so would have been 1/2 the size of the smallest Big 10 school……………
LikeLike
Institutional fit is one of the reasons I would have preferred MO in the Big 10 over Neb……they are essentially the same in the academic ranking, but Mo’s enrollment is 9000 greater.
The Big Ten is an athletics conference, and Nebraska is way better in football, the sport that matters most. That fact trumps Missouri’s 9,000 extra students (assuming that even matters at all, which I doubt).
LikeLike
The Big 10 is the conference of enormous state universities with big enrollments and broad programs. Its one of the things that makes the Big 10 cohesive is that the schools are very similar.
LikeLike
But Nebraska and Missouri aren’t essentially the same in academic rank. Missouri ranks a few spots higher in USNews, yes, but Missouri is AAU and ranks more than 30 spots higher in total research dollars. And yes, around 9k more students. And a state population that is more than 3 times the size of Nebraska. But football is not as good so there you go.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Missouri (and I’ll add Kansas) have essentially the same academic profile.
US News National University Rankings – 2013
UNL – 101
MU – 97
KU – 106
Endowment – 2011
UNL – 58 ($1,241,577,000)
MU – 68 ($1,119,032,000)
KU – 57 ($1,250,443,000)
Federal Research (2011 Report)
UNL – 93 ($83,702,000)
MU – 69 ($118,998,000)
KU – 100 ($73,139,000)
US News Graduate Schools – 2014
Education
UNL – 51
MU – 51
KU – 22
Engineering
UNL – 89
MU – 87
KU – 97
Law
UNL – 61
MU – 76
KU – 86
Medical (Research)
UNMC (not UNL but for comparison) – 64
MU – 76
UKMC – 59
Medical (Primary Care)
UNMC – 6
MU – 31
UKMC – 37
Science
Biological Sciences
UNL – 82
MU – 82
KU – 71
Chemistry
UNL – 78
MU – 83
KU – 67
Computer Science
UNL – 79
MU – 110
KU – 79
Earth Sciences
UNL – 63
MU – 89
KU – 54
Mathematics
UNL – 68
MU – 63
KU – 68
Physics
UNL – 70
MU – 93
KU – 85
Social Sciences & Humanities
Economics
UNL – NR
MU – 72
KU – 76
English
UNL – 63
MU – 63
KU – 63
History
UNL – 74
MU – 64
KU – 50
Political Science
UNL – 54
MU – 61
KU – 54
Psycology
UNL – 78
MU – 52
KU – 40
Fine Arts
UNL – 62
MU – 153
KU – 72
LikeLike
Well, for whatever USNews is worth, yes, they’re all the same. I think USNews outside of the top 30-40 programs is fairly useless. Margin of error is something like +/- 10 or 15 spots after a certain point.
Concrete measurements: ACT average, research dollars, enrollment, state polulation… those aren’t subject to opinion and Missouri leads in all of those.
Also, including Nebraska’s Omaha medical center is a cheat, as it doesn’t count as part of that school. Add in UMSL, UMKC, and UMR to Mizzou and their numbers would go up considerably in several categories.
LikeLike
Andy: “Concrete measurements: ACT average, research dollars, enrollment, state polulation… those aren’t subject to opinion and Missouri leads in all of those.”
Really, enrollment and state population are now measurements of academic quality.
LikeLike
Um, no. They’re measures of similarity to B1G institutions.
LikeLike
Also convenient that you left off journalism, where Missouri ranks between #1 and #3 depending on the ranking, and Veterinary Medicine, where Missouri ranks decently high as well. Also Missouri ranks pretty high in a lot of the agricultural fields, but I’m sure Nebraska does as well.
You also left off business for some reason. Missouri #52 in the lastest USNews rankings. Neither Kansas nor Nebraska made the 102 school rankings.
It’s almost as if you cherry picked around Missouri’s highest rated programs, but why would you do that?
Also, these rankings seem to move around quite a bit. Missouri’s law school was in the mid 50s not too long ago, and then it was suddenly in the 90s, and now it’s in the 70s. To me that tells me there’s something wrong with the methodology. It shouldn’t be that volitile.
LikeLike
US News Undergrad academic ranking is mostly noise as far as this discussion goes ~ even if it wasn’t heavily gamed, it still would be an undergrad ranking, and so not count for much of anything as far as status goes among academic staff of the incumbent Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
Okay, we’re talking about “measures of similarity to B1G institutions” and not “academic profile.” That is a bigger subject.
I have an objective measurement for you on that: Nebraska is in the B1G, Missouri is not.
LikeLike
Oh I see. Rick is a Nebraska fan. That’s why he felt the need to cheat repeatedly in his analysis by 1) including the UN-O medical campus that is not part of UN-L while not counting UM-SL, UM-KC, or UM-R programs with UM-C. He also decided to leave out all measures that would reflect favorably on Missouri, such as Business, Journalism, Vetrinary Medicine, or Agriculture.
Truth is it’s pretty much common knowledge that for a number of reasons Mizzou is a better academic school than Nebraska. Not a ton better, but somewhat. That’s why Nebraska was voted out of the AAU and Missouri was not.
Missouri also more closely resembles the institutions in the Big Ten conference, in enrollment size, ACT scores, and state population, as well as geographic proximity.
From 1938 to 1978 Missouri went 26-15 against Nebraska. But then Nebraska rattled off 25 straight victories against Missouri, as Missouri’s football program went from top 20 level to doormat for a couple of decades. The series closed 4-4 over the last 8 meetings, but the damage was done. Nebraska proved to be the stronger football brand, and so they got the B1G membership. Not because they’re the better school, but because their institution prioritized football more than Mizzou did in the 80s and 90s. Good for them, I guess.
LikeLike
Andy, I said “Nebraska and Missouri (and I’ll add Kansas) have essentially the same academic profile” then provide various measurements that show a similar academic profile. I don’t think this is a radical concept. In fact, Nebraska and Missouri have designated each other as peer institutions. They seem be okay with that.
As to cheating in the information provided, I clearly stated that UNMC is not UNL (and for the record, it is also not part of UN-O as you seem to think). See, if I was trying to cheat, I would not have noted the distinction in my post.
LikeLike
Then why leave out most of what Missouri ranks highly at? Those exist on the same webpage you were citing. Business, Veterinary Medicine, Journalism. You left them off because Missouri ranks much higher in those areas than Nebraska and Kansas.
And I wouldn’t say 25-31 spots higher in research dollars is “essentially the same” but to each their own I suppose.
Yes they’re similar in the same way Rutgers is similar to Missouri academically. I wouldn’t dispute that Rutgers has a stronger academic profile than Missouri, but I would also say that Missouri and Rutgers are peers and not super far apart. I guess the same is true in the other direction for Nebraska.
LikeLike
“peers and not super far apart”… I can agree with that.
For what it is worth, I also agree with this: “I would have liked to have seen Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas stick together. Those were fun rivalries that went back to the 1800s. It’s a shame to see them go.”
I love the B1G, it feels like home. But, if the B1G expands again, I will be pulling for Missouri and Kansas to be added.
LikeLike
Missouri plays 4 border schools per year now in the SEC: Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, compared to 6 in the old Big 8: Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State.
I don’t think Missouri or Kansas will ever join the B1G. But I would like to see Missouri host an annual game in KC and play Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma on a regular basis there. Maybe invite in the other old Big 8 schools now and then. That would really ease some of the pain of losing all the old rivalries. I think it would draw a lot of interest and make a lot of money.
Or just make Missouri vs Nebraska an annual event again. I’d be ok with that too.
LikeLike
A game in KC will either NE or OK is not happening since both make big $$ selling out large stadiums. Compared to what former B8 schools can get at home, MO vs. KS in KC generates the most $$.
LikeLike
I don’t know about that. Even Michigan agreed to a neutral game last year and theirs is the biggest stadium in the country.
Missouri’s stadium will be as large as Nebraska’s is now within the next 3-4 years or so.
Really depends on what kind of sponsorship and TV money they get, and how much they want to charge for tickets. It could work.
I’m not sure that OU and Mizzou makes sense. Not really a good match unfortunately. But Missouri/Nebraska games have drawn a lot of attention over the last 15 years or so and those games are typically pretty competitive. There would be a lot of fan interest and they could change a lot for tickets.
LikeLike
NEB v. MO.
Advantage Mo—much more popuous state; slightly better academics, 9000 bigger enrollment, better bball program historically
Mo’s total research 2009 was $244639000, $108131000 of which was federal $s. Mo was #97 in us news. Endowment was $440923.
Neb.’s total research was 229761000, 81884000 of which was federal. US news rank 101, $627203 endowmnent
Advantage Nebraska–no pro sports in state means more passionate following, better overall athletic program, esp. football (#24 v. #53 in Diector’s Cup 2012-13
I just think that overall Neb was more of a “reach” on a lot of levels then a lot of Big 10 fans will acknowledge.
LikeLike
Endowments should have 3 more 000s after them…point is, Neb is more endowed……..sorry Andy
LikeLike
Not sure where you got your endowment numbers but they’re wrong. Mizzou’s endowment is $620M, and system wide it’s $1.2B. So you were off by about $180M, kind of a lot.
http://missouri.edu/about/facts.php
Mizzou does considerably better on competitively won federal research dollars. Nebraska gets a lot of corn money.
And before somebody complains about Nebraska’s med school being in Omaha so it doesn’t count, remember that UMKC has a pretty big med school, and UMR has a pretty big engineering school, and Mizzou doesn’t get to count either of those.
Point is as an institution, Mizzou was more B1Gish. AAU, large enrollment, big population state, more research (especially federal). Football is decent enough. 24th in average attendance. 29 bowl games. Bowls in 8 out of the last 10 years. Missouri would have “fit in” just fine and been on par with schools like Iowa, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue.
Nebraska didn’t match up as well in pretty much anything I mentioned. Small school, small state, non-AAU, weak research, lower ACT average, lower USNews ranking. Basketball has never won an NCAA tournament game. Director’s cup rankings propped up mostly by women’s sports (volleyball, tennis, softball, etc). But much like Kansas they have one thing they’re really, really good at. Although they really haven’t been that good in nearly a decade, even splitting the series with Missouri since 2003, but still, they’ll be good again some day, right?
Anyway, like I said, I would have liked to have seen Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas stick together. Those were fun rivalries that went back to the 1800s. It’s a shame to see them go. I don’t miss Iowa State, Kansas State, Colorado, or Oklahoma State near as much. But I do miss Nebraska, Kansas, and OU. It would have been nice to join/form a good conference that included those schools.
But let’s not pretend Nebraska got in to the B1G for any other reason than football. Pretty much all the non-football reasons go to Mizzou.
The SEC already had plenty of good football teams so they chose Missouri for the reasons the B1G could have. I guess in the end the B1G knew they were football poor they had to reach on a lesser school to get a good football program, and the SEC did the opposite for the opposite reasons.
LikeLike
But that doesn’t mean that NE was a complete unfit in its own right. In the end, I doubt MO made any school’s pie bigger. NE did. You can’t have too many Purdue’s which just as you can’t have too many Michigan’s. You have to strike the right balance. If B10 brings in another king – say Texas, maybe then MO starts looking better. Fits their profile, better geographic connection. Who knows. MO may decide that SEC is a pretty good place to be. I don’t think anyone has ever really said NE is a better school than MO. It was just a better school for the B10 in terms of what the B10 was seeking. I’d say both schools have improved their lot just be leaving the Big 12.
LikeLike
Mizzou improved the SEC’s academic profile. They would not have done so for the B1G. In all honesty, all Mizzou could offer was to be roughly equivalent to the bottom third to bottom fourth of the B1G academically, and to at least not be the clear cut last place school in the league academically. Nebraska did that. But they are at least closer than a school like Oklahoma I guess. Probably about on par with a school like Tennessee.
Missouri very possibly could have increased the overall pie of the B1G. The population of Missouri is bigger than the population of Maryland, for example. And Missouri’s fanbase is stronger than either Rutgers or Maryland’s. Those two schools average 45-50k attendance, Missouri averages 67k. Almost certainly higher TV ratings as well.
But the SEC is a good league to be in. Missouri did alright for themselves. Definitely some good schools in the SEC. Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas A&M. Even Georgia and Kentucky rank fairly high in terms of research dollars, etc. They could be AAU some day.
LikeLike
What gets let out with all this conversation about Missouri is Jim Delaney told the Big XII commish (Beebe?) that if he B10 accepted Missouri, they wouldn’t take another university from the Big XII. In the end, the B10 preferred Nebraska to Missouri WHEN they expanded to 12…
Missouri was more or less off the board when they took off to the SEC. If Delaney really wanted Missouri, I think they’d have fought harder for Missouri but Delaney had more interests (even though he might still want Missouri) in putting a wound into the ACC and going after the northeast (Rutgers) and some mid-Atlantic (Maryland, Virginia, etc.) schools…
Personally I’d love Missouri in the B10, feel they are a natural if not perfect fit and much prefer them to Rutgers. Yet Delaney imo preferred having Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan & Ohio State games televised in the NYC, Jersey, Maryland & DC markets more than adding the state of Missouri.
LikeLike
Andy, I try to like you….I really do……You make it so hard. You’re like an attorney who has his case won and always ends up pissing off the judge……
Fact is, KU, NEB, and MO are very close acdemically in terms of most measureables……for example, in us news in 2013 Mo was 97 and NEB 104…..however, just a couple of years ago NEB was at 96 and MO at 101……look, NEB, KU, and MO go back in forth in us news ratings for as long as I’ve been watching them….
What DOES matter is that MO has 9000 more students while maintaining essentially the same academic rankings……so MO’s IMPACT is greater than NEB’s. It’s sorta like Michigan being compared to UVA. They have essentially the same enrollment standards but Michigan has 43000 students, VA 23000……so you’d have to say UM is by far the “better” school. Just say that about MO and NEB and I’ll let you alone.
As far as Neb’s overall program not really being much better than Mo’s……MO has a total of 2 NCs for men’s and women’s sports, the last one being in 1965. I don’t recall the exact #, but NEB has something like 20, not counting football. Also, you assert Neb’s 30 place advantage in the Director’s Cup mostly relates to women’s sports…..even if true,so what. I like women’s sports esp softball and volleyball. I’d rate them 3rd and 4th on my interest list after football and men’s basketball.
You also completely fail to acknowledge NEB’s enthusiastic fan following in many sports, not just football,, which is a HUGE matter. When you get 20000 NEB fans at NW or IND or Purdue…..$ for everyone. And when you have 6000-7000 fans at a volleyball game, it elevates that sport.
LikeLike
US News rankigns are all about undergrad, and after the top 50 or so the rankings get pretty hazy with a margin of error of about +/- 10 or 20. Mizzou ranks around 25 spots higher in the research budget rankings and is AAU while Nebraska is not. Missouri has a decently good medical school. Nebraska does not have a medical school. Missouri has a top 50 MBA program. Nebraska’s is not ranked in the top 100. Missouri has a veterinary school. Nebraska does not. Missouri has a research nuclear reactor. Nebraska does not. Missouri actually has one elite program that ranks #1 in the country by some rankings, ahead of Columbia University, Northwestern, etc: Journalism. Nebraska doesn’t have any elite programs in anything. And yes, Missouri’s enrollment is about 36% higher and and their state population is more than 200% higher. So I think it’s safe to say that Missouri is the better school, if only somewhat, despite what USNews’s undergrad ranking says.
As for sports, maybe you like women’s sports, but they’re fairly unpopular compared to the big 3: football, basketball and baseball. Missouri’s baseball history is considerably stronger than Nebraska’s. Missouri’s basketball history is much, much, much better than Nebraska’s (Missouri leads the all time series by something like 40 games and Nebraska has never won an NCAA tournament game while Missouri has 26 NCAA tournament appearances and several deep runs. As far as football, as I posted above, Missouri went 26-15 vs Nebraska from 1938-1978. The series was basically tied at that point. But as I’ve discussed here over the years, Missouri’s administration for whatever reason chose to de-emphasize football in the 1980s and Missouri sank down to doormat status for about 20 years. Nebraska went in the opposite direction and beat Missouri 25 straight times, often by absurdly large margins. Over the last 8 games the series went back to even, 4-4, as Missouri finally got it’s act together in football again, and Nebraska faded after Tom Osborne retired.
Anyway, say what you want, but Missouri was the better institutional fit, other than making the mistake of not supporting football for about 15 years starting in the early 80s. That allowed Nebraska to climb way ahead in that sport and made them an attractive relative choice. I guess the Big Ten really needed improved football. But then that doesn’t really explain Rutgers and Maryland.
LikeLike
As for sports, maybe you like women’s sports, but they’re fairly unpopular compared to the big 3: football, basketball and baseball.
Andy, no one would argue against football and men’s basketball being #1 and #2, but ranking baseball an inherent #3 is iffy at best. I think you could make a much more solid argument for women’s basketball in that slot; virtually every Division I institution, save for predominantly male Virginia Military and The Citadel, field teams, and while a lot of those schools, mostly in the lowest tier of conferences, pay lip service to their programs, that can’t be said for the vast majority of members of the top 5 conferences. For the 2011-2012 season (the most recent statistically available), 16 schools averaged over 5,000 per game, 50 averaged at least 2,500 and six conferences averaged more than 2,000 per game (the Pac was seventh).
NCAA baseball attendance from its most recent overall figures (2010) shows only 25 schools exceeded the 2,500 per game mark,all in the Sun Belt outside Virginia and Nebraska.
LikeLike
I’m not putting baseball down in any way — heck, I love the sport — but at the college level it’s almost entirely a regional endeavor, whereas women’s basketball is more national in scope. Therein lies the difference, and why I make women’s basketball #3 and baseball #4.
The next question is, what’s #5? Let’s examine attendance figures for a few other sports:
* Women’s volleyball: In 2012, a total of 19 schools averaged at least 2,000 in attendance (Missouri was 19th, Andy), 25 averaged at least 1,500 and 47 at least 1,000. (The Big Ten had four of the top five — all above 3,000 per game — six of the top nine, and 10 among the top 50.)
* Wrestling: In 2011-2012, ten programs averaged at least 1,595 in dual meet attendance. Five of the top nine were from the Big Ten, led by Iowa (9,014); Lehigh, Cornell and Navy placed seventh, eighth and 10th.
* Men’s soccer: UC Santa Barbara has led the NCAA in attendance for six consecutive years, averaging 5,543 per game in 2012. Next were Connecticut, Maryland, Akron and Cal Poly, all above 2,700.
* Men’s lacrosse: Only 63 schools fielded teams in 2013, and unofficially 12 of them averaged at least 2,000 per game while 27 topped 1,000. Navy, Syracuse, Maryland and Cornell, all in lacrosse hotbeds, exceeded 3,000 per game. (Loyola of Baltimore was ninth, Johns Hopkins 11th.)
Of those four, I’d give a slight edge to volleyball because more schools nationwide field teams. Wrestling, soccer and lacrosse all are fun to watch, but they essentially are regional activities; relatively few schools in the southeast or southwest field men’s soccer teams.
LikeLike
vincent – here’s the most recent (2013) NCAA Baseball attendance numbers.
Click to access attendance130611.pdf
LikeLike
Vince:
You forgot hockey, which is a regional sport like college baseball and is as popular in its heartland. Lacrosse is regional as well but hockey heartland attendance blows lacrosse heartland attendance away.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s regional. Throughout about half of the country baseball is the #3 sport, but it’s largely ignored in the other half. I know the Big Ten, for example, doesn’t care much for baseball. I guess that’s good for Nebraska.
LikeLike
Nebraska was a far better all around athletic program than Missouri. They have had success across a broad range of sports. They were typically 2nd in the Big 12 all around. Missouri was in the middle. So its more than just football athletically. And this is about athletics. Academics is merely a threshold, a pass/fail test, and both pass.
LikeLike
bullet, yes, Nebraska is very strong at women’s sports and Mizzou tends not to be, so overall Nebraska’s program was stronger as far as director’s cup, etc. I acknowledged that.
As far as Nebraska “passing” academically, the voting members of the AAU would tend to disagree.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that Nebraska offered a much bigger payoff in the short-term due to the national prominence of its football program. This payoff is probably stronger in the long-term as well. Its not an affront to MO in anyway. Yes, MO may be better than NE in certain categories. Unfortunately, it could not provide the B10 what it needed most – a football king. MO ended up with a very nice parting gift and extracted itself from the Big 12. And who knows, if there is further expansion, MO may end up in the B10 because the B10 may be looking for the strength’s that MO can provide during the next go around. Interestingly, the old NYT article printed above, shows that NE has always been on B10’s radar.
LikeLike
B1G needed a Western football “king” and the SEC needed new territory and an academic upgrade. As an admitted academic elitest (albeit one that hangs out in sports forums) I am not happy with this, but I understand it.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
As if the NCAA couldn’t get any lower…
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/basketball/ncaa_denies_hardship_waiver_for_36emEbl2sLfvmmFLpA86QJ
LikeLike
Sometimes you just think the P5 should leave and kill the NCAA.
LikeLike
Well, lets see if an appeal/exception is granted. I don’t believe those that have been handling this portion have the authority to step outside the letter of the rule. See: the marine that just had his elligibility restored, shortly after being initially declared ineligible.
LikeLike
Exactly. The schools write strict rules and demand enforcement, then everyone blames the NCAA for following the rules they are given.
He may well win the appeal, but I could see him losing, too.
LikeLike
Bullet:
You probably don’t mind this NCAA ruling. 🙂
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9590057/ncaa-clears-desmond-harrison-play-texas-longhorns
LikeLike
I despise the NCAA with a passion and a fury, but it’s hard to blame them here. The member institutions wanted the transfer rules to be tough, and they got their wish. The kid’s case is heartbreaking, but a death in the family is not one of the allowed exceptions.
Obviously, the rule conflicts with our innate sense of “how it ought to be.” But if they start making “judgment call” waivers, then you’re on the slippery slope that the NCAA is best known for, where inept bureaucrats have to draw lines without any written rule to go on.
This time, the NCAA actually followed its own dumb rules, something it ought to try a little more often.
LikeLike
A far better system would be to simply employ some common sense. But I’m happy to see them follow some more dumb rules. It will only hasten the NCAA’s decline.
LikeLike
It is easy to say they just “common sense” until a lawyer twists your logic to introduce a bunch of loopholes.
LikeLike
Transic,
I don’t see the big problem here. He can transfer, he just can’t play this year. The NCAA didn’t write the rule, the schools did. The NCAA just tries to enforce it equally.
A sick family member needs tending, a dead one doesn’t. That’s why the rule is written the way it is. If the schools don’t like it, they should change the rule. If the point is to spend more time with his family, he probably shouldn’t be playing anyway. Besides, his mom still has another son in town so it’s not like this guy had to be there to console his mom.
If players didn’t transfer at the drop of a hat, the NCAA probably wouldn’t have such strict rules on this. The players have done this to themselves. Over 50% of top players go to multiple high schools, and well over a third transfer in college. The potential for violations is very high due to this, so tight rules have been written.
LikeLike
Then what would be the reason for the schools omitting death as a hardship case under the rule?
LikeLike
Like I said, it may be as simple as dead people don’t need tending but sick people do. There’s no reason to rush to be home after someone already died.
LikeLike
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8
What Americans think about other states in the union.
LikeLike
The 2013-14 ACC basketball schedule:
http://raycomsports.com/sports_labs_docs/m-baskbl/2013-14_m-baskbl_schedule.pdf
LikeLike
There’s been some discussion on this Board about how Michigan State ended up in the Big Ten after Chicago left. For a fascinating account, I can recommend “Arrogance and Scheming in the Big Ten: Michigan State’s Quest for Membership and Michigan’s Powerful Opposition,” by David Young. It’s not an easy read, but it does deal with many issues that we are still talking about today – why a school would want to join a conference, the debate about “student” athletes, the politics of allowing a “Little Brother” school into the same conference, and the “winning at all costs” mentality due to the lure of football money (even before TV). The Big Ten didn’t actively seek to replace Chicago when it first ceased football, and then all sports – and only Michigan State and Pittsburgh (which was championed behind the scenes by Ohio State and the then-Big Ten Commissioner) were the only schools that tried hard to get in.
LikeLike
I read the book and I second your review. Very informative and well-researched, but the writing/editing could have been much better.
I also recommend Staggs University by Robin Lester for a detailed account on the rise and fall of UChicago football. An excellent (though somewhat dense) book that raises the question as to whether Chicago was actually better off long term de-emphasizing athletics.
LikeLike
Any thoughts on the type of program Chicago would have today had it remained in the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Very much like JHU or Stanford (or Northwestern), I would think. Stanford, JHU, and the U of C were founded in the late 19th century on the German university model, so heavily emphasize research (while the Ivies and their ilk started as liberal arts colleges that later tacked on research). JHU and the U of C still make you work for your grades. In terms of recruiting, it would be a lot like Northwestern.
LikeLike
Any thoughts on the type of program Chicago would have today had it remained in the Big Ten?
Chicago was a football king, and they had a Heisman Trophy winner just four years before they disbanded the team. If they’d continued to focus on athletics, I could very well imagine them being a Notre Dame-like program.
Chicago won 73 Big Ten championships up 1946, the year of its departure. Co-founding members Purdue and Northwestern still have not won that many.
LikeLike
Until about 2005, Chicago had more Big Ten titles than Nobel Prize winning graduates.
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2013/08/22/notre-dame-tops-nation-in-college-football-ticket-prices/
Most expensive average home game tickets on the secondary market this year:
1. Notre Dame ($294)
2. Ohio State ($246)
3. Michigan ($230)
4. Nebraska ($210)
5. Texas A&M ($204)
6. Georgia ($188)
7. LSU ($181)
8. Alabama ($179)
9. Iowa ($166)
10. Oklahoma ($161)
LikeLike
ND have luxury suites? Been a long time since i was there.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/23284607/michigan-notre-dame-usc-talk-to-atlanta-about-kickoff-game-possibilities
The Chik-fil-A Kickoff game(s) organizers have been reaching out to non-southern teams lately.
Stokan told CBSSports.com he’s spoken with USC, Michigan, UCLA and Notre Dame on a “very preliminary” basis about future appearances.
Chick-Fil-A also spoke with Ohio State, which Stokan says seems tied to the home-and-home model.
I really hope those 4 schools say no, especially if they want to pair them with an SEC team. I’m really tired of the SEC getting all these “neutral” site games in the south and then proclaiming their superiority.
I’m certainly glad OSU said no, especially since we have a marquee game scheduled for every year through 2023 already. I don’t want to lose those home and homes for a 1-off road game in Atlanta against the SEC. And that’s from a Buckeye fan living in Atlanta.
—
On a completely unrelated note, there’s also bowl news in that article.
The Mountain West plans to re-up with its current bowl partners — Famous Idaho Potato, Poinsettia, New Mexico, Hawaii, Las Vegas — and is eyeing a sixth, possibly with start-ups in Los Angeles (Christmas Bowl) or Washington (Stars and Stripes) or Boca Raton, Fla., (paired with C-USA), MWC commissioner Craig Thompson said.
Los Angeles could win out because of proximity, Thompson said, but the key will be finding another conference pairing. The Stars and Stripes told Thompson it has the Big Ten’s 11th team locked up (if the Big Ten gets 11 bowl eligible).
Big Ten spokesman Scott Chipman said the league will have up to 12 bowl partners and is still reviewing possibilities on the back end of the bowl slate.
That’s 2 more bowls. And the B10 kinda sorta has a bowl in DC, for the 11th team. Getting to 12 tie-ins seems weird unless they’re counting both members of the split pairs.
LikeLike
Brian – its not Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston’s fault that they are able to make these opening weekend games a success. You really ought to complaining the convention and visitors bureaus, and NFL teams of Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, and Minneapolis for not trying to emulate the southern cities by staging these kinds of events. I have attended a Chick-Fil-A Kickoff game and a Cowboys Classic, and these types of games are lots of fun.
While I’d rather do home and homes, these neutral site games are here to stay for several reasons. These types of games don’t fall within the conference TV packages, so the host site negotiates its own TV deal for the game. No return trip is required. Ticket prices usually far exceed a typical game on campus. When you add all of this up, these games are money makers for the schools since they make almost as much as a home game without a required return game, so over a two year cycle, that’s more than a typical home game. Also, the amount of pre-season attention these types of games generate is off the charts. While UGA/Clemson is the most anticipated game of the first weekend, LSU/TCU and Bama/VA Tech aren’t far behind.
Also, I remind you that LSU will venture to the not-so-frozen tundra of Lambeau Field to open the 2016 season with the Badgers.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – its not Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston’s fault that they are able to make these opening weekend games a success.”
No, it isn’t. And I don’t blame them for what they’re doing and who they invite. I don’t dislike the games, either. I just get tired of the SEC bandwagon fans (you know, the ones that don’t remember CFB before 2006) using virtual home games to trumpet their superiority. It’s like Red Sox fans after they finally won the World Series.
“You really ought to complaining the convention and visitors bureaus, and NFL teams of Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, and Minneapolis for not trying to emulate the southern cities by staging these kinds of events.”
Well, I am disappointed that none of them have tried it yet. I think Chicago has the size to pull it off, but Soldier Field may be too small to make it economical. I’d think LA, NYC or DC could make a go of it. Several midwest cities could do well if they had a B10 team. I’m a little surprised St. Louis or KC hasn’t tried it with a B10/B12 (or MO) game. Maybe they’ve looked at it and the numbers don’t add up.
“I have attended a Chick-Fil-A Kickoff game and a Cowboys Classic, and these types of games are lots of fun.”
I’m sure they are. I’d probably really enjoy going to one that OSU isn’t in, I just don’t feel like paying those prices for a ticket.
“While I’d rather do home and homes, these neutral site games are here to stay for several reasons.”
I like home and homes for the revenue and for the chance for the team to visit some new places. I’d be OK with a neutral site for OSU, but only if it’s truly neutral. The B10 already plays enough “neutral” games in enemy territory during bowl season.
“No return trip is required.”
I like the return trips, especially when OSU plays a school like OU or UT.
“When you add all of this up, these games are money makers for the schools since they make almost as much as a home game without a required return game, so over a two year cycle, that’s more than a typical home game.”
It’s also a blow to the local economy and 1 less chance to get alumni back to campus (and solicit donations). For schools with super large stadiums, the money isn’t much of an incentive. MI barely made more than half of what a home game is worth to them when they played AL. OSU is in the same boat. A home game is so valuable that nobody wants to pay them enough to play elsewhere.
“Also, the amount of pre-season attention these types of games generate is off the charts.”
You’d get the same effect with a home and home, though. The OSU/UT series was huge, and that wasn’t even an opener. Ditto OSU/USC, ND/OU, etc
“Also, I remind you that LSU will venture to the not-so-frozen tundra of Lambeau Field to open the 2016 season with the Badgers.”
Yes they will. But only when it’s nice and warm. I have no issue with the WI/LSU series. It’s basically a home and home. But MI or ND in Atlanta versus the SEC is a road game that won’t be returned, and it’s even worse for USC or UCLA.
LikeLike
Brian – in my experience attending these type of games, they are not “virtual home games”. The way it works in Atlanta and Dallas is the the NFL season ticket holder gets a shot at buying tickets first, and each of the schools are allotted an amount of tickets similar to a bowl game (15-30,000). A team visiting an SEC stadium gets a maximum of 7,000 tickets. In the B-12, I think its only 3,000. Many of the NFL season ticket holders buy tickets and then put them on the secondary market, so each school’s fans get an equal shot at tickets. When LSU played UNC in Atlanta a few years back, LSU fans had a slight advantage, despite the longer distance. Oregon fans only accounted for a quarter of the crowd in 2011, but they were very loud until LSU started steamrolling the Ducks.
I love OOC home and home series, and have attended my share of them, including Arizona, Arizona State, Washington, West Virginia, Texas A&M, Tulane, and Ohio State. I look forward to future home and homes with Oklahoma, NC State, and Arizona State. Like I said earlier, I’d rather do home and homes, but from an economic and schedule flexibility standpoint, these neutral site games make sense. If a team’s revenue from a neutral site game is more than half of a home game, then they made money. As I understand home and home economics, the home team gets everything and the visiting team gets nothing. Home and home are not like rent-a-win games where a school pays another school $400k to $1 million to show up. Also, most schools charge the same PSL or mandatory donation fee regardless of whether there are 6, 7, or 8 home games.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – in my experience attending these type of games, they are not “virtual home games”.”
When the B10 or P12 is playing in Atlanta? That’s a virtual home game. One team travels much farther, one fan base has more fans there, etc. I know the ticket distribution isn’t the same as a home game.
“The way it works in Atlanta and Dallas is the the NFL season ticket holder gets a shot at buying tickets first,”
Both of which greatly favor the southern schools.
“Like I said earlier, I’d rather do home and homes, but from an economic and schedule flexibility standpoint, these neutral site games make sense.”
But you have to have a whole in your schedule until the last minute. OSU has a marquee OOC game (VT, OU, UNC, TCU, OR and UT, all home and homes) lined up for every year through 2023 right now. Add in the 9th B10 game and it’ll never make sense for OSU. And that’s without discussing the money.
“If a team’s revenue from a neutral site game is more than half of a home game, then they made money.”
It depends how you view the money. One of the MI fans can provide the details, but they barely made half of a home game when they played AL. Was that before or after expenses? Did that have other impacts (fewer donations, ancillary cash flows, etc)? I don’t know. Did Ann Arbor take a hit because MI played 1 fewer home game? Yes. Was it worth the coverage? I guess so, because MI isn’t opposed to doing it again.
Also, playing a 1 off game can leave a hole in the schedule for the next year. If you have to buy a home game, that reduces the value of that home game, too It also means a lesser opponent, so less coverage. You’ll net more money, but the home and home has other benefits (PR/coverage, being a good citizen, etc).
I’m not saying this is a bad decision for a school in general. I’d like to see teams in the N and W stop always traveling to the S to play southern teams in these games, though. That’s all I’m saying.
LikeLike
Brian,
Michigan made $4.7 M for the Alabama game. But I think that’s Revenue, not Profit. In 2011, Michigan had 8 home games, and had $85 M in revenue, and $61 M in profit. (Roughly $10.5 M / game revenue and $7.5 M / game profit). [ http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2556/texas-tops-in-football-profit-revenue ]
I still don’t know what to think of it. While you can argue that $4.7M is better than “half a home game”, I think the opportunity cost should really be for only one game, as Michigan has not scheduled any other neutral site games (or one-off road games, for that matter). Michigan has gotten a bunch of opponents above the level of a MAC school for one-off games over the last few / next few years: Utah, Colorado, San Diego State, Air Force, Oregon State, UNLV, BYU, Hawaii, and Cincinnati. So the alternative to playing Alabama in Dallas was perhaps a MAC school, but possibly a lower tier Pac-10 or upper tier Big East / Mtn West school.
Michigan AD Dave Brandon is ultimately the one who made the decision to accept the invite from Jerry Jones. And Brandon has a very strong reputation as a CFO, so I feel very strongly that the numbers worked out for Michigan. [Don’t get me wrong, though, Brandon is not well liked amongst the Michigan fanbase, because he’s too much of a money guy, and he’s arrogant and flat out lies when he spins his decisions. Yes, the Michigan fanbase thinks our own AD is too smarmy and arrogant.]
I don’t know the numbers, but I do know that there are a lot of Michigan alums and a lot of native Michiganders in Texas.
However, while Brady Hoke has been very successful recruiting, he has not gotten any recruits from Texas in the 12 months prior to or since that game.
While I wouldn’t mind seeing Michigan play in another of these games, it’s got to be the right situation, as the past one was certainly a mixed bag. I would agree that a neutral site game in NYC or DC makes more sense than Atlanta. Miami probably makes sense, as the Dolphins owner is a Michigan alum who donated enough cash to get the Michigan Business School named after him.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard anyone, including Brandon, say that Michigan made more from the Dallas game than it would for a home game; only that it was basically a wash.
But $115,000 people, most of them Michigan partisans, would have seen a game in Ann Arbor. I don’t know how many Michigan fans got to see the JerryWorld game, but it was a lot less. Of course, the fact that Michigan got clobbered doesn’t improve fan perceptions of that game. Obviously, the Ann Arbor game they gave up would have been against a far less sexy opponent.
So I think Brandon will be open to those games if he gets the right offer, but I don’t expect to see a steady diet of them. I don’t think Michigan got enough out of it, and certainly most of the fans were not happy. I’ve no doubt that Brandon would screw the fans if he could make more money, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
LikeLike
Yep. The alternative is the approach OSU has taken, scheduling home and homes with TCU and UT in the next 11 seasons. I think both can work depending on the school.
LikeLike
From a money-standpoint, or from an exposure standpoint, Michigan playing Alabama in Dallas is probably ok. From a football standpoint, that was a horrible decision.
It’s been mentioned that home-and-homes are forthcoming with Arkansas and Virginia Tech. Va Tech I really like, as it’s a marquee opponent and the road game has nearby markets with lots of alums and potential football recruits. However, while Arkansas is fine as a program, I don’t see the same number of alums or recruits around Fayetteville.
LikeLike
Brian – regarding your comment about “only when its nice and warm”, LSU played at South Bend in November in the 70s and 90s. Also, as I understand the B1G’s schedule policy, it would be impossible to play an OOC game in November. Furthermore, unlike the NFL, college football is not a winter sport. Except for bowl games, CFB is played in the fall.
LikeLike
That’s changed. Various B10 teams have played OOC in November. Northwestern will play ND in November in 2014 (if the Irish don’t back out). Wisconsin will play BYU in November this season.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – regarding your comment about “only when its nice and warm”, LSU played at South Bend in November in the 70s and 90s.”
Two things:
1. I think you know LSU is generally the most adventuresome and aggressive scheduler in the SEC. Criticisms that apply to the conference in general don’t necessarily apply to LSU in particular. UF hasn’t left FL for an OOC game since 1991, for example. You have to go back to the 1960’s to find 10 OOC games outside FL for UF. Of those 10, 7 were in the south (NC, TN, TX).
2. Unfortunately for us, the 1990s were a long time ago.
“Also, as I understand the B1G’s schedule policy, it would be impossible to play an OOC game in November.”
Not true. Any B10 team can schedule OOC games during a bye week in October or November. They also could schedule a game the week after Thanksgiving back when the B10 took that week off.
“Furthermore, unlike the NFL, college football is not a winter sport.”
That depends where you live. I think most Louisianans would consider November in WI to be winter (average Nov hi = 46 degrees, lo = 28 degrees). January in Baton Rouge is like October in Madison.
Besides, bowls are played in December and January, some outdoors in the north and the mountains. How is that not winter?
LikeLike
Any B10 team can schedule OOC games during a bye week in October or November.
The logistics are difficult, because many OOC games are scheduled 5+ years in advance, and the Big Ten has only just announced its conference schedule out to 2017. However, somehow Northwestern managed to schedule Notre Dame for the middle of November in 2014. (That’s assuming it happens: the Irish are currently over-scheduled for 2014, and they need to move a game.)
Beyond that, I suspect most schools, if they can avoid it, don’t want the distraction of a non-conference game after the higher-stake conference slate has begun.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The logistics are difficult, because many OOC games are scheduled 5+ years in advance, and the Big Ten has only just announced its conference schedule out to 2017.”
But usually only the major games. The minor ones get filled in later.
“However, somehow Northwestern managed to schedule Notre Dame for the middle of November in 2014. (That’s assuming it happens: the Irish are currently over-scheduled for 2014, and they need to move a game.)”
And WI added BYU in November, 2013. It can happen, but it takes two to tango. I doubt LSU really is looking to schedule WI in November.
“Beyond that, I suspect most schools, if they can avoid it, don’t want the distraction of a non-conference game after the higher-stake conference slate has begun.”
Every conference that plays early conference games plays OOC games late. The B10 is about to join those ranks.
LikeLike
Also, it seems likely that the B10 will only allow its schools to do neutral-neutral with the B10 getting TV rights to one of the neutral site games from now on. So something like the Wisconsin-LSU series in Houston and Green Bay.
LikeLike
Does the B10 have that power currently or would the presidents have to vote to make that change? I thought the B10 teams could do whatever they wanted with OOC games.
LikeLike
Even if it isn’t a formal power, I think that Delany heavily encourages the schools to get the B10 TV rights to half the neutral site games they play it. There might be some AD that says “screw it”, but I imagine that pretty much all B10 schools will be team players.
Of course, if Chick-fil-A starts a game in DC (where they have a pretty heavy presence) or the Meadowlands (where they don’t have much of a presence but where they may want to expand more) featuring a B10 team with the B10 getting the TV rights, that could work.
LikeLike
Sure, I can see Delany applying pressure. That’s different than the B10 “allowing” something to happen, though.
Anyway, don’t neutral site game rights belong to the owner of the game? They can sell those rights to any network, I think. ESPN happens to buy most of them now, but I think they are bid out. My point is, the B10 teams may not have any say. Did MI have any input on the rights to their AL game? I thought they took their $4.7M check and that’s it.
LikeLike
Right. My thinking is that going forward, the B10 will demand TV rights to half the neutral site games from the organizers if B10 schools are participating. So the Wisconsin-LSU series seems to be something that the schools are working out with the respective NFL teams who own the stadiums.
That’s why I floated the idea of Chick-Fil-A starting a game in DC (in partnership with the B10). If the B10 owns the rights to that game, then another B10 team can be sent down to Atlanta (or elsewhere) to play.
Oh wait. I see that Wisconsin has already committed to playing ‘Bama in the Cowboys Classic in 2015. We’ll see how the B10 deals with this issue going forward.
LikeLike
The B1G has the rights to the Rose Bowl as those games are shown over and over on the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
Part of the B1G/PAC/Rose trinity agreement. PAC also has those rights and replays past games.
LikeLike
Since they said “bowl partners”, the direct reading is that they are talking about total contracts signed, not bowl tie-ins on a per-year basis. So each pair of alternate-year contracts in that 12 would represent a single bowl on a per-year basis.
LikeLike
Yep. If you look below, if the Orange counts as a partner, there are already 12 B10 bowl partners, yielding at least 9-10 slots per year.
LikeLike
The Stars and Stripes told Thompson it has the Big Ten’s 11th team locked up (if the Big Ten gets 11 bowl eligible).
I wish the Stars and Stripes well, but the only sensible venue for a bowl in Washington is Nationals Park. RFK is way too old and decrepit (one reason the Military Bowl headed to Annapolis), and FedEx too cavernous for such a lower-tier bowl.
LikeLike
11th?
How are they counting?
1. Rose
1b. Orange
2. CapOne
3. Outback
4. Holiday
5. Pinstripe
6. Gator/Music City
7. SF
8. Detroit
9. Dallas/FtW
Unless the B10 expects to get a team selected for the Orange/At-large/Playoff every year . . .
LikeLike
Wow, the Gator Bowl is sinking.
LikeLike
Actually, the Gator/Music City, Pinstripe, and Kraft are in the same pool. Yeah, I suppose the Gator sank. Kraft moved up.
LikeLike
Perhaps it’s a guaranteed 11th with the chance for it to be 10th but he just spoke in short hand.
LikeLike
Well, it could be 12th (if the B10 gets 2 teams in to the Orange/Playoff/At-Large). If there are 12 bowl-eligible schools.
LikeLike
I could see Michigan playing another neutral site game in the near future. Setting the final score aside, the athletic department felt that playing Alabama in Dallas to open last season was a success in terms of exposure, interface with major donors, etc. In fact, per John U. Bacon’s book, Michigan was able to sell out its ticket allotment (25K) without having to open sales to the general public–see http://mgoblog.com/content/fourth-and-long-excerpt.
If UM were to do this, the likely season for it to happen would be 2017. Non-conference opponents are set through 2016 and the Wolverines have home-and-home series with Arkansas and Virginia Tech going from 2018 through 2021.
The 2017 schedule has five home conference games, four road conference games and one known non-conference opponent playing at Michigan Stadium (Cincinnati on 9 September). If UM were to schedule another home non-conference opponent, the schedule for that year would be 7-4-1.
One possible opponent from the ACC/SEC who doesn’t have a major opponent on any of their published schedules to date is Texas A&M. Auburn would be another possibility. From the ACC, Miami-FL and Clemson both have openings as well. See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/ncaa-football-schedules.php for future football schedules.
I personally prefer to see teams do home-and-home games myself rather than going to pro stadiums, but I can appreciate the “branding and promotion” opportunities of these games for the participating schools. It sure doesn’t hurt to have ESPN hype an opening weekend matchup months in advance of the contest.
We’ll see what happens. When Notre Dame cancelled its series with Michigan, UM has had to try to fill the hole in its schedule with other major programs. While I’m confident they’ll be able to do so in 2022 and beyond, there is a need to get a major program on the non-conference schedule for 2017. An opening weekend game in Atlanta versus a name ACC or SEC team would certainly help do the trick.
LikeLike
Both sides deny it, but the NY Times is reporting that the NFL pressured ESPN into dropping out of a documentary project with PBS’s Frontline about concussions. This could be a big blow to whatever shred of integrity ESPN’s journalism side tried to claim.
LikeLike
Some media rights wrangling by KU, making TWC and Cox play nice. http://www.kuathletics.com/news/2013/8/22/GEN_0822135049.aspx
LikeLike
If you want to read about the extent ESPN has cleverly manipulated college sports, this one is a good read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sports/ncaafootball/college-footballs-most-dominant-player-its-espn.html?hp
This is exactly why I disagree with Frank about the need to “stay good” with them. The B1G is large enough at this point that it can be “bold enough” and make a clean break (along with a flipping of a proverbial bird on the way out).
LikeLike
So your conclusion from an article that shows the massive and growing amount of influence that ESPN has on college football is that . . . the B10 doesn’t have to stay good with them? How does that follow? If anything, ESPN’s relative influence has grown bigger than the B10’s has. How does the NYTimes article support your conclusion?
LikeLike
What I’m saying is that ESPN is banking on the conferences not defying them by taking their business somewhere else. The way to stem their power is by not giving them the leverage needed to manipulate the scheduling. Sort of like how Notre Dame manages to keep their home games on another network. They do what is most important to them. The B1G should have that same attitude.
Or have you not noticed how anti-B1G ESPN has become?
LikeLike
I am on record ~~~ many people are ~~~ on this board in pointing out the anti-B1G bias of ESpin. There is no question in my mind it began rocketing in 2007 when Delany said “consider them [the dice] rolled.” The fact that ESecPN low-balled the B1G in the first place shows the white hot hatred that sEcSPN has for the B1G. It got worse when FOX became the partner for the BTN. It got worse year by year as the BTN quickly turned a profit.
Even if some think it is a conspiracy theory, I have no doubt that the competition between the networks has been a significant driving force in realignment.
That being said, I agree with FtT and many others that spurning ESpin’s giant pile of $$ would be dumb.
Several reasons:
1. It is not just ESpin. It’s ESpin/ABC. Over-the-air ratings still dwarf cable ratings. So, that leaves NBC, FOX or CBS. I doubt any of them can or are willing to match ~~~ at this time ~~~ ESpin/ABC/Disney’s pile of $$. At this point, the BTN is NOT a viable alternative to O-t-A.
2. Walking away from ESpin’s pile of $$ is not the only solution to the problem. Example: make ESpin pay even more because they have been such pr*cks. (not necessarily in $$, but in contract concessions, etc.). Example: start winning Football NCs.
3. The “problem” is eventually self-correcting, because (a) the B1G has protected itself very well with the BTN, (b) because strong competitors remain in the O-t-A game (FOX & CBS and to a lesser extent NBC) and (c) because very rich and strong potential competitors are on the horizon in the cable/internet game (Google, Netflix, BTN/P12N, etc.). The point: the B1G has options. See also 6b.
4a. Leaving a pile of $$ on the table just “funds” ESpin’s ability to continue waging “war” against the B1G.
4b. The B1G doesn’t need to take ESpin down; FOX is going to do that. The World Wide Loser has retrenched on all fronts. FOX has kicked ESpin’s ass across the globe and can now focus all of its attention on taking ESpin’s US marketshare. FOX would not want the B1G to leave ESpin’s pile of $$ on the table. Every dollar the B1G takes from ESpin is one less competing dollar that FOX has to worry about and is, essentially two dollars that FOX has to wage it’s “war” against ESpin.
5. The “problem” is only a football problem. In all other respects, the B1G’s reputation is just fine.
6a. Ultimately, the “problem” will fade because it has not worked, is not working and will not work. In the end, I will always root for my team and what those f***ers at ESpin or what monkeys on message boards think is irrelevant. F’em all. Case in point: PSU; still standing
.
6b. The B1G has 4 Kings, at least 2 Princes and 14 teams; the 3 largest stadiums; the largest alumni bases living coast-to-coast, huge tv/cable ratings, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ESpin couldn’t take down the B1G if they tried their damnest.
I say: take every dollar they offer and demand more. THAT is the way to give the finger to ESpin!!
LikeLike
Btw, so I don’t sound like a complete B1G homer here, IMO, ESpin doesn’t have the power to take down the SEC, ACC or P12 either. ESpin has tremendous influence/power, but there are limits, particularly when you are dealing with rabid fan bases.
By contrast, for reasons that have been much-discussed on this board, IMO, by withdrawing its support for the LHN, ESpin has the power to destabilize the BXII leading to its potential demise.
LikeLike
Re: Point 1
This season, ESPN channels will televise about 450 college games. ESPN’s closest competitor, Fox, will show 50 on various networks.
Also of interest:
“If we were in the Big 12, I don’t know that Johnny Manziel would have won the Heisman,” Mr. Hyman said.
…
ESPN’s contracts have increasingly allowed it to go, as its executives like to say, “beyond the white lines,” putting microphones on coaches and getting access to team practices and locker rooms.
…
Underscoring ESPN’s special relationship with college football is the fact that it created and owns the software used for scheduling games. The online portal, known as the Pigskin Access Scheduling System, or PASS, is now used by virtually all conferences and colleges, as well as competing networks.
…
Texas A&M lost to Florida, but the athletic department later boasted that the “GameDay” exposure was worth an estimated $6.5 million.
…
The extent of ESPN’s involvement in the reordering of conferences has been the subject of much debate. N.C.A.A. rules forbid television networks from dictating what they want conferences or colleges to do, but they are free to offer an opinion if asked.
LikeLike
I think it would be mistake to completely abandon ESPN/ABC, but I’d like to see the B1G move a game or two to FOX, similar to how CBS shows the SEC game of the week.
LikeLike
Tom,
“I think it would be mistake to completely abandon ESPN/ABC, but I’d like to see the B1G move a game or two to FOX, similar to how CBS shows the SEC game of the week.”
The main advantage of CBS is that they only show the SEC so they can be completely biased. NBC is the same way with ND. Fox would be a different story because they have the B12 and P12 as well. Maybe Fox could go anti-SEC spin to counterbalance ESPN and draw a bunch of fans that are sick of ESPN.
The other problem is that ESPN is just plain better at covering CFB. I’m sure Fox will improve in time, but they are way behind right now. Their studio shows stink. Their announcers are weak. They miss plays, show too many crowd/reaction shots, etc. They also have that robot.
LikeLike
Well, ESPN is able to bank in the conferences not defying them for a reason: because they have enormous influence.
The B10 _does_ do what is most important for them: maximize revenues and exposure (and if you notice, the B10 bends the least on scheduling), and doing so means working with ESPN.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face might make you feel better, but it still leaves you without a nose.
LikeLike
The way to stem their power is by not giving them the leverage needed to manipulate the scheduling.
ESPN bought the right to manipulate the schedule. They paid for it fair and square. If it wanted, the Big Ten could play all its games at noon on Saturdays, the way it used to be. Nothing is stopping them. They’d just make less money on those games.
LikeLike
ESPN does set the national agenda for college football but this is right now the height of its influence. It will start to recede a bit. A lot of sports fans I know don’t watch any of its programming anymore except for the live event telecasts. They go right to the specific sports networks to get better highlight packages or thru the Internet. So the only real power is their live content.
If the BIG left ESPN/ABC for Fox, ESPN/ABC would be screwed. The reason the BIG is the richest in the nation is because they draw big ratings regardless of performance on the field. Last year, in a battle of time slot versus time slot, the BIG had higher ratings consistently over the SEC team in the first half of the season. The SEC started to bring in casual fans based on the BCS rankings later in the season when their games had national title implications and no BIG games did. The power of the BIG is based on its large alumni not bandwagons so it is insulated year after year. The alumni will also find the BIG on any channel it is on, like the BTN showed.
Without the BIG, ABC would have the ratings junk of the ACC and only Texas, Oklahoma, and USC to show at the prime 3:30 time slot with some of those kings games already moving to prime time. ESPN would be hit harder at 12:00 trying to fill up two networks plus the SEC Network. What kind of games will be on the SEC Network if ESPN has to fill up ESPN/ESPN2 with the SEC being the only real drawing power of their college football package at noon? If the BIG left Espn, the would bring down the quality of games on the SEC network which would hurt the SECN appeal nationally.
LikeLike
ESPN has more power. You don’t want to be on their bad side. They will do quite well without the Big 10. The Big 10 will get ignored on ESPN and that is not good. Despite some of the paranoid beliefs, ESPN is not anti-Big 10. They televise 3-4 games every Saturday. They are very pro-Big 10 right now. Every conference depends on casual fans to get national ratings.
LikeLike
@bullet – I agree with you. I’ve long said that the complaints about ESPN are overblown in the sense that *everyone* thinks that ESPN is biased against his/her favorite conference/team. What I see from ESPN is “pro-bandwagon” bias – they have a laser-like focus on what’s hot today (LeBron, Tebow, SEC football, etc.) to the detriment of everything else. Back in 2006 when Ohio State and Michigan were #1 and #2 in the country, hardly anyone would accuse ESPN of being anti-Big Ten. To the contrary, they couldn’t get enough of pimping the Big Ten for weeks on end. In 2005, ESPN couldn’t stop talking about USC to the point where they spent a month comparing that squad to the other greatest teams in history in hypothetical matchups… and then that USC team ended up getting beat by Vince Young and Texas in the national championship game. The SEC is just the latest in garnering this favorable treatment and, frankly, deservedly so with this string of national championships. Whatever one thinks of the SEC, they’re at least somewhat deserving of the hype compared the constant talk about the QB situation for a mediocre Jets team.
Besides, it’s REALLY tough for other people across the country to take us Big Ten fans seriously when complaining about ESPN when their marquee college football program (and really the only one that matters in terms of shaping public opinion), College GameDay, has a former Ohio State quarterback, a former Michigan wide receiver, and a former Indiana coach as its panelists. Just take a step back and think about how ridiculous we sound about “anti-Big Ten bias” in that context to Big 12, ACC, Pac-12 and even SEC fans. I’m as big of a Big Ten guy as anyone, but we just need to suck it up, stop complaining about ESPN, and start winning games (starting with my abominable Illini).
Finally, as with conference realignment, you need to think like a university president and not like a fan with respect to TV contracts. What matters in TV contracts is NOT what buffoons like Skip Bayless might say on the air, but rather whether you’re getting (a) maximum dollars and (b) the best time slots with the best exposure (which means that the network has a direct financial incentive to promote you). That’s what ESPN’s offer will be judged on and not the subjective items like pundit opinions that fans focus upon.
LikeLike
ESPN is a middle man. That’s its. Right now they have a giant name brand and great distribution. However, FOX could take a big chunk of them and compete much like CNN was the number 1 undisputed name in Cable news only to now be behind Fox News in viewership (I am well aware of the difference between cable news and sports programming just using CNN as an example of an undisputed leader that no one thought would be dethroned at one time). ESPN relies on other people providing content. If the BIG wasn’t on ESPN they wouldn’t be ignored because the BIG will be providing teams to the playoffs. It behooves ESPN to pump up all the playoffs teams because they have to promote the future playoffs games as well.
College football draws the 2nd biggest ratings behind the NFL. The NFL dictates to ESPN not the other way around as demonstrated by playmakers and the recent frontline controversy. ESPN made a grave mistake short changing the BIG on their tier 3 content, spawning the BTN. And that was before the giant boon in college ratings. ESPN will not risk losing a giant chunk of the 2nd biggest ratings entity they have, college football,in the BIG. There will probably be a split between ESPN and Fox, but don’t think for one second ESPN will be balls out in the next round of negotiations with Jim Delaney. Delaney will be dictating that negotiation.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Despite some of the paranoid beliefs, ESPN is not anti-Big 10. They televise 3-4 games every Saturday. They are very pro-Big 10 right now.”
You need to draw a distinction between the suits at ESPN and the talking heads. The suits love the B10. Some of the talking heads hate it (or certain teams in it), and it’s obvious enough that neutral reporters (media critics, etc) comment on it. I’ve never seen those type of people claim bias against any other conference on ESPN.
Examples:
1. Mark May
2. Mark Schlabach
3. Trev Alberts (showing it isn’t just a recent thing)
4. AP voting (a BCS bowl win earned OSU a 3 spot demotion from one ESPN voter)
I don’t think it’s a grand conspiracy, but little things add up. And when neutral parties also comment on it, it isn’t a paranoid belief.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’ve long said that the complaints about ESPN are overblown in the sense that *everyone* thinks that ESPN is biased against his/her favorite conference/team.”
Then why do neutral media members comment on the anti-B10 (or teams within) of certain ESPN talking heads?
“Besides, it’s REALLY tough for other people across the country to take us Big Ten fans seriously when complaining about ESPN when their marquee college football program (and really the only one that matters in terms of shaping public opinion), College GameDay, has a former Ohio State quarterback, a former Michigan wide receiver, and a former Indiana coach as its panelists.”
You mean the QB that dropped OSU in the AP poll for winning the Sugar Bowl in 2010? The one that had bad blood with Tressel? The one who said on the air he wouldn’t let his son play for OSU? I can’t imagine why some fans might think he has an agenda.
“Just take a step back and think about how ridiculous we sound about “anti-Big Ten bias” in that context to Big 12, ACC, Pac-12 and even SEC fans.”
Who says alumni can’t be as anti-B10 as anyone? They have more reason to dislike other schools in the conference than almost anyone. More importantly, neutral observers back up our observations.
LikeLike
There is no great anti-BIG conspiracy at ESPN. However, there is a great pro-SEC vibe there now. That is no debatable. You say it is deserved but look at the Alabama versus Oklahoma State situation a few years ago. Oklahoma State actually beat more ranked teams than Alabama that year yet all ESPN talked about was who both teams lost too. ESPN, by shaping the argument, helped Alabama get into the nation championship game.
To me, the SEC ESPN relationship,especially now with the SECN is dangerous. ESPN knows that ranked teams against ranked teams produce ratings. It behooves them financially to glowing talk about Georgia and Texas A&M, who each beat two above .500 bcs teams with one each being Vanderbilt and Miss State, so the national sports writers overrank them and thus create constant top 10 matches to market. ESPN does not have the same financial be benefits associated with the BIG, PAC, or Big 12 as those properties are splits with another company. The SEC is almost completed owned by ESPN. I don’t think ESPN has an anti-anything bias, but it is not a crazy conspiracy theory to say that they would promote the one conference they have the most to gain financially thru over the others. That’s just smart business.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 (other than USC) and the Big 12 long got very little attention from ESPN because they chose Fox for their Tier II in the previous contract cycle. That’s the danger of not having them involved.
LikeLike
There was one of those BCS shows where they were talking about an Alabama/LSU rematch and they NEVER even mentioned Oklahoma St. They tried to make it an Alabama/Stanford argument (Stanford who also didn’t win their conference) or Alabama/Oregon (who also had already lost to LSU).
LikeLike
There is no great anti-BIG conspiracy at ESPN. However, there is a great pro-SEC vibe there now. That is no debatable. You say it is deserved but look at the Alabama versus Oklahoma State situation a few years ago. Oklahoma State actually beat more ranked teams than Alabama that year yet all ESPN talked about was who both teams lost to. ESPN, by shaping the argument, helped Alabama get into the nation championship game.
You’re reading this as conference vs. conference, when it’s really more school vs. school — Alabama is a “name” program; Okie State is not. Had Ohio State or Southern Cal or Florida State been that contender instead of Alabama, one of them would have received preferential treatment from ESPN. Networks like sure things, and thus will go with “name” teams wherever possible. It’s why I prefer an eight-team playoff, as it would give every major conference champion a legitimate chance to win a national title and thus lessen TV’s power over who has a chance to get in, leading to occasional situations where the “wrong” team (in TV execs’ eyes) gets a shot at the title.
LikeLike
VP I had thought about the name angle between Alabama and Oklahoma State but the rating were a disaster. So either ESPN didn’t read the public right or they pushed what was in their best interests.
I too hope for a larger playoffs or more conference realignment to get to four total and have a simply playoff based off of the conference champions. The abolition of the polls would also be nice. But this current playoffs system will also be flush with bias if certain conferences can get two teams in ahead of conference champions.
LikeLike
@ FtT.
With respect, Frank, I think there was a significant paradigm shift in 2007 when the B1G went forward with plans to create the BTN. Thus, for me anyway, there is no relevance to evidence and examples that predate 2007.
As for the Gameday talking heads, I don’t know. I don’t watch the show. What I have read/heard is that ESpin told Herbie to stop showing his tOSU colors and Herbie readily complied. I have never thought DH talked too much about the Sun & Blue; and I don’t know which one is the former bball coach or which school he coached for.
I agree completely that ESpin trolls every fanbase and conference because contrived feuds, faux controversies and righteous indignation create “buzz” and pump up page reads, click thrus and ratings. ESpin is all about the hype and they will troll or hype any and every school/fan base to increase ratings.
From that perspective it is perfectly correct that every fan base thinks ESpin hates their team. A&M is currently under the microscope and the 12th Man is yowling.
That being said, I perceive an extra level of ESpin hatred at the editorial level. In my view, somewhere around 2007-08, ESpin made a decision ~~~~ at the editorial level ~~~~ to downgrade and disparage the B1G and promote any and all ESpin-owned properties/inventory. First, I actually think ESpin underreports and ignores potential “bad” news for ESpin-owned teams. I am sorry, but there seemed a lot of suspicious evidence that ‘Bama players were getting free suits from a local clothing store. Nada from ESpin. We know networks can be biased. The BTN was way behind the curve on reporting the Sandusky news.
But assume for the sake of argument, that ESpin reports all the sports “news.”
The problem is at the editorial level where the anti-B1G agenda seems obvious to me. What is ESpin’s “opinion” about the news? With B1G teams, ESpin’s view is negative. Pryor traded stuff for tats; he should sit; 5 games wasn’t enough, etc. By contrast, with SEC-owned teams/conferences, ESpin is supportive. Johnny sells his autographs; aw, poor ol’ Johnny, Rule is bad should be changed, he shouldn’t sit; he’s so exciting we want him to play, etc. I exaggerate, but you get my point.
And ESpin is good at creating a unified “voice” across it’s shows and different channels. We know the examples: All things Tebow; all things LeBron; hockey is not part of the “national conversation”; etc. So, ESpin can have its anti-B1G agenda come out the month of a former tOSU QB which adds some extra “umph” to the message.
ESpin is also biased in placement of resources. Even after Tressel resigned, how many reporters were sent to Columbus to take tOSU down, to call anyone and everyone who might have dirt? How many reporters are in College Station trying to take down A&M? I think we all know the answers: “Lots” and “None.”
Please understand. All of this is just good business. If ESpin can hurt B1G teams, ESpin hurts the BTN. And if the BTN fails, then the idea of conference networks fail.
But for all that, as I said above, ESpin’s strategy did not work. The BTN was too successful too quickly and now ESpin is having to create a network for the SEC. Then realignment nearly killed off the BXII sending various Kings and Princes to the FOX-owed Pac-16. ESpin scrambled, played prevent and paid lots of $$. Overall, realignment consolidated the “good” inventory into five conferences instead of six making the the B1G (and the other remaining conferences) stronger vis a vis ESpin.
And as also said, the anti-B1G strategy will not work going forward. Particularly with the 9-game conf. schedule, the B1G is something like 15-20% of the “good” inventory. The BTN is here to stay (in whatever form internet or cable).
LikeLike
Wrong BB. ESPN shows MORE Big 10 games than any other. Hurting the Big 10 hurts ESPN. There is no anti-Big 10 bias other than the bandwagon bias mentioned above.
LikeLike
The NYTimes article is interesting.
This chart summarized things nicely:
What ESPN Has Paid (end year):
N.F.L. 2021 $15.2 billion
College football playoffs 2026 7.3
M.L.B. 2021 5.6
N.B.A. 2016 3.9
Pacific-12* 2024 3.0
Big 12* 2025 2.5
SEC 2024 2.3
Big Ten 2017 1.0
the P12 and BXII deals are shared with FOX. I expect the B1G’s deal to be shared with FOX too.
and I found this very very interesting.
“Mr. Skipper, ESPN’s president, acknowledged that conference officials frequently consulted him.
“I had, on occasion, two conference commissioners ask me about adding the same school,” Mr. Skipper said, “and I said to both of them: ‘Yes, you should add that school. If you can add that very prominent school, it would be good for your conference. But I’m not telling you to do it.’ I don’t provide leading advice, and I don’t say, ‘Wink, wink, I’ll pay you more money if you do that.’ ”
ESPN executives have argued that realignment has been bad for the network’s balance sheet because of a contractual incentive known as the composition clause, which allows conferences to reopen a rights deal, and get more money, if valuable colleges come on board. (ESPN can also reopen a contract if universities leave.)
“If we could go back to the day conferences were aligned in 2009, we would do so in a minute,” said Burke Magnus, ESPN’s chief of college sports programming. “Almost every move has cost us money.””
Skipper is, of course, here engaged in spin control. But interesting nonetheless.
Let the speculation begin. Who was the “very prominent school”? IIRC, the only school in the major conferences that was courted by more than one conference was Louisville. But there are many non-CFB conferences. Maybe a bball school?
LikeLike
Huh? Both the Pac and SEC wanted A&M.
LikeLike
The commissioners called. So it was likely Notre Dame or Texas.
LikeLike
Oh, come on. We all know the answer is MO. I have it on good authority it is the most desirable school ever.
LikeLike
No, just the most desirable school the B1G could have realistically gotten after Nebraska and Maryland.
LikeLike
Delaney and the B10 valued the northeast tremendously (to help PSU who’ve publicly complained about not having local rivals) and Jim Delaney valued hurting the ACC nearly as much as they are arguably the B10’s biggest competition for media/tv dollars in the northeast…
Missouri would’ve been a great #12 or #14 member (almost perfect fit) of the B10, unfortunately Delaney saw it differently and preferred landing Nebraska as #12 and preferred the state of New Jersey as #14 with the potential of getting BTN carriage on NYC as well.
There are a thousand things we can debate back and forth about why Missouri would’ve been the better addition to the B10 but for the things the B10 desired most (more northeast presence), they preferred Rutgers & Nebraska to Missouri; that’s if Missouri was even available when they added Rutgers which were unsure they were.
LikeLike
Missouri would’ve been a great #12 or #14 member (almost perfect fit) of the B10, unfortunately Delaney saw it differently and preferred landing Nebraska as #12 and preferred the state of New Jersey as #14 with the potential of getting BTN carriage on NYC as well.
Delany doesn’t add new members; the presidents do. It’s not as if Delany bamboozled them. The whole league concluded that Nebraska was the better fit, and I don’t think even Andy has argued otherwise.
What Andy has claimed, was that Missouri had an “unwritten invite” to be #14 if a suitable #13 could be found. By the time Maryland was available, Missouri no longer was. I am not so sure that Rutgers would have received the nod if Missouri had still been a free agent. But by then Missouri was in the SEC.
LikeLike
Exactly. Rutgers likely got in because Missouri wasn’t available. A combo of Nebraska/Missouri/Maryland would have been pretty strong. With Missouri off the market Rutgers was as good as the Big Ten could do.
LikeLike
I don’t think “exactly” is the term you meant to use. “I’m not so sure…” is not the same as “Rutgers luckily got in because…”
I agree that Missouri might have been the choice, but it doesn’t improve/provide OSU, PSU, UM, etc. access to NY/NJ markets and eastern alumni.
LikeLike
All I know is that I’ve heard directly from people who should know that Missouri was in serious talks with the Big Ten in 2010 about joining, but needed to find the right partner for it to happen, and that never panned out. Persumably they were also waiting on possibly getting Notre Dame at the time as well. When Notre Dame joined the ACC, the B1G shook Maryland loose and Missouri was already in the SEC. If Missouri were still on the market would the B1G have taken them? I think so. But maybe the partner they wanted for Missouri was Notre Dame, not Maryland. Or maybe it was Texas. I don’t have that information. Or maybe Maryland would have worked as well. I don’t know. I do know that Missouri was a top option or the top option for school #14 in the scenarios they were looking at then.
I also know that Missouri has a lot of advantages Rutgers does not have. Like fans, for instance. I also suspect that the vast majority of Big Ten fans and alums would have preferred Missouri over Rutgers, including most of the hardcore people on this forum.
It’s also pretty evident at this point that all the dreams of UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami, etc were not going to happen. So Missouri was probably as good as the B1G could do after Nebrask and Maryland (and in some ways, Missouri tops both of those schools, athough not in others).
LikeLike
“So Missouri was probably as good as the B1G could do after Nebrask and Maryland (and in some ways, Missouri tops both of those schools, athough not in others).”
Not in future income potential. Rutgers makes a home for four B1G kings in everyone’s fantasy markets.
LikeLike
potential is potential. Rutgers has been playing football for a very long time and they haven’t realized much of their potential yet. Who’s to say they ever will.
LikeLike
Andy:
The potential Rutgers represents has very little to do with athletic achievement. It is the potential of the B1G in that populous, powerful, and influential corridor. You know this. It is there in spite of RU’s less than stellar on field performances.
LikeLike
Then why hasn’t anyone added Rice or Buffalo? If markets and location are all that matter and sports don’t matter then why add Nebraska?
Rutgers doesn’t have very many fans. Nobody is all that excited to play them. They’re not a good draw. They don’t make much money. And the people in that part of the country don’t much care for college sports.
LikeLike
@Andy – I agree with you partially here in the sense that we do have to remember that the sports on-the-field ultimately need to matter. That being said, New York City is THE market – there’s just no comparison to that market compared to anyone other than maybe Los Angeles. There are 23 million people in the NYC TV market, which is almost 4 times as many people as the state of Missouri. Within a couple of years, New Jersey alone will have 3 million more people than Missouri (a difference equal to the population of the city of Chicago). So, it’s not a surprise that both the Big Ten and ACC have made it a priority to capture mindshare there. Even though I’m an on-the-record skeptic of Rutgers, it’s also quite disingenuous to compare them to Buffalo and Rice (both in terms of the institutional profile and the market). If all Rutgers ends up being is a vessel for Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State to get top exposure in the NYC market, that’s likely worth more than any non-king program could provide to the Big Ten financially. I know that you’re a Mizzou guy and nothing is going to convince you of believing what you want to believe in terms of how Big Ten expansion unfolded, but Rutgers was likely going to get the nod over Mizzou by the conference in any head-to-head comparison. The league has had a pretty explicit East Coast strategy (albeit one that could only work by simultaneously bringing in a true football king with Nebraska).
LikeLike
Andy, get over it.
LikeLike
@Andy:
To build on what Frank wrote, I quote Jim Delany:
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has declared: “the Eastern corridor is … the richest corridor in the world from the standpoint of financial institutions, political institutions, media institutions, and we’re new to it. So if we can build relationships, make friends and be impactful and relevant over time, that’s the goal. We’re not going to be changing the world, but we are looking forward to doing everything we can to build a presence in that place.”
http://www.southernpigskin.com/acc/view/the-accs-battle-in-the-northeast
Missouri, despite being a superior athletic history compared to Rutgers, simply cannot match the macro-level value/potential value of Rutgers as a school, as a program, and as a vessel to increased presence and prominence in this country’s media capital. On this issue, there simply is not a rational argument to the contrary. That, and with it, the financial opportunities, vastly outweigh the relatively quaint, old-school benefits of adding a school like Missouri.
Also: Rice and Buffalo? Come on.
LikeLike
This is all hindsight and rationalization for a decision that has already been made. From everything I’ve heard Missouri was in serious contention for membership but couldn’t find the right partner. Rutgers is nobody’s dream addition. They have their positives and their negatives. If they’re so valuable then the Big East wouldn’t have collapsed.
LikeLike
Not sure you need ESPN to advise you that taking Notre Dame or Texas would be good for a conference…
Probably was Louisville, with the ACC and Big 12 calling.
LikeLike
Pittsburgh vetted with ESPN by B12 & ACC. No one needs to call about TX or ND value, and the PAC knew A&M was not interested in going west. Pitt was on the short list with BYU, WV and Louisville for the B12, and based on the invitation was also on the ACC’s list.
LikeLike
Quite possible. Big 12 was looking at them before the ACC grabbed them.
LikeLike
Big Ten affiliation already paying dividends for Rutgers with IMG College deal
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/08/big_ten_affiliation_already_paying_dividends_for_rutgers.html
LikeLike
Rutgers won the lottery going to the B10, which really isn’t a surprise. Let’s hope the additions of Rutgers & Maryland help the B10 as much as they help those two universities.
LikeLike
Rutgers had an amazing couple of weeks in the fall of 2012:
1.Obviously, the B1G invite heads the list
2. Even in this economy, NJ voters approved a $750mm bond issue for spending on capital projects at the state’s two and 4 year colleges (of which $300mm is to be spent at the three public research universities, RU, NJIT and UMDNJ-Newark).
3. RU regained control of most of the state’s medical school (I wouldn’t call this one “lucky”, as they were just getting back most of what was taken from them by the politicians in the 70’s).
LikeLike
Even in this economy, NJ voters approved a $750mm bond issue for spending on capital projects at the state’s two and 4 year colleges (of which $300mm is to be spent at the three public research universities, RU, NJIT and UMDNJ-Newark).
This is a factor I think might be severely underrated. B1G wants it’s members to be long-term academic powers, and having a supportive state government funding system is going to strengthen these schools. The Kansas government is not friendly to funding like the Maryland or New Jersey governments are at all. I don’t know about Oklahoma, Nebraska, or Texas situations well, but I’d gander they have been lowering funding for the higher education institutions as well. Not something the academic elite minded Presidents are going to like when the next brick falls.
LikeLike
Transic,
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/07/rutgers_img_college_football_media_rights.html
Here’s a related article from earlier that gives lots of context to RU’s deal.
They give the details of the details for 9 other IMG College clients, including length, total value, average value and when it started.
VALUE PER YEAR
Ohio State, $11 mil
Florida, $10 mil
Nebraska, $8.65 mil
Tennessee, $8.34 mil
Connecticut, $8 mil
Michigan, $7.1 mil
Oregon, $6.71 mil
West Virginia, $6.6 mil
RUTGERS, $5.9 mil
Cincinnati, $2.5 mil
LikeLike
Michigan is much lower than it otherwise would be due to in stadium advertising.
LikeLike
West Virginia looks higher relative to the other schools on the list because unlike the other ones you listed, their IMG deal includes the selling of the Tier 3 football and basketball TV rights they retain as a B12 member.
LikeLike
I’ve been soliciting questions for a Q&A post this week on Twitter, so please feel free to post your questions on here, as well. At this point, I’ve received a lot of Division 4 and realignment questions (not surprisingly).
LikeLike
Subject of Division 4 is worthy of your next blog post. Lots of conflicting speculation about particulars but the common theme is pretty straight forward; The Power 5 conferences will very likely split away from the rest the Div I conferences and create a split in Div I football between the haves and have nots.
Sounds like there is room for those not currently in P5 conferences to join Division 4 if they want to meet the hefty financial requirements.
LikeLike
What are you hearing about Division 4 and basketball? Most of the talk has focused on football, but the biggest gap is with the non-mid-major basketball conferences.
LikeLike
I don’t have inside sources but relaying what others in the media have said RECENTLY, this split likely will only affect Div I football. There were fears awhile ago that it could affect the mid majors in basketball but most information I’ve heard recently indicate it’ll be a football only split.
LikeLike
Hard to see the Power 5 breaking away in basketball, there is so much more parity in the sport. The NCAA tournament is a huge event and the Power 5 alone couldn’t replicate. I feel the Presidents who are in control dont trust going alone and fear it will ruin the academic mission morale.
LikeLike
Hard to see the Power 5 breaking away in basketball, there is so much more parity in the sport. The NCAA tournament is a huge event and the Power 5 alone couldn’t replicate. I feel the Presidents who are in control dont trust going alone and fear it will ruin the academic mission morale.
I am not predicting that they’ll break away in basketball, but…
Many of the issues are similar. There’s a larger list of elite leagues in basketball, because the barriers to entry are lower; nevertheless, Division I is full of minor leagues that get auto-bids to the tourney, but that practically never place a team in the Sweet 16 unless a miracle occurs.
Many of the 340 Division I schools, generally the lower-tier ones, don’t support changes like full cost-of-attendance scholarships. You could probably reduce the size of Division I by 50 percent, and the basketball tournament would remain just as valuable. The basketball D4 would be more than just the P5 conferences; but it wouldn’t include all 340 teams that are in D1 today.
LikeLike
I think that’s a bone the power teams throw to the NCAA to be left alone to run the CFP. They know the NCAA is almost entirely funded by the tourney and that the little guys live off of that money. If they can get all the CFP money, they can let the little guys wet their beaks via the tourney.
LikeLike
Here’s a compendium of the questions I have, most pertaining to the Division 4 split and its potential implications:
1. I know you believe that the split is likely to be accomplished within the NCAA, assuming it does happen. But do you think there’s any significant support for a full break-away, even if it’s only in football? [I’m taking it as a given that the schools don’t want to duplicate the whole NCAA infrastructure for sports like rowing. If they did it at all, it would either be for football alone, or for only the revenue sports.]
2. Assuming a split happens, what will the entrance criteria be, and who besides the P5 and Notre Dame will be included in the new upper division? How difficult will it be for schools that don’t make the cut to get added later?
3. Again, assuming a split happens, is there any sentiment among the more powerful schools to stop playing against the mid-majors? Or do most/all of them still want to keep scheduling those games?
4. Are you hearing any sentiment in favor of adding a 13th regular-season game or expanding the playoff to eight teams? I know that many of the presidents are against expanding the season, but they’re leaving money on the table. Where money is involved, usually the resistance breaks down eventually, just as it did for the four-team playoff and (going further back) the 11th and 12th regular-season games.
5. Is there any support for forcing the Big XII to play a conference championship game? Or, to put it differently, do many of the schools oppose Notre Dame and the Big XII possibly being able to reach the playoff while playing one less game?
6. Do you have any sense that the ACC schools might have an out-clause in their GOR if the ACC network that Swofford promised fails to materialize? Or do you think they’re stuck, network or not?
P.S. Anywhere I’ve asked if there’s “support” or “sentiment,” the implied population is the decision-makers, i.e., generally the presidents, not people who have no say like coaches, players and fans.
LikeLike
My thoughts on your questions, which are good ones:
1. As stated before, the logistical problems of a full breakaway would be enormous if the “power 5” conferences (plus Notre Dame and Brigham Young) left by themselves and were blocked by the NCAA from scheduling members who remained. You’d be left with eight schools playing men’s ice hockey, 11 in men’s lacrosse. If you added the non-BCS conferences in what used to be called I-A (the American, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt) championships might be easier to stage in those and a few other sports, but it wouldn’t be easy.
2. I like having all ten FBS conferences involved, as well as ND, BYU and the three service academies. Fielding a football team would be a pre-requisite for membership, thus making it impossible for “basketball” schools to join and weakening the NCAA tournament’s status. The new federation’s “Cinderellas” would come from the likes of the MAC and Sun Belt.
3. Members of the “power 5” conferences would still play their lower-tier counterparts, but FCS foes would be verboten. No more Howard at Rutgers, Western Carolina at Alabama or VMI at Duke games.
4. I prefer an eight-team playoff if all “power 5” champions get in, and at least one of the three at-large bids is guaranteed to go to a champion of one of the other five conferences.
5. I’d prefer the Big 12 be forced to have a CCG, but if Notre Dame, Brigham Young and any academy that wishes to be independent isn’t required to play a 13th game, why should the Big 12?
6. If the ACC schools don’t have an “out” clause in their network contract, Swofford played them for fools…and laughter will resound throughout College Park.
LikeLike
Didn’t the ACC get a 2M/sch/yr guaranteed bump if the ACCN didn’t happen? Seems like the network not happening wouldn’t be a completely unexpected happening, not something Swofford snuck by the schools.
LikeLike
According to Sports Business Day they did. It still makes no sense, so I’m not sure I believe it.
LikeLike
Bullet:
It makes sense because ESPN wouldn’t have to spend extra money on a new network.infrastructure. Remember that ESPN doesn’t _want_ conference networks. The SECN happened only because they were powerful enough to dictate to ESPN.
LikeLike
The point is they already own all those rights. So they would be paying $2 million not to do something with stuff they already own and have the rights to and have sub-licensed as the ACC directed.
LikeLike
The price of holding the conference together? Probably no more expensive than the LHN with it’s studio, personel, production, etc. costs added in.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Well, they would still do stuff with those rights; either sub-licensed or shown on an ESPN channel. An ACCN network would not help ESPN much; it would only raise overhead costs for a new network.
LikeLike
As stated before, the logistical problems of a full breakaway would be enormous if the “power 5″ conferences (plus Notre Dame and Brigham Young) left by themselves and were blocked by the NCAA from scheduling members who remained. You’d be left with eight schools playing men’s ice hockey, 11 in men’s lacrosse.
If you think that, by blocking some lacrosse and hockey games, the leftover schools can prevent the power schools from breaking away, they’ve got another thing coming. The breakaway will be decided based on what’s right for football and basketball. There aren’t enough hockey and lacrosse schools to change that.
So now, let’s assume the breakaway happens. Fact is: The leftovers want to keep playing the non-revenue sports against the power schools. The NCAA, which is merely an agent of its members, can’t block those events unless its members want them blocked; and of course, who would want that? It would be self-destructive.
LikeLike
I have said before that if there is a split, the Breakaway Schools would include: The ACC (including Notre Dame), the B10, Big XII, PAC, & SEC. Plus: The Mountain West ( LIKELY that will include BYU, plus Boise State and of course, Air Force (important due to Congress)), and the AAC (obviously Navy but other Schools (like Cincinnati, USF and Houston) that have the potential to one day move up into the Big Five). There will be some kind of compromise solution struck (such as where the “Old Big East” basketball members left, and returned as the “New Big East” and gave some kind of compensation to the football playing members (which became the AAC)). As far as a sport such as Hockey is concerned, does ANYONE in their right mind think Central Michigan or Western Michigan will stop playing U of M, or North Dakota State will stop playing Minnesota, or that Boston College will no longer be a part of the “Bean Pot Tournament”? Those scenarios would essentially finish College Hockey and they are not happening.
LikeLike
Don’t forget baseball in the D4 analysis. That’s all some of us got…
LikeLike
If you were in charge of Major League Baseball, what would you do about the Hall of Fame and players associated with PEDs?
LikeLike
Can’t do anything but leave it up to the sportswriters…………………….
LikeLike
Guesses about NHL expansion team locations?
LikeLike
Seattle & Either Portland or Quebec City.
LikeLike
No Kansas City?
LikeLike
Now now, no need to get Andy all riled up by using the K word.
LikeLike
What are the chances that the B1G moves a game or two to Fox? I could see Gus Johnson becoming the voice of B1G football much like Verne Lundquist has become the voice of the SEC.
LikeLike
Oh, please no. He is the most annoying college announcer on the planet.
LikeLike
Where have you been during the 20 years of Brent Musberger in the college ranks?
LikeLike
BM was #1 until GJ started doing football. GJ is the clear “leader” now. I have to mute both of them to watch a game.
LikeLike
I re-read. I like Verne Lundquist. I originally thought you were talking about him.
LikeLike
Oh, no. Verne has a great voice. He reminds me of Keith Jackson late in his career, though, because he’s starting to make a lot of obvious mistakes.
LikeLike
Hi Frank – I would like to read about your thoughts about the B1G Hockey conference. Who are likely candidates within the B1G for adding programs? What college hockey can learn from the 1990s NHL expansion? How a largely cult sport in the Midwest & Northeast, with low to modest TV exposure can actually be a revenue generator for universities.
LikeLike
Not Frank and not a huge hockey fan, but I’ll throw my $.2 in….which is what it will be worth………
I don’t see any other BIG schools adding hockey in the next 5 years………IU, Purdue, MD, and Rutgers don’t have the $….also, of those 4 schools probably only Rutgers would have a lot of hockey fans amoung their fanbase/alums…..ILL would seem to be a prospect, but if I recall correctly they don’t have an adequate facility, and they may not have the $$$…..NEB could make it happen but there are pratical political concerns about stepping on Neb-Omaha’s toes…..
NEB would seem to me to be the most likely prospect but only if college hockey gets to the point where it’s a bottom line $ maker for the individual schools, which might not happen given that you’d likely also have to add women’s hockey to satisfy Title 9…..
Would the BIG ever bite the bullet and add ND as a hockey-only associate? Probably not, because of the pride issue……….but there would be some $ there……..
LikeLike
Notre Dame basically wants nothing to do with the B10 (which is why they chose the ACC (except Hockey and they chose Hockey East)). Hockey is doable one day at Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa & even Northwestern (If they would leave tiny Welsh-Ryan Arena). However, everything would depend on $$$$$$$.
LikeLike
What? Welsh-Ryan seats over 8K. Only 3 hockey programs in the whole country averaged over 8K in attendance (Wisconsin, UND, and Minny).
Michigan and MSU both average less than 6K. PSU’s hockey arena will seat 6K. The size of the arena isn’t the reason why Northwestern doesn’t have a hockey program.
LikeLike
Notre Dame doesn’t want to join the B10 for football, but they would definitely join for hockey if they could leave the other sports( mostly football) out of it.
LikeLike
Notre Dame would join the BIG in two seconds if they got the deal they got in the ACC. ND only cares about maintaining football independence and only the ACC was willing to accommodate them. It’s all or nothing in the BIG for ND (JHU is a very unique case).
LikeLike
Purdue I thinks makes the most sense, because of the rise of popularity of hockey in Chicago, which is a major feeder for Purdue. They run an Athletic Dept. that is one of the few that turns a profit in all of division 1, and there is a wintery character to life at Purdue. AD Burke has done a strong job supporting the facilities of non-revenue sports and with President Daniels, Burke’s job looks safe for awhile. If I was in charge I would convert Lambert Fieldhouse into the hockey facility on-campus.Boom, historic on-campus building that should hold a good capacity for a new college hockey program. IU is also in the black as a department or very close, and has the campus to support a hockey program.
LikeLike
I do not see either Purdue or Indiana adding Hockey in the next decade. What is interesting about Purdue, is of the 26 Sports sponsored by the B10, the Boilermakers fail to field teams in 8 of them (by comparison, Michigan & Ohio State compete in all 26, and Penn State all but Rowing. The Schools that make sense are Nebraska (the ice addition to Pinnacle Bank Arena) and either: A: Illinois. B: Rutgers (If they get a New Basketball Arena, convert “The Rack” into a Hockey Facility). C: As I previously mentioned, Northwestern (if they leave Welsh-Ryan (same concept as Rutgers)). It goes without saying both RU & NU need New Basketball Arenas. That said, I do not see ANY School adding Hockey for quite sometime. There are several reasons for it. A: The B10 wants to see how the New Hockey Conference performs (on and off the ice (TV Ratings are one example of off the ice performance)) B: They need to see if there is some kind of new Football Division IV? C: What will be the fallout over O’Bannon? This includes how much (if any) must Schools pay? D: The new B10 TV Contract must be signed. E: The need to Integrate Maryland & Rutgers into the Conference. F: The facilities and financing have to be available to start up Hockey Programs (this of course, includes the Women (due to Title IX)).
LikeLike
Northwestern is not adding ice hockey anytime soon. The athletic plan is to first build up and maintain success in all existing sports, which will take several more years (at least). Following that, a few sports that fit the general strategic facilities plan may be added (ie. Men’s lacrosse), along with some more women’s sports to make it all work under Title IX. The next men’s sport added will be lacrosse, the only variable is time (to quote Howard Schnellenberger).
Ice hockey wouldn’t be added for at least 15-20 years, if ever. The tell will be if Welsh-Ryan post renovation, or its replacement, is equipped with enough floor space and room underneath to allow for ice and ice machines to be added later on. If no such provisions are made, that’s a clear sign that hockey is not in the short-term, medium-term, or long-term plans of the university.
Which is a shame because men’s and women’s ice hockey would be a perfect, gender-balanced addition to the school.
LikeLike
Frank,
What do you think Delaney will be announcing regarding the NYC market? What events would you put in NYC (or DC) to grow the market(s)?
LikeLike
Some thoughts:
Rotate the Men’s basketball tourney between Chicago, Indy, DC, and NYC on a regular basis. Same for B1G hockey (if they have a conference tourney).
Rotate the football championship game between the same cities.
Occasional neutral site football games in NYC and DC (likely already in the works with Penn State visiting Rutgers at MetLife and UMD at FedEx Field).
Have a yearly media day in NYC in addition to Chicago.
Have neutral site men’s basketball games in NYC and DC in December (also likely in the works) Who wouldn’t like to see, say, Indiana vs. St. Johns at MSG in December?
LikeLike
I really would be concerned about attendance of the tourney at MSG…….IU and ILL seem to have the most fans when it’s at Indy or in Chicago……..Not many people are going to take off 3-4 days and go to NYC for a tourney………..
Rather than rotating the PS tourney there, I like the idea of a BB doubleheader featuring IU and MSU against Syracuse and U Conn…………that would be high profile……….and you could rotate in Ill, Mich, MD, or any other schools projected to be strong in a given year after year 1….
I do think the football media day could be rotated to NYC…..I wouldn’t have 2 seperate media days though—too much involved for the coaches…..I especially like the idea of the 5K run through downtown NYC…..that event really took off this year in Chicago…….
LikeLike
Also, maybe an opening game NC match-up each year involving UM/OSU/NEB/PSU football vs. ND or TX or Bama at the Meadowlands??
LikeLike
And maybe throw in an openiing game MSG NC hockey tourney involving MN and WIS against the likes of BC, ND et al
LikeLike
Any potential B1G mens tourney in NYC would have to be at the Barclays Center. MSG is committed to the Big East. I don’t see the B1G tourney in NYC anytime soon. Its just an example of the potential out of the box thinking the conference might be doing to try and capitalize on having some entry into NY and DC.
LikeLike
Unless you like the idea of half-filled stadiums or can count on one of the 3 East Coast schools to make the title game every year, I don’t know why you’d every put the football title game in DC or NYC. The Western participant would send only a small number of fans & even if Michigan or OSU make it, you can’t count on them to fill 80% of a stadium all by themselves.
If Chicago had an indoor stadium, it would be a great spot for the football CCG.
As it is, only Detroit (or maybe Cincy) is a viable alternative to Indy, and that would give UM/OSU a gigantic advantage vs. whatever Western school makes it there.
LikeLike
Most, if not all B1G schools, have a massive alumni presence in NYC. Any conf championship game would do at the very least as well as Indy. Probably better, though because of the alumni concentration.
DC would be a bit tougher though.
LikeLike
Here are numbers of the alums of top football programs in metro NYC:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575468034237305128.html
Michigan has 12.6K
OSU has 4.6K
UNL has 3.2K
I really doubt that any other Midwestern B10 school (besides possibly Northwestern) has more alums than OSU in greater NYC.
I still stand by my assertion that of the Midwestern B10 schools, only Michigan & OSU would be able to fill half of MetLife stadum (and even that is a stretch). The other Midwestern schools, given the distance and a week’s notice, can not be counted on for more than 10-15K. So unless you like to see a half-filled stadium for the CCG, staging it in NYC or DC makes no sense.
LikeLike
All of you are so wrapped up in New York City and Washington that you’re forgetting another eastern site the Big Ten can now take advantage of — Philadelphia. When Penn State was out east by its lonesome, Philly had relatively little value to the B1G; with Rutgers having a fan base on the other side of the Delaware River and Maryland not a long drive away, Philadelphia has plenty of potential for Big Ten football, basketball and even hockey. Don’t overlook that town.
LikeLike
The dynamics for Philly are the same as those for NYC (and DC):
1 of the 3 eastern teams would have to make it to the CCG if you don’t want a stadium that looks half-full. OSU & UM would fill half the stadium; the other Midwestern schools would bring 10-15K at most.
LikeLike
@Richard: The inaugural B1G title game in Indy was half filled (more if you count the free or drastically reduced tickets handed out week of). Surely NYC could at least match that.
Plus, its a weekend in NYC or DC. Great tourist cities. Even on a week’s notice, travel deals and cheap hotel rooms can be found.
@vp19: Delany specifically mentioned the NYC and DC markets as a primary reason for taking UMD and RU. To the extent those schools help in Philly, they pale to PSU’s presence. And since PSU has been in the conference for 20+ years without any discernible attempt by the B1G to stage events/games there, I don’t think Philly is a factor for these purposes.
Examples: The B1G specifically sought a bowl game in NY and DC. Not the case in Philly. Rutgers football games may be shared with MetLife Stadium, not the Linc. Nonconference basketball games will be played neutral site in DC and NYC–I have not heard or seen reports of similar plans in Philly.
Philly is forgotten because, for all non-BTN subscriber purposes, Philly is forgettable.
LikeLike
PSU has never had that much of a presence in Philly, but adding Maryland and Rutgers to the mix amplifies things considerably.
LikeLike
1. Your memory must be bad. The inaugural game had an attendance of 64K in a 70K stadium.
2. A stadium that is closer to where the participating schools are draws worse than expected, so surely a site that is farther away will draw better? No, that logic does not fly.
3. Tourist cities they may be, but these are not bowls where you can plan out a trip weeks ahead of time. The CCG takes place a week after the regular season ends and you’re out of your mind if you think that most Midwestern fans can easily arrange to fly almost halfway across the country on short notice.
Look, if you want a B10 title game that is half-filled (or worse), put it in NYC. Otherwise, don’t.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Most, if not all B1G schools, have a massive alumni presence in NYC. Any conf championship game would do at the very least as well as Indy. Probably better, though because of the alumni concentration.”
WI fans wouldn’t travel to Indy but they’d fill up NYC? OSU and MI could easily fill Indy. NYC not so much. There aren’t that many alumni in NYC, certainly not of any one school other than RU. Besides, not all alumni want to attend a CCG.
LikeLike
Richard,
You should add PSU and their 23.0k alumni to your list.
LikeLike
Well, I said that any of the 3 eastern schools would fill (or mostly fill) the CCG if they were at NYC or DC. Definitely PSU (so the number of their alums in NYC isn’t so material; they’d have enough folks coming over from PA). Probably even UMD in NJ and RU in MD.
LikeLike
Richard,
I only said that because I think it helps your point. PSU could only fill MetLife because of (tens of) thousands of fans traveling from outside of NYC. The other schools have many fewer alumni in NYC and are much farther away, making travel less likely.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Some thoughts:”
Some thoughts on your thoughts:
“Rotate the Men’s basketball tourney between Chicago, Indy, DC, and NYC on a regular basis.”
Events often do better with a home site. I’d rather see it mostly in Indy and Chicago (Indy hosts events really well but Chicago is the big city) because that is much closer for most teams. DC and NYC are only close to 3 schools and are forever away from the West schools. They shouldn’t get a large share of the tournaments.
“Same for B1G hockey (if they have a conference tourney).”
They’ll have a tourney, but NYC and DC make no sense. PSU is the only eastern team playing hockey. Stay in the hockey hot beds of MSP and Detroit. Maybe hit other hockey cities on occasion (Pittsburgh, Chicago).
“Rotate the football championship game between the same cities.”
Indoors = Indy, Detroit, MSP
Those should be the only choices.
“Occasional neutral site football games in NYC and DC (likely already in the works with Penn State visiting Rutgers at MetLife and UMD at FedEx Field).”
Agreed. Also the MLax tourney should be in DC. WLax should alternate between Chicago and DC. Mix in NYC on occasion maybe.
“Have a yearly media day in NYC in addition to Chicago.”
I know there was talk of moving the hoops media day to NYC, leaving FB in Chicago.
“Have neutral site men’s basketball games in NYC and DC in December (also likely in the works) Who wouldn’t like to see, say, Indiana vs. St. Johns at MSG in December?”
Agreed. I’ve said before playing part of the B10/ACC Challenge in NYC would be cool.
LikeLike
MSP is a relatively small city too far away from the rest of the conference (for all but the western-most 4 schools). For the football CCG, realistically, it’s either Indy or Detroit. Maybe Chicago if they’re willing to brave the outdoors (early Dec isn’t so bad yet). Possibly Cincy since it’s milder than Chicago in early Dec.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t choose MSP either, but it meets the bar of having a dome so I listed it.
We’ll just have to wait and see whether the B10 will accept an outdoor venue. One big issue for playing outdoors is that the B10 CCG is a night game. That makes a big difference. I could see playing in the afternoon outdoors potentially, but from 8pm-11:30 or midnight? That’s a different kettle of fish.
Chicago weather for 12/7:
Ave Hi = 38
Ave Lo = 26
Add in some windchill and that’s a nasty combo. Then factor in the surface at Soldier Field which is terrible.
LikeLike
For the conference championship game site, let’s just look at the experience of the ACC, which had tried to appease various fiefdoms by playing its game in different Florida cities and became mocked with horrible attendance. When they moved the game to Charlotte (the heart of the conference), it had sellouts.
I remember Jim Delany saying that the two pieces of advice that Mike Slive had for setting up a championship game were (1) keep it at a permanent site in the center of the conference to make it into a bowl-like traditional event and maximize ticket sales and (2) play the game indoors to take the elements out of the equation. Note that there’s zero talk about moving the SEC Championship Game to Dallas or Houston despite those being bigger TV markets than Atlanta and the state of Texas being waaaaaaay more interested in college football than the NYC and DC markets. The SEC knows that expanding doesn’t mean abandoning your core. To the contrary, as the ACC found out, it makes your core even more important because that’s the one area that you depend upon year-in and year-out. I’m as big of a Chicago guy as anyone, but the Big Ten should keep the football championship game in Indianapolis permanently. Let’s follow the lead of the SEC as opposed to the ACC on this issue.
LikeLike
@Brian:
All good points. Some reply thoughts:
My thoughts above are more food for thought and thinking in terms of opportunities to enhance the Big Ten brand in NYC, which is the entire point of expanding eastward (Rutgers is a vessel for this, a tool if you will. A means to an end.)
Part of building a presence in NYC is staging games of import in the region. I’m far from the only person to think/type this:
“And it would be more important symbolically, as the Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany has visions of moving his conference’s tournament to New York.”
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130314/acc-madison-square-garden/#ixzz2dGzzsli8
And:
“The impact of the Big Ten’s growth to the east will be measured over time, but Delany will not be bashful about pressing the league’s presence into the biggest eastern stronghold of all, New York City.
That’s why he secured a Big Ten tie-in to the Pinstripe Bowl, which will be played in Yankee Stadium.
And it’s why no one should be entirely surprised if the Big Ten stages a future men’s basketball tournament in the Big Apple. It has been talked about in Big Ten circles.” http://herald-review.com/sports/illini/tupper-trying-to-find-the-next-big-thing/article_b563e4ea-0244-11e3-ad63-0019bb2963f4.html
Also:
“”Make no mistake about it: We’re going to be out there with events and with press opportunities, and we’re going to work hard to build relationships and friendships,” Delany said. “We know it’s a competitive area for everything, and so we won’t dominate anything, but we want to be relevant for years to come.”
That means, as he told The Star-Ledger Thursday, that “everything is on the table” — even the Big Ten football kickoff, an annual event that attracts thousands of fans at $100 a pop for a luncheon and autograph session with coaches and players.
That one has a long history here and won’t move any time soon. But the Big Ten basketball tip-off? The postseason hoops tournament? All of that could be coming to a hotel ballroom or an arena in the New York area, sooner than later, because Delany wants to conquer the media capital of the world.” http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/07/politi_jim_delany_is_bullish_about_turning_new_york_into_a_big_ten_city.html
More:
“And don’t be stunned if some day, Jim Delany looks into holding the Big Ten’s conference basketball tournament in the Big Apple, too. After all, the commissioner has also been plotting his own assault on New York City for quite some time.” http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/06/wisch-big-ten-acc-set-to-battle-over-the-big-apple/
As for the Football title game in NYC:
Michigan State A.D. Mark Hollis thinks a title game at Chicago’s open-air Soldier Field would be “hip and cool.”
“I think we should be looking in New York and Detroit and here in Chicago,” he said. “The Super Bowl (suburban New York) is going to be in inclement weather potentially.
“I’m not pushing for it. But I’m also not against looking at that kind of environment.” http://www.inspiredhomeomaha.com/article/20130515/HUSKERS/705159816
Relatedly, MSU & G-town playing at MSG on Super Bowl Saturday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/08/08/michigan-state-to-play-georgetown-on-super-bowl-weekend-at-msg/2631979/
Summation:
Whether or not we like it, the ideas I floated for discussion are ones that have some legs and seem to be under consideration by the conference. Whether or not I agree (personally, Big Ten Football Championship should be in either Chicago or Lambeau Field), the addition of RU and UMD means that some events will be shifting east. Otherwise, there will be no long term gain from expansion.
LikeLike
@Frank: You make excellent points, and Mike Slive’s advice should generally be followed. But we also have to allow that the SEC has that luxury because Atlanta is really the capital of the SEC, an easily accessible town with thousands of alumni from each SEC school (excluding the recent additions). Moreover, the rabid nature of SEC fandom is unique. If Atlanta had an outdoor stadium, I don’t think the SEC game would be played elsewhere just to find a dome (maybe New Orleans, but there are reasons the game went from Birmingham to Atlanta, other than the dome).
The ACC, on the other hand, is a basketball-first conference. Even with the game in Charlotte reportedly sold out or close to sold out, there seemed to be an awful lot of fans dressed as teal plastic seats.
As for the Big Ten, I personally feel that Slive is right regarding a single location and creating an event like atmosphere. I just feel that is more likely to occur if held in an easily accessible major city. In this case, Chicago (I know I floated above rotating the game, but that’s if the goal is increasing conference awareness in other markets). That Soldier Field is an outdoor stadium in a cold city should take second place to the fact that it is the historical and present and future capital of the Big Ten, the largest city dominated by the conference, the one with the highest concentration of alumni and reasonably centrally located (at least for original B1G schools). Indy is a schlep from everywhere and unlikely to entice fans/students/alumni (as attendance figures showed).
LikeLike
Regarding the SEC CG, each participating school gets an allotment of 17,500 tickets. The other member schools received a few tickets and the SEC office keeps some for their own use. The remaining 30,000 tickets are sold locally, and those tickets are either used or sold on the secondary market.
LikeLike
Also, with regard to the weather at an outdoor championship, bad weather makes for great tv.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BAD+WEATHER+MAKES+FOR+GOOD+TV.-a0127581099
“As any TV exec would eventually admit if put on the spot: Let it snow, let it snow, and let it snow ’til it can’t snow no more.
CBS Sports chief Sean McManus, answering a question on a conference call about his desire for bad weather, initially responded: “We’re not looking forward to it.” But as he continued, it became clear that if there was any way possible to set up man-made snow machines along the sidelines at Heinz Field, the network would look into it.
“When you have that kind of scene, going back to the ‘Snow Bowl’ between Oakland and New England a few years ago, to the incredibly cold Tennessee-New England playoff game last year and the AFC title game with Indianapolis the next week, and then the (Indianapolis-New England) game last week, for the viewer at home, especially those who haven’t seen a game all season, it just adds to the overall ambience of the telecast,” said McManus.
“And the ratings seem to bear that out. When the weather is really horrendous, we get a (ratings) spike. It just makes a better scene for folks at home sitting in their warm living rooms watching these players compete not just against each other but against the elements.
“So I’m rooting for terrible weather. I’m not shy about that.”
* * *
Likewise, Fox Sports executive producer Ed Goren wouldn’t object to seeing Eagles receiver Freddie Mitchell making snow angels at midfield on the Lincoln Financial Field
in Philly during pregame warmups.
“I do find things to complain about, and the other day, I may have come on the set and asked, ‘How is it possible we get a playoff game in Green Bay (a wild-card contest two weeks ago) in January and it’s always sunny, but every time CBS goes to New England they get snow,” said Goren from his sunny Los Angeles-based office. “Maybe more care to see (the snow). It does make for great TV.”
Summation:
Any impact on attendance at a hypothetical outdoor B1G football title game in bad weather would very likely be trumped by higher ratings. It seems tv executives root for that.
LikeLike
I’m going to agree with Wainscott. I was a resident of Chicago for almost 6 years so I may be biased but the B1G conference championship should be played in Chicago, and it’s a joke that’s it not. Chicago is the center of the Big Ten. It’s the city with the most Big Ten alumni, the capital of the Midwest, the nation’s third largest metropolitan area, one of the world’s GLOBAL cities, home to some of the country’s best restaurants, great nightlife that blows every other city in the Midwest away and is rivaled by just a few cities nationwide (bars are open until 5am), world class museums and institutions, the country’s second largest mass transit system, the country’s second largest fleet of taxi cabs, more hotels than anywhere in the Midwest, a downtown that is second only to New York, I could go on and on. Indianapolis isn’t even in the same breath as Chicago. Come on Frank, as a Chicagoan I’m shocked you feel otherwise.
Plus, the added benefit of playing in Soldier Field is that you are more likely to sell it out since it’s a smaller venue. I really don’t think the cold weather is as big an issue as some are making it out to be. It’s a week after the regular season. Perhaps those games should be moved indoors as well? I would agree with Brian that the field at Soldier Field is awful, perhaps field turf could be installed?
We know the diehards will attend the championship game, but for the non die-hard, if given a choice to travel for a weekend on short notice would you honestly choose Indianapolis over Chicago? I would never choose Indy, (which is a fine city, don’t get me wrong), doesn’t matter what time of year it is.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’m as big of a Chicago guy as anyone, but the Big Ten should keep the football championship game in Indianapolis permanently. Let’s follow the lead of the SEC as opposed to the ACC on this issue.”
I’m with you. If Chicago had built a roof when they redid Soldier Field like they should have, then Chicago would be a no-brainer. As is, Indy is the best choice by a significant margin.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
My thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts on your thoughts.
“My thoughts above are more food for thought and thinking in terms of opportunities to enhance the Big Ten brand in NYC, which is the entire point of expanding eastward (Rutgers is a vessel for this, a tool if you will. A means to an end.)”
Well, I wouldn’t say it was the entire reason, but it certainly was a big reason.
“Part of building a presence in NYC is staging games of import in the region. I’m far from the only person to think/type this:”
I agree on staging some important events, and I know most of your ideas have been suggested before by others. I just don’t agree with all of them.
I also don’t think the B10 has studied individual events in details yet to decide what makes sense. As much as the B10 wants to be in NYC, staging events that require thousands of fans means the fans have to buy in first. Most reporting I’ve seen says that hasn’t happened yet. That’s why I think they start with media events (coaches and players and media travel) and a few specialty games (a holiday hoops double-header, a CFB kickoff game, some ACC/B10 games, etc) to test and build the audience.
The hoops tourney could do well in DC on occasion, but you’ll alienate more fans than you gain if you consistently move the biggest games away from all the B10 schools but 1 or 2. Moving the CCG or the hoops tourney on occasion might work, but NYC will be tough since RU and PSU both stink at hoops.
“Michigan State A.D. Mark Hollis thinks a title game at Chicago’s open-air Soldier Field would be “hip and cool.”
“I think we should be looking in New York and Detroit and here in Chicago,” he said. “The Super Bowl (suburban New York) is going to be in inclement weather potentially.”
1. The B10 clearly disagreed with him for the first few years.
2. I think the West teams will complain vociferously about the CCG being in NYC, especially if PSU makes it.
3. NYC gets one Super Bowl as a payment for building the new stadium. Get back to me when another cold weather site gets an outdoor SB.
4. CFB isn’t the NFL.
“Whether or not I agree (personally, Big Ten Football Championship should be in either Chicago or Lambeau Field),”
I couldn’t disagree more. Indy is by far the best choice.
“the addition of RU and UMD means that some events will be shifting east. Otherwise, there will be no long term gain from expansion.”
I disagree with this, too. Even if nothing moves east (stuff will move east), there would still be big gains.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“You make excellent points, and Mike Slive’s advice should generally be followed. But we also have to allow that the SEC has that luxury because Atlanta is really the capital of the SEC, an easily accessible town with thousands of alumni from each SEC school (excluding the recent additions). Moreover, the rabid nature of SEC fandom is unique.”
Yes, the SEC isn’t an exact parallel for the B10 on this. There aren’t many choices to compare to, though. The P12 plays on campus, which I don’t think is ideal. Frank discussed the ACC. The only other model is the B12, but I’d say they were similar to the SEC. They alternated between north and south, but TX was so important to everyone that it worked. Neither NYC nor DC are vital to the B10 schools in the same way, nor are 1/3 of the B10 schools near those cities.
They mostly played in domes to start. KC is a little warmer than Chicago, but that didn’t help much.
2000 – high of 37 that day
2003 – high of 39 but played in the evening
2004 – high of 60
2006 – mid-20s at gametime
2008 – 32 degrees with 10 mph winds for a 7pm kick
They had decided to move it to Dallas permanently IIRC, but then dropped to 10 schools.
“If Atlanta had an outdoor stadium,”
They will soon. Well, it’ll have a retractable roof. It remains to be seen whether they leave it open for the CCG.
“I don’t think the SEC game would be played elsewhere just to find a dome (maybe New Orleans, but there are reasons the game went from Birmingham to Atlanta, other than the dome).”
Yes, but the SEC comparison would be moving the game to Houston or St. Louis. Other than TAMU and MO fans, did you hear anyone seriously advocate that?
“As for the Big Ten, I personally feel that Slive is right regarding a single location and creating an event like atmosphere. I just feel that is more likely to occur if held in an easily accessible major city.”
Indy is easily accessible. 4 interstates meet there plus it has a decent airport. And it’s not far from Chicago for those that also want to visit a major city.
“That Soldier Field is an outdoor stadium in a cold city should take second place to the fact that it is the historical and present and future capital of the Big Ten, the largest city dominated by the conference, the one with the highest concentration of alumni and reasonably centrally located (at least for original B1G schools).”
Why? The game is the most important part. A crap field in bad weather is a serious concern and could impact the outcome of the game. Being the supposed capital of the B10 is meaningless for the CCG. If they’d bothered to build a good facility when they redid Soldier Field we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Indy is a schlep from everywhere”
Except for all the places it’s closer to, like OH, PA, IN and parts of IL. It’s about the same distance from MI and not that much farther from IA and NE.
Chicago is basically the same schlep, in other words.
“and unlikely to entice fans/students/alumni (as attendance figures showed).”
You have zero evidence that Indy was the problem, not the teams, the schools involved, the ticket prices or anything else. Most fans that go to games like this aren’t looking for a tourist weekend, they want to see the game.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Also, with regard to the weather at an outdoor championship, bad weather makes for great tv.”
Too bad. The SEC CCG makes great ratings playing indoors. CFB isn’t the NFL. No B10 fan is going to tune in for the novelty of seeing snow. It might help because the locals can’t leave the house to do anything else.
The problem is your priorities seem screwy. To me, it goes like this:
1. The players and the game.
2. The fans in the stands.
3. The fans at home.
4. The TV people.
The TV deal is already signed, so I don’t see the need to boost their numbers by making the game worse. I’m happy with what it’s paying as is.
LikeLike
Tom,
“I was a resident of Chicago for almost 6 years so I may be biased but the B1G conference championship should be played in Chicago, and it’s a joke that’s it not.”
No, it’s not a joke. There are plenty of valid reasons why it isn’t played there.
“Chicago is the center of the Big Ten.”
No, it isn’t.
“It’s the city with the most Big Ten alumni,”
Yes, it’s the biggest city in the midwest.
“the capital of the Midwest,”
According to whom? I never knew anyone outside of Chicago that thought that.
“the nation’s third largest metropolitan area, one of the world’s GLOBAL cities, home to some of the country’s best restaurants, great nightlife that blows every other city in the Midwest away and is rivaled by just a few cities nationwide (bars are open until 5am), world class museums and institutions, the country’s second largest mass transit system, the country’s second largest fleet of taxi cabs, more hotels than anywhere in the Midwest, a downtown that is second only to New York, I could go on and on.”
Those are mostly different ways of saying it’s big. Everyone already knows it’s big. Not everyone holds Chicago in the same high regard as you, though. More importantly, their skill at hosting a major event like this is more important than ancillary amenities like art museums. I’m guessing most fans that attend the CCG won’t swing by an art museum that same trip.
“Indianapolis isn’t even in the same breath as Chicago.”
And Soldier Field in December isn’t in the same league as Indy’s dome.
“I really don’t think the cold weather is as big an issue as some are making it out to be. It’s a week after the regular season. Perhaps those games should be moved indoors as well? I would agree with Brian that the field at Soldier Field is awful, perhaps field turf could be installed?”
Well, the weather is part and parcel with the field. Until it’s fixed, Soldier Field should be off the list of options.
“We know the diehards will attend the championship game, but for the non die-hard, if given a choice to travel for a weekend on short notice would you honestly choose Indianapolis over Chicago?”
For a game, yes. For a car race, yes. Indy does big events well. It’s not a vacation, it’s more like a business trip. The compactness of Indy is a big bonus for visitors for the game.
LikeLike
I don’t think the BIG should put championships games in NYC. I think playing preseason tournaments or neutral site games in all sports would be enough to capture the market. One interesting possibility far down the line if there is a massive BIG expansion to 20 teams would be semi-finals. If there is a POD system and Division 4 allows Semifinals, having a rotating eastern site and western site would be a huge windfall in profits. Semifinals with a NFL like schedule (couple of teams from other pods) instead of rotating full PODS in a round robin, makes more sense to me if there is a giant expansion like Gee said in the future (very doubtful).
LikeLike
I agree with Psuhockey here. Keep the post-season tournaments and championship games in the Midwest. The ONLY exception is Lacrosse. Either on campus at Maryland or Hopkins, or perhaps at a pro stadium in Baltimore, Philly, or Long Island.
Here’s what I would consider for the other sports:
For Football, I would do an annual Kickoff Classic over Labor Day at MetLife (as I doubt Yankee Stadium would want to tear up their grass). Sign a deal to have Syracuse, UCONN, and Army rotate every three years as the opponent for various Big Ten teams. And there might be a few other “national” programs that would be interested; perhaps Navy, Miami or BYU. I’m sure UCONN would fall over themselves for this type of association, Army shouldn’t be too hard to get, and I’m sure Syracuse would have a hard time saying no as well. The Big Ten schools would know about the NYC trip years in advance, so the alums and fanbases can plan for the trip, and the commitment from Big Ten schools would be to play there once over the next 14 years. A similar set-up supporting Philly or DC could work, too.
For hockey, it’s got to be an outdoor game (or two) at Yankee Stadium, right?
For basketball, I like the idea of a Christmas time showcase. Maybe four games total over two nights against NYC area and East Coast teams.
LikeLike
Syracuse drew horribly for last year’s USC game, and now certain levels of Giants season ticketholders have been offered $10-20 ticket packages for Syr/Penn St. UConn travels poorly as well.
You would be better off relying on the service academies for Met Life games if you didn’t want to rely on the B1G team to sell all of the tickets.
LikeLike
In SU’s defense, the weather in the NYC area for the game with Southern Cal was dreadful. We may have a better analysis this Saturday, when Penn State plays the Orange.
LikeLike
If it’s one of the 3 eastern schools (or even OSU or UM), you can pair them up with a national power (USC, Stanford, and FSU all have close to 10K alums in metro NYC). A bunch of other ACC schools as well.
If it’s another Midwestern school, then you’d have to have them play ND or a local school (‘Cuse or UConn, really).
LikeLike
PSU Hockey: You could put B10 Hockey on at the Garden (Cornell seems to do quite well there (plus New York is building the World’s biggest Ice Facility (9 Rinks)). Another option will be, the New Red Wings Arena, which would make sense (can’t believe as a Nittany Lion fan, I am recommending anything that would benefit UM and MSU), as would Consol Energy in the Burgh (the NEW Hockey town of America).
LikeLike
vp19-
Rutgers was 30 miles away, hosting the Howard Bison in front of a crowd of 50,000 at the same time and under the same weather that Syracuse/USC had for their Met Life crowd of 39,000.
People are tricked by Syracuse’s good fan showing at the BE basketball tournament (which basically was an annual reunion for devoted SU basketball fans, because it was a virtual guarantee that the Orangemen would be relevant to the later rounds) into thinking there is some larger untapped NYC area support for Syracuse itself, when there is little interest in Syracuse outside of their men’s basketball program.
LikeLike
David – The Red Wings have plenty of college hockey presence already in Detroit. They host the GLI between Christmas and New Years, which features UM, MSU, and Michigan Tech every year, along with a random 4th team that will be invited. Additionally, UM and MSU always play a neutral site game at the Joe. And they used to host the CCHA championship every year. At least at the start, the Joe will alternate hosting the Big Ten Championship with Xcel in St Paul. There have been various other “neutral-site” games at the Joe over the years, usually featuring one of UM or MSU, with an opponent like LSSU or ND.
Regarding games at MSG, I admit that I don’t know the market of NYC, but I just don’t think that a game at MSG moves the needle as much as an outdoor game (presumably at Yankee Stadium). I don’t know if the NHL would commit to an annual outdoor game at Yankee Stadium – but I bet that the Big Ten would. A six year deal that guarantees each of the schools plays twice at Yankee Stadium sounds reasonable to me. And if the game is in mid/late January, they can advertise the heck out of the game during the Pinstripe Bowl.
I’m sure there is value for PSU, and even OSU, to play hockey games in Pittsburgh. But there isn’t a conscious effort to turn Pittsburgh (or Detroit for that matter) into a “Big Ten City” like there is in New York (or Philly or DC).
LikeLike
@Frank: One more question: Besides full cost-of-attendance scholarships, what rule changes do you think the D4 schools might want to make, once they’re unshackled from the rest of D1?
LikeLike
The System
According to Wetzel, the best book written on college sports in years:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf—the-system–a-great-read-on-college-football-s-inner-workings-202143287.html
LikeLike
By default, that means it’s actually terrible and a complete waste of time and money.
LikeLike
Interesting research on how often schools over- or under-perform their predicted conference order:
http://www.sippinonpurple.com/2013/8/25/4656688/northwestern-is-the-most-consistently-underrated-team-in-the-country
Looking at them, you see that small private schools (Stanford), schools in areas with poor recruiting (KSU) or both (Northwestern!) make up almost exclusively the most under-ranked while schools in rich recruiting areas dominate the list of those who are over-ranked.
It seems that recruiting matters, but preseason prognosticators over-judge how much it matter.
In fact, of the list of schools over the past 10 years, of the top 10 schools that are most under-ranked, only Ole Miss, GTech, (and maybe Cincy) aren’t a small private or located in a poor-recruiting area or both (and those schools tend to be underestimated because they’re comparatively resource poor or have stricter academic requirements; GTech requires everyone to pass calculus to graduate). Of the 9 schools that are most over-ranked, only Pitt and Illinois (heh) isn’t a king or in a fertile recruiting area or both.
LikeLike
I note Iowa State is seventh most under-ranked over the past 20 years. So much of ranking is based on name or reputation, which doesn’t necessarily translate to results on the field.
LikeLike
For the ESPN conspirators, 8 of the 10 in the 20 year list were Pac 12 or Big 12 schools which were largely ignored by ESPN, and, in general, schools west of the Mississippi get ignored by eastern media. They often don’t include their scores in the paper. Perhaps that bias is being reduced by the reduced significance of the print media.
LikeLike
Another NYT article about ESPN’s power, how it has used it and threats to it.
LikeLike
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2013/varsity-numbers-final-2013-projections
Final F/+ projections.
LikeLike
So it looks like the PAC is going to use BYU to offset the effects USC’s and Stanford’s season ending games against ND.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/27/byu-announces-home-and-home-with-cal/
Within the past month or so BYU has scheduled 2-1’s with USC and Stanford and now a H-H with Cal. All the games in PAC stadiums appear to be season enders.
LikeLike
It is interesting that BYU would agree home and home with Cal, after 2 and 1 Games with Stanford and USC. I wonder if BYU is trying to develop a good relationship with those Schools, and the PAC might warm up a bit to the Cougars joining the Conference down the line?
LikeLike
No.
Just no.
BYU isn’t joining the PAC.
Ever.
LikeLike
I think that’s what BYU could be trying to do, but I don’t think it’ll ever work.
LikeLike
I agree with everyone else: there’s no Pac-12 membership in BYU’s future. Bear in mind that independents often have trouble scheduling good games after September, because they’re limited to teams that have byes on the conference schedule, and who are willing to schedule a tough OOC opponent at that point in the season.
LikeLike
While BYU “travels well” – ie, has lots alumni and fans in PAC 12 markets – the PAC 12 does not want them.
Honestly, it is a great situation for both BYU and the PAC 12. Both get scheduling help, especially in November, and BYU gets to continue its goal to play a national schedule and the PAC 12 doesn’t have to include BYU in the PAC 12 club.
LikeLike
Very good arrangement. Works well with everyone’s needs.
LikeLike
An interesting article breaking down some of how the BCS computer polls work and the implications for the first week and various Non-AQ teams. A couple of points: the Iowa-NorthIL game is actually very important to some of the BCS computer polls; the Ohio-Cincy game is giant if Ohio can pull an upset.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/08/27/0827-bcs-breakdown.html
LikeLike
That is actually very lame. Because Northern Illinois had a great 2012 season, its early season opponents benefit, even if the Huskies end the season ranked at #100.
In other words, Iowa would get a quality win for beating N. Illinois in week 1, regardless of how N. Illinois does throughout the season. How does that kind of ranking even make it into the BCS formula? Stupid, if you asked me.
LikeLike
The year-end numbers are all that count for determining BCS placement, and by then, the effect of 2012 results will be gone.
LikeLike
Not in the one computer they won’t, apparently. It uses ranking at the time the game is played, so last year does have an impact.
LikeLike
I had wondered why Billingsley had such ridiculous results sometimes. Now its obvious.
LikeLike
His system might make more sense in the pros who don’t have the same significant turnover.
LikeLike
I agree about the lameness of that particular computer poll. The computer polls have been the most controversial aspect of the BCS.
LikeLike
The computer polls have been the most controversial aspect of the BCS.
You sure about that? I think the Coaches’ Poll has been the most controversial. For starters, it’s a misnomer: most of the coaches don’t do it; they let an assistant reply on their behalf, and in many cases it’s pretty clear (from the odd votes cast) that the assistants haven’t followed the sport very carefully. I’d like to know the coach (or coach’s assistant) who has time during the season to really scrutinize all the results outside their own league? The coaches aren’t required to disclose their votes until the final poll of the season, so there’s no accountability. The risk of a conflict of interest, or the appearance of it, is beyond obvious.
The main problem with the computers, is that BCS honchos forbid them from considering margin of error, even though the programmers themselves all say that the poll is more accurate when MOE is included. Some outfits even publish two computer polls, one for the BCS and the one they truly believe in.
Having said that, I think overwhelmingly the Coaches’ Poll is the worst of the bunch. Billingsley’s methodology sounds dumb, but the BCS methodology discards outlying votes, so one strange poll can’t have disproportionate impact on the results.
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2013/08/26/2013-houston-astros-baseballs-worst-team-is-most-profitable-in-history/
Astros are terrible but still the most profitable team ever.
LikeLike
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=21644
Not everyone agrees.
LikeLike
AD Fred Glass announcing initiatives to improve the game day experience at Memorial Stadium
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130826/SPORTS0601/308260070/Fan-friendly-changes-aim-make-Indiana-University-football-bigger-deal
LikeLike
They are going to start playing “Back Home Again in Indiana” pregame as well. Very classy
LikeLike
Can’t tell whether you’re being serious or sarcastic………..Marching 100 has for years played a faster version of BHAII as part of the pre-game football show…if they’re talking about “adding” it they probably will play a slower stand-alone version…………
BHAII is actual a rip-off of “On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away”, written by Paul Dresser, which is Indiana’s official state song. OTBOTWFA is even more of a tear jerker, and imo, a better song. However, BHAII is far more wildely known because it translate well into jazz, abd because it’s played at the Indy 500.
As for Fred Glass, he replaced an arrogant prick named Rick Greenspan, who wrecked Army’s ath. dept before he came to IU, wrecked IU’s program, and has since gone on to malpractice at other schools……Fred’s a boy-next-door type who loves IU, works his butt off, and is a “doer”. IMO, he’s the best IU AD since Bill Orwig in the 1960s/70s.
LikeLike
Ohio State’s game at Virginia Tech moved up so they are playing on Labor Day in 2015. Count me as unhappy about that.
1. I hate playing big games week 1. You should always have a week to gel first given the limited number of practices in college and no scrimmages.
2. That means we start the year on the road for a late game on Monday and then will play again Saturday (probably noon). Those are exactly the kind of games I look for for upsets.
LikeLike
As far as the week 1 business…….both teams have the same # of practices going into the game….the only way I see it as a big deal is if you’re breaking in a new QB.
On the 2nd point, the next opponent is NIU….so you could argue both ways….yes, they were very good last year, but I don’t have much sympathy for OSU if the can’t handle a MAC team on the road.
Finally, if you ARE going to play a high-profile team on the road, give me Va. Tech. They’re almost always overrated. The only problem I see is you’d have to spend more time in practice on protecting your kickers…………
LikeLike
…….MAC team at home…………he meant to say
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“As far as the week 1 business…….both teams have the same # of practices going into the game….the only way I see it as a big deal is if you’re breaking in a new QB.”
It’s not unfair, it just makes for bad football and nobody should want that to be an important game for their team. There’s a reason the NFL plays pre-season games.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Ohio State’s game at Virginia Tech moved up so they are playing on Labor Day in 2015. Count me as unhappy about that.”
Me too.
“1. I hate playing big games week 1. You should always have a week to gel first given the limited number of practices in college and no scrimmages.”
Agreed.
“2. That means we start the year on the road for a late game on Monday and then will play again Saturday (probably noon). Those are exactly the kind of games I look for for upsets.”
I hate short weeks in CFB. Frankly, I think they should be eliminated. Players should get a minimum of 6 days between games, meaning they need a bye after playing on a weekday.
I realize it’s “only” NIU, but upsets happen for a reason.
LikeLike
The last big one I remember like that was involving Virginia Tech. They lost a close one to start the year against Boise State (I believe Labor Day as well). Five days later they played James Madison and lost. That lose probably does not happen if you altered the schedule. That Virginia Tech team didn’t lose another game after that till the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
According to NBD, Rolling Stones story quoted as saying Urban Meyer “”may ave helped cover up failed drug tests, along with two violent incidents….” involving Hernandez while at Florida……..If quoted language is true, what kind of journalist would write that anyone “may have” done as alleged? RSs better have the goods, or they would seem to have their butts on the line…..now I know Urban Liar, er Meyer, is a public figure, bu twtf…..I MAY have covered up those things, and I don’t even know the guy….also, are failed drug tests and uncharged criminal acts generally revealed to the public?? Now, upcoming article is NOT quoted correctly, NBC’s lawyers better get ready….it will be interesting to see ifU.M. takes any action…..maybe that’s a can of worms he doesn’t want opened.
LikeLike
Florida doesn’t need to cover up failed drug tests. They just allow the player to keep playing. They have one of the most lenient drug policies in the SEC.
LikeLike
Saw the article and don’t see the specific quote referenced in the NBC report….the guy must have graduated from Missouri’s Journalism school……………..
LikeLike
@Frank:
For the Q&A, maybe you can pose a question or two to Patrick, the tv industry guest poster from 2010 who’s analysis as to the best expansion schools for the BTN proved to be frighteningly accurate and prescient (The number 2, 3, and 4 schools on his chart are in or joining the B1G; Texas was first).
Maybe he can update his analysis to measure some ACC schools and revise his numbers for Vandy and some other B12 schools? Maybe he has some other thoughts on 14 vs 16 vs 18-20 from a tv revenue and share perspective?
LikeLike
hear hear. I second that idea. I had forgotten about Patrick. If not for the Q&A, how about a later stand-alone post entitled “Patrick was a genius, what does he think now?”
LikeLike
I also want to hear from Patrick.
LikeLike
Johnny F’n Football gets a half game suspension. Why even bother.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9609389/johnny-manziel-texas-aggies-suspended-1st-half-season-opener-rice-owls
LikeLike
What a fucking joke.
LikeLike
Maybe he should change his name to Johnny Montana. He has a silly nickname, success at a young age goes to his head, he makes a lot of bad decisions and alienates his fans.
LikeLike
Johnny Handcock?
LikeLike
Jump on them early and get a big lead. Make his return irrelevant.
LikeLike
This part of the article summarizes everything that’s wrong with college athletics, “The rule says student-athletes cannot permit their names or likenesses to be used for commercial purposes, including to advertise, recommend or promote sales of commercial products, or accept payment for the use of their names or likenesses.” So the only people who can profit from the “students” are the schools, conferences, and NCAA.
LikeLike
The NCAA doesn’t profit from anything. They pass the large majority of their money back to schools and athletes in various ways. The rest they spend on overhead. It’s not like they’re a business.
LikeLike
Profit is the tricky word here. Almost everyone involved is non-profit, but what I mean is they use money generated by interest in the student athletes by pay bill far in excess of actual costs of things those students are involved with.
1. The NCAA uses the basketball tournament for most of its cash. It sells this one event and makes enough off of it to almost completely fund all their other activities.
2. The schools use the money from TV, stadiums fees, merchandise licensing rights, donor programs (which are required to buy seats some places), etc to fund vast athletic departments, hire million dollar coaches, advertise their name heavily, etc. All of that is funded off the students playing a few sports.
The difference between the model here and other non-profit is that if anothe non-profit wants an employee. a product, or service from a different company (ranging from lawn care to a major speeker at a fundraiser), they still are going to have to pay market value for those services unless a person/company wants to offer those services for less. In college football especially, that’s not really an option given the system has been set-up in a way that there’s few American options besides going to college if you are a major college player.
LikeLike
There is other than football. There are minor leagues and semi-pro leagues.
LikeLike
Eric,
Sure they do, but my point is they spend it on other student athletes (scholarships, championships, etc). That’s very different from a company profiting off of something. If the schools didn’t advertise, there wouldn’t be revenue sports to give them free rides, free coaching, free tutors, etc.
As for other non-profits, they usually thrive on volunteers doing much of the work. Players volunteer to get a free college education, free tutoring, free vocational training, free fitness training, free food, free housing, free exposure to future employers, etc in exchange for playing CFB for free. Since all of that is worth more than $1M and most players will never make the NFL, I think they do just fine. Even if they work 2000 hours a year on football for 5 years, they get more than $100 per hour.
LikeLike
They also spend a fair amount on other students. Tutors, note takers, etc.
LikeLike
But a large amount is directed into the salaries of the professionals running the system. A “non-profit” with million dollar salaries in most other fields would be seen as pretending to be for some public purpose while actually being for the purpose of generating a big salary.
LikeLike
Its not the ones running it-the Presidents and ADs who are getting the big money. Its the ones under them, the coaches, who don’t control their own fate.
LikeLike
Many major charities pay their leaders over $250k per year. Some get $500k or more. The NCAA handles more money than many charities.
LikeLike
A very reliable source told me that Missouri is not happy in the SEC and they will a planning a move to the B1G. If this occurs, the SEC will go shopping for another team. Any idea who would be their #1 candidate, or next move???
LikeLike
Milton Hershey,
“A very reliable source told me that Missouri is not happy in the SEC and they will a planning a move to the B1G. If this occurs, the SEC will go shopping for another team. Any idea who would be their #1 candidate, or next move???”
And someone’s head explodes in 3, 2, 1 ….
Anyway, top SEC candidates from the SEC’s POV:
1. ND
2. UT
3. UNC
4. OU
Top realistic choice: WV
Everyone else is under a GoR and/or the affection is one-sided. The B10 would be stuck at 15, too.
LikeLike
Nah, I don’t think ND is rated that high by the SEC.
Definitely behind Texas and maybe even UNC.
Also, WV is under a GOR as well.
Finally, small-state OU would be only slightly higher than FSU (if at all). Take in to account that they’re likely tied to little brother, and I can easily see the SEC preferring FSU to OU.
LikeLike
I’m thinking for SECN purposes they’d want ND. If they want to be a “national” channel, and they’ve said that, then ND is the way to go.
I know WV is also under the GoR, but they want the SEC more than almost any other viable candidate. They also aren’t so valuable as to make their loss to the B12 crippling (unlike UT or OU).
As for OU, it’s a new state but they’re also big in north TX. Besides, the SEC hasn’t shown much interest in FSU. They have shown interest in OU before.
LikeLike
Also, a western team fits their divisions much better than another eastern team. If they add FSU, who goes west?
LikeLike
I would say that “national channel” thing is just marketing talk. The BTN wants to be a national channel too.
Also, ND wouldn’t really help the SECN because, outside of maybe a home game vs. Temple or the like, all of ND’s games would be picked up by long before the SECN gets dibs.
LikeLike
I’m thinking for SECN purposes they’d want ND. If they want to be a “national” channel, and they’ve said that, then ND is the way to go.
There’s in no way in hell the SEC would ever take ND. The conference’s single biggest asset has always been its Southern identity (yes, even more than football excellence) and adding the ultimate uppity, Southern disparaging (remember Catholics vs. Cousins and Golden Domers vs. Mobile Homers? because the SEC does) Yankee school would completely undermine that.
My guess for SEC’s wishlist?
1. UNC
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
4/5. V-Tech and UVA
LikeLike
That’s no different than for any other king. Every team has to play at least once, probably twice, on the SECN. That won’t stop AL fans from buying it, and it wouldn’t stop ND fans either. But ND might get the network into markets it couldn’t possibly get into otherwise.
LikeLike
Lots of people like to proclaim all the groups that wouldn’t accept ND. I don’t buy it. Money heals most wounds.
LikeLike
Money heals most wounds.
Most doesn’t mean all. And it’s not even clear Notre Dame would add anymore than someone like UNC, Texas or Oklahoma after you consider the collateral damage that would be done to the SEC brand.
(Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that NASCAR appeared on the verge of over taking baseball as the nation’s second most popular sport based powered almost entirely by the fact that it had near NFL levels of popularity in the South. NASCAR took this as a sign that it was time nationalize the sport ditching traditional southeastern tracks in favor of races in places like Vegas, Chicago and KC.
Needless to say the strategy backfired severely as it alienated traditional fans and the sport failed to catch on anywhere else.)
LikeLike
Also, ND wouldn’t actually help the SECN all that much since ND’s fanbase is so spread out. They would help the national deals (though so would Texas and Oklahoma) but ND wouldn’t get the SECN into any cable households it won’t have anyways.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC is very interested in Texas. For one thing, the SEC already has A&M and they don’t need another Texas school. Similarly, I dont know interested A&M would be in having Texas in the SEC. For another, the SEC is a very one for all all for one everybody is equal league, and that’s not really the Longhorn’s MO. Most importantly, Texas has repeatedly and publicly denounced the academic reputation of the SEC, and really, really pissed off alot of the SEC presidents. I’m not saying that the SEC. wouldn’t take Texas if Texas came knocking, but I really don’t think they’d be at the top of the SEC’s list. I think UNC, UVA, Duke, Oklahoma, Va Tech, NC State, and Notre Dame would all definitely be ahead of Texas, and West Virginia, Florida State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Miami might be too.
LikeLike
BS walks, $ talks. Setting ND aside, since it makes no sense, only UNC would be in the same league as TX as an SEC target, assuming TX would agree tp play nice……and assuming LHN issues could be worked out, I think TX would be the #1 target.
LikeLike
I just don’t think that the SEC would see that much more money from Texas. At this point, the SEC is pretty confident that the Aggies can get the SEC Network all the coverage it needs in the Lone Start State, and I’m inclined to believe that they’re righ. If you were to pick the conference that would see the least financial benefit from adding Texas, it would be the SEC. Again, I do believe if Texas came to the SEC and was willing to agree to join on the SEC’s terms, they would be added, but, I do think that a number of other schools would be on the SEC’s wishlist over UT, especially those that would bring new markets and academic clout like UNC, UVA, Duke, and VaTech. I’m also inclined to believe that schools with great athletics and a new market would be more appealing as well. I do think that a UT and SEC marriage would be extremely mutually beneficial to both parties, but I’m pretty sure both sides would be too proud to make it work.
LikeLike
For another, the SEC is a very one for all all for one everybody is equal league, and that’s not really the Longhorn’s MO.
I tend to agree with your overall point, but this isn’t really fair. The SEC had no problem adding the Aggies and they were even more committed to the Big XII’s unequal revenue distribution system than Texas was (remember that when UT and OU said they didn’t want to take the Forgotten Fives share of the Nebraska and Colorado exit penalties, even if it meant getting less than the $20 million a year they were promised, A&M publicly threatened to sue the conference).
That said, I guess where you slot UT on the SEC’s wishlist depends mostly on how much value you place on plausibility. I believe that deep down the SEC would probably prefer UT to any school except for maybe UNC, but Texas has made clear for 20 years they have zero interest in the SEC and the SEC will never beg anyone.
LikeLike
You’ll note I said my list was from the SEC’s POV. I never said UT had any interest in the SEC. The only viable option I named was WV.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Texas and Oklahoma objection to the SEC is really “academics.” Its the priority of winning over rules and academics and everything else. You can say that’s real or not, but that’s the perception. It is a fact that SEC schools stretched the 25 scholarship limit rule until the NCAA had to put in a rule to control it. It is a fact that the SWC and SEC were the only major conferences limiting partial qualifiers-because both knew they had members who would abuse it without such a limit. The Pac 12 and Big 10 didn’t feel a need for it. Texas believes it has the “control” to get those types of rules passed in the Big 12 if necessary and the support of the Big 12 presidents.
Texas offered a sophomore a scholarship recently. Mack Brown said he didn’t want to do it, but everyone else was and they were pretty much forced into it. SEC schools start their recruiting at a ridiculously young age. Tuberville made the comment while at Tech about how recruiting in the SEC was a whole different world.
LikeLike
What makes anyone think that the B10 wants Missouri alone? Remember the B10 was comfortable with 11 teams until Nebraska became available (in particular they did not want the Tigers when they came begging). If you look at Conference Expansion like chess moves, you can make a logical assumption that if Missouri jumped, the SEC (who can afford to be choosy), is not taking a team like West Virginia (which is at best a lateral move (WVA is better at Football, but worse at Academics and the TV Market Expansion)). But will take likely take Oklahoma, which as a National School might make that Conference look like the Joe DiMaggio Yankees (is if that Conference is not dominant enough already). The only way that might be prevented would be to bring Texas with Missouri. But even UT would be the B10’s Ted Williams (better numbers), to OU being Joe DiMaggio for the SEC (more Championships (Joe had 9 World Series Rings in 15 years)). I cannot see Delany making that mistake (particularly when they have not even integrated Maryland & Rutgers into the Conference or found out about what will happen with O’Bannon yet). Basically, I think the odds are greater that I am getting a date with Mila Kunis or winning Powerball than Missouri is joining the B10.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“What makes anyone think that the B10 wants Missouri alone?”
I don’t think anyone thinks they want MO by itself. There’d have to be a 16th team, and it would need to be a good one to justify further expansion.
He asked a specific question related to a rumor he’d heard. Plausibility of the rumor wasn’t the question.
“Basically, I think the odds are greater that I am getting a date with Mila Kunis or winning Powerball than Missouri is joining the B10.”
Right now, I’d agree. Eventually? I think the odds of that top the Powerball.
LikeLike
Don’t know if you know anything about collge football, but you make a pretty good candy bar…………
LikeLike
Well, my $0.02 (if it means anything)
Frank (or maybe someone else) has constantly reminded us to think like university presidents when speculating what could a conference add. I don’t know any university presidents but I know that they generally do not want to be regarded as being responsible for destroying a competing conference. When there was speculation last time that the B1G was interested in adding KS/MO, it was rumored that certain plains university presidents did not favor such a move because they were afraid of hurting neighboring universities if it resulted in destroying the B12. Perhaps the Grant of Rights in both B12 and ACC have allayed such fears that they might now be open to going in that direction, assuming that the to-be-raided conference(s) can now withstand and rebuild.
This is going to require the cooperation of the networks if it can be done. Fox has rights to certain B12 and B1G (BTN) games. ESPN has cable rights to SEC and the vast majority of the ACC. My thinking is that Fox wants to make a big move. The constraint that I see here, other than GoR’s, is that any king not already in the SEC or B1G would rather be kings in their own conferences than be princes in the former two. So that leaves some good programs that aren’t kings but princes that could help a raiding conference get what they actually need. Kansas would be such an example. Another is Virginia Tech. Both are good enough that they can find spots in a richer conference. If speculation about MO turns out to be right (and I don’t want to think this way, being how loud its message board fans brag about how they’re a-ok with ess-ee-see) then KS may be #16. VT might be as well but they’re right now in an ESPN conference. ESPN has no interest whatsoever in helping a competitor network, unless it’s to keep out a third network. In this scenario, that doesn’t apply. Therefore, ESPN would rather keep VT in a conference they mostly control (ESPN doesn’t trust the B10 and may even be prepared to let them go in three years).
How could this happen? Perhaps OU/UT decides that they are staying put but want to expand to include schools in decent recruiting grounds back East. However, they may want a couple, even three in order to avoid isolating new members. They may want a division that would be a Texahoma group. That would distress some plains schools, but the powers of UT/OU win out in the end. So KS decides that it’s time to go north. Fox would then come in with lawyers and facilitate such a move, ensuring that the B12 would continue. KSU and ISU would OK it as well, as they’d still be able to play TX/OK and also gain new recruiting territory down the road. WV would probably have a neighbor in Cincy. It might sound that the B12 would be foolish to let another flagship go but, at this point, why bother? If they can trade out one basketball-first power for three football-first schools, even though not kings, then it might work out. You never know. Crazier things have happened. The B10 would get some valuable content for BTN (especially if the Border War is reunited in the process). ESPN still gets to air UT and OU football games, so no major loss to them.
Now to the replacement in the SEC. I think VT might be willing. They didn’t start playing in the ACC until 2004. They were in the Southern Conference, so they have a history with both SEC and ACC schools. VT would still play UVa but those games would revert to being OOC games. ESPN lawyers would help to ensure that the transition from ACC to SEC is smooth and offer to air more OOC games between ACC and SEC schools as a way to buy off the exit fees. That’s not even mentioning how VT would much more easily slide into the SEC East than MO has so far.
Finally, who would replace VT? UConn may be a possibility. However, here’s one that would sure make many roll their eyes (including mine): ND. Remember I said that any king outside B1G and SEC does not want to be a prince in either of them. ND fits that description to a tee. They prefer their independence but also love a national footprint and access to the East Coast, in particular. The last realignment scramble incredibly diminished their power to the point that they had to agree to give up 5 games in their schedule to the ACC in order to have a viable home for their Olympic programs. If Fox and ESPN start further movement, they may then conclude that it’s time to give up the ghost to end the musical chairs, if it means it preserves the option that they favor the most, which is the ACC. With a bonafide king in their corner, the ACC finally is stable enough that no remaining school would want to think about leaving. They’d keep playing 8 games and then split into north and south. That would make FSU and CU really happy as they wouldn’t play northern schools as much. ND keeps their NBC contract and have enough space for Navy, USC. That, in turn, gives ACC schools additional exposure through NBC. ESPN would grumble but what choice do they have at that point.
As to the point about university presidents? They couldn’t care less about what football-firsters think. Sometimes conference changes work out for both sides, sometimes not. They’ve already proven that in both instances.
LikeLike
Finally, who would replace VT? UConn may be a possibility. However, here’s one that would sure make many roll their eyes (including mine): ND.
I’ve never seen a persuasive case that Notre Dame choose the ACC, if they ever join a conference full-time. The ACC was the best league available that would allow them to remain independent in football. That doesn’t mean the ACC was the best league available. Once they’ve decided to join a league, I have to think they’d do what everyone else does, and chase the money. The money is in the Big Ten.
The last realignment scramble incredibly diminished their power to the point that they had to agree to give up 5 games in their schedule to the ACC in order to have a viable home for their Olympic programs.
Actually, they gave up about 2½ games, not 5. In the last five seasons (2008-12), the number of ACC teams on their schedule has been: 4, 2, 2, 3, 4. (I am counting Syracuse, whom they played during that span; but disregarding Maryland.) So in a typical year, ND had about 3 ACC teams on its schedule anyway, so what they really gave up is ~2 games, not 5.
If Fox and ESPN start further movement, they may then conclude that it’s time to give up the ghost to end the musical chairs, if it means it preserves the option that they favor the most, which is the ACC.
Why would they? In the last re-alignment, they got everything they wanted, and a deal locked in till the 2020s.
LikeLike
I thought early on the Domers would find a home in the ACC and the 5 game deal was the first step in making it permanent. I still feel this way and may be in the minority of those who think the Irish will never call the B1G home. I still feel Texas will never be in the B1G either. While I like the community of the B1G my gut feeling is this will never be a shared by the school in Austin. Texas will prop up the Big 12 for as long as they can before jumping to the PAC – where they can take 3 friends – or merging with the top ACC teams to form an East / West conference where Texas holds sway over the west schools and UNC holds sway over the east ones. I only see this option happening if ESPN is the media partner for this “new” fourth conference.
As for Texas or West Virginia to the SEC I just do not see it. Just as the SEC will not add Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Clemson, or Louisville it seems more unlikely they will add the Longhorns especially since they are already in TX with TAMU. Under no circumstances can I see West Virginia in the SEC and thought most of that spin in previous discussions for SEC admittance was being fueled by folks in West Virginia and not by Slive & Co. My personal belief is that West Virginia has homes in only the Big 12 or ACC and has no shot at the B1G, PAC, or SEC. Thinking like a university president tells me that no secure conference will allow safe harbor to a school famous for burning couches and selling booze at conference events.
I can see Missouri going to the B1G but the longer it takes to happen the less I see it happening. I can see Kansas and Missouri to the B1G as their 16 teams – both are AAU and they become the western additions to match adding Maryland and Rutgers. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State to the PAC as their 16 teams. Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and NC State take the SEC to 16. ACC fills 3 holes to 16 with (pick 3) West Virginia, Uconn, Cincinnati, Tulane, USF, UCF, Memphis, Temple, Army, Navy, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, Rice (yay Loki) or team on fringe of moving up. At that point the Big 4 build an NCAA that works to their advantage or they break away as has long been rumored.
LikeLike
I don’t get the “SEC wouldn’t want Texas” angle. I think it has been mostly the other way around. As Andy endlessly points out, were TX to come in with another high-profile academic school, such as UNC, Texas’ qualms about the SEC’ academic rep would be lessoned. You already have Vandy, which has a great rep, and A&M, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and MO, are good schools. I think the most likely scenerios for TX are 1. stay put 2. PAC 10 3. ACC 4. SEC 5. BIG…but as to the SEC, that’s because of TX’ views, not the SEC’s.
I think the ND ship has sailed, unless the ACC is seriously raided.
I don’t see MO and KU coming in as a pair to the BIG. I don’t think UM, WIS, NW would go for that. You’d be adding 2 schools that would be in the bottom 3 in the B as far as academic rep is concerned.
LikeLike
Looking at it from the point of view of the president and academic types at UM, NW, Wis, and ILL……the BIG has added 4 schools in the last 25 years. PSU is a fine school but not with quite the rep of those 4………Rutgers and MD are about like PSU…..NEB is quite a step down. Now……we’re talking about adding KU and MO, 2 schools comparable to NEB (sorry Andy, face facts)? Don’t see it happening. I thinlk that’s one big reason (there are others as well) for all the talk about VA, UNC, GT, and Texas.
LikeLike
Missouri and Kansas are fine schools but it isn’t acedemics that will keep them out the BIG. Neither of those schools by themselves add enough to the conference. Penn State was the preeminent college football brand in the northeast. Nebraska was a national brand and one of top 10 programs of all time. Rutgers and Maryland are two of the biggest state schools in the east coast megolopolis, home of close to 15%, or 45 million, of the entire US population. The megolopolis is not only home to a lot of cable subscribers, but also a lot of political power and business and financial infrastructure. There is no other market in the U.S. like it. The BIG is making a gamble that pairing PSU, UM, OSU and the BIg Ten brand with UMD and Rutgers taht it can gain a big chunk of it but the potential is thru the roof.
LikeLike
Mizzou and Kansas both have more fans and draw more national interest than either Maryland or Rutgers. Both rank much, much higher than either on the national apparel sales rankings, for instance. Being close to big cities doesn’t make you a good addition. If it did why not just take Syracuse, UConn, and Boston College? And why did the Big East fail?
LikeLike
Because Michigan, PSU, OSU etc weren’t in the BEast making yearly visits?
You’re just being obtuse. Nobody is/has argued Missouri was not a better athletic department. What you are ignoring is that athletic superiority was irrelevant to the invitation.
LikeLike
Then explain Nebraska?
And why does getting beaten by Michigan, Penn State, OSU, Michigan State, and Indiana get those teams more fans than getting beaten by Syracuse, UConn, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, etc?
They have no fans. Joining the B1G isn’t going to fix that. Only winning long term will. And that just got much harder for both schools.
LikeLike
Nebraska: A national king with a national fan base.
“They have no fans. Joining the B1G isn’t going to fix that. Only winning long term will. And that just got much harder for both schools.”
For the last time, it is not about Rutgers or Maryland. It is about the B1G (as a whole) in the most desired, powerful, influential and populous region. RU can suck forever and still have been a tremendously valuable add for the conference.
LikeLike
And if it was UConn, Rutgers and Maryland it would have been too much dilution in football. Nebraska made Rutgers and Maryland possible.
LikeLike
Mizzou and Kansas both have more fans and draw more national interest than either Maryland or Rutgers. Both rank much, much higher than either on the national apparel sales rankings, for instance.
And Maryland has won national championships in football, men’s soccer and both men’s and women’s basketball, the latter three sports over the past dozen years — not to mention field hockey and women’s lacrosse. What NCAA titles has Missouri won? And while I don’t have the rankings in front of me, I would care to guess that since 2000, Maryland has routinely finished ahead of Mizzou in Directors Cup standings.
Rutgers may be a cross-your-fingers candidate from the Big Ten’s perspective, but Maryland will competitively fit in with the conference.
LikeLike
Missouri doesn’t even play most of those sports. If you want to get into a pissing match over field hockey and men’s soccer, go right ahead. We don’t play those sports in this part of the country.
If you want to talk revenue sports, with actual hard data not opinions and bluster,
Basketball: Sagarin ranking average over the last 5 years in basketball: Missouri 21.6, Maryland 59.2. All time tournament apperances: Missouri 26, Maryland 24. Conference titles (regular season and tournament):Missouri 23, Maryland 10. Elite 8s: Missouri 5, Maryland 5. Maryland had One season in 100 where they had a better tournament run and won a title. Otherwise they’re on par with or worse than Missouri in basketball. Attendance for the two schools is basically even too.
Football: 5 year Sagarin average: Missouri 29.2, Maryland 77.2. 10 year average: Missouri 33.4, Maryland 57. Missouri’s average attendance is about 50% higher than Maryland’s. Missouri 29 bowls, Maryland 24 bowls. Bowls Peach or higher: Missouri 10, Maryland 7.
FWIW, Missouri has a couple of unclaimed national titles in both football and basketball. Looks like Maryland has a couple of non-standard titles from the early 50s in football.
Fact is Missouri is stronger in the revenue sports and has more fans overall. Apparel sales national rankings: Missouri #20, Maryland #43.
Yeah Maryland plays some sports Missouri doesn’t play, and they seem to be good at them in front of massive crowds of dozens of people. Good for them, I guess.
Oh, and Missouri’s state population is larger than Maryland’s.
Maryland does have somewhat stronger academics, I’ll give them that. But that wasn’t my point. My point, and it’s a true one, is that both Missouri and kansas are better at revenue sports and have more fans than either Maryland or Rutgers.
You can whine about it if you feel like it, but it’s true, and all the men’s soccer in the world won’t change that.
LikeLike
Fact 1: all of that was irrelevant in the selection process that brought in Maryland and Rutgers.
Fact 2: the B1G values the other sports, not just FB and MBB.
Join the world, enjoy a broad range of sports. Especially when it’s obvious that your determination of what is important is not shared by the B1G decision makers.
LikeLike
Fact #3: Having just joined the SEC, Missouri was not available at the time Maryland and Rutgers were added, thus no conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not the B1G would have taken them instead of Rutgers.
But don’t let logic stop you from making the same false claim over and over and over.
LikeLike
Fact #4: Nebraska sponsors the exact same sports as Missouri.
LikeLike
Alright, they sponsor a few more: women’s bowling, “rifle”, sand volleyball, and men’s tennis. Good for them.
LikeLike
3: true, but your argument was that Rutgers was “lucky” MO wasn’t available. Having added UNL it would seem the expansion strategy (aside from UT or ND suddenly applying as equals) had turned to the east and central Atlantic. We can’t know for sure, but that strategy suggests Rutgers would have been the choice even had Mizzu been available. It has nothing to do with what the individual schools offer and everything to do with what potential the region offers to the other twelve schools.
4: I wasn’t speaking of what anybody sponsors. It was you as an individual I was suggesting lacked appreciation of the non revenue sports. Frankly, I may be an odd one but as much as I like FB I really have come to like both M and W soccer, too.
LikeLike
It’s all pure speculation at this point. You think they were executing some sort of grand geographic strategy. I think they likely were just going for the best two schools available, and since Missouri was off the market Rutgers was the next best on the list. But as you said we’ll never know.
I’m not a fan of soccer. Never even watched lacrosse or field hockey or any of those so I can’t really speak to it. Games I go to on occasion are volleyball, softball, and women’s basketball, as well as semi-regular attendance of baseball. Plus regular attendance of football and men’s basketball. I think that’s enough really. There’s only so much time in the day for sports.
LikeLike
If it wasn’t a geographic/demographic/academic strategy what list would Rutgers be on?
LikeLike
U of Missouri may not play soccer, but KC and St. Louis are two of the oldest soccer hotbeds in the country.
LikeLike
I honestly thing candidates were scored on a variety of criteria and then ranked, kind of like a draft board.
rated by athletics success in revenue sports, fanbase/attendance, tv draw/ratings, market size, academics, maybe non-revenue sports a little bit, proximity to the rest of the Big Ten. Also all non AAU schools were disqualified other than Notre Dame. Based on all of that, the draft board looked something like:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. North Carolina
4. Virginia
5. Maryland
6. Duke
7. Missouri
8. Rutgers
9. Georgia Tech (I think they rank low due to distance from the B1G, not even close to contiguous, also poor cultural fit. Same could be said of Texas but GT is no Texas)
10. Kansas
11. Pitt
12. Iowa State
13. Buffalo
…and that’s it. No other AAU schools available.
Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, UVA, and Duke said no. So next on the list was Missouri, but they joined the SEC, so next on the list was Rutgers. It was either them, Kansas, Pitt, Iowa State, or Buffalo. So they went with Rutgers. Kind of an easy choice, really.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the other criteria that any additional schools would need to add new TV sets? That would knock the list down further eliminating Pitt (PA covered by PSU) and Iowa State (IA covered by Iowa).
LikeLike
and FWIW in case you’re wondering, I rank Missouri #7 because of academics mostly. Missouri is not a tier 1 school. 5 out of 6 of the schools ahead of them on that list are. And Maryland is fairly close to being one. If Missouri was a solid tier 1 school academically like, say, Texas, then I think they’d move up a couple of spots just because it’s the flagship school of a state of 6M people and its campus is within 400 miles of half of the campuses in the Big Ten, and their football attendance ranks in the top 25 in the country. But yeah, academics pushed Missouri down the list.
But Rutgers’s academics aren’t worlds better than Missouri’s. 56th in total research vs 69th, for instance. And Rutgers’s athletics are pretty bad.
LikeLike
Missouri is a fine school but doesn’t offer the same prospective payout as Rutgers. New Jersey is the 6th richest state in the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
By adding the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (which does about the same amount of research as Missouri itself) into its rank this July, Rutgers will become a top 30 research institution nationally. Rutgers also enrolls 24 thousand more students than Missouri which is important as Alumni are more likely than t-shirt fans to tune into Women Volleyball and Men’s wrestling on the BTN. All of that has nothing to do with NYC, which would be gravy on top if Rutgers coupled with the large presence of BIG alums can scratch out a share of that city.
Missouri is not leaving the SEC. The BIG did not and will not be taking Missouri. I think everyone should be happy with the situation.
LikeLike
By that logic UMass is a better add than Missouri because Massachusetts has 6.5M people vs 6M in Missouri, and Nebraska was a terrible add with only 1.9M people.
No, it’s not just about TV sets. It’s population times fan support. Population alone isn’t enough.
LikeLike
Lets make this simple for you. Missouri athletic brand is nowhere near the prestige and popularity of Nebraska. Missouri’s market, which includes population, financial resources, political power and research potential, is nowhere near Rutgers. If you plot either of those two things on a graph, Nebraska would be high in athletics and low in market while Rutgers would be high market and low in brand. Missouri would be average in both bringing nothing special to the Big Ten. If UMass was the most popular state university, enrolled close to 60 thousands students, was a top 30 research institution, and was competitive in division 1 athletics, they too would be a better add than Missouri.
LikeLike
PSUhockey I think you are right. I think it is more accurate to think that Rutgers came in to balance Nebraska rather than Maryland. Maryland is a classic B1G school in and of itself. Rutgers and UNL both have complementary strenghts and weaknesses.
LikeLike
It’s all speculation. You speak as if you’re so sure, but there is no possible way of knowing if Missouri would have been taken had they been available when Rutgers ended up getting the spot and it’s silly to suggest otherwise.
Here are some scores for you:
Nebraska: Football: 4, Basketball: 2, Markets: 2, Academics: 2. Total: 10.
Rutgers: Football: 2, Basketball: 2, Markets: 4, Academics: 4, Total: 12
Missouri: Football: 3, Basketball: 3, Markets: 3, Academics: 3, Total: 12
So if you weigh everything equally, Missouri and Rutgers are basically the same. If you weigh sports higher, then Missouri is better. If you weigh markets and academics higher, then Rutgers is better.
i think another category should be considered: fan following/brand strength.
I think a good, objective way to measure this is in apparel sales. This shows how many people around the country are excited enough about the brand to buy their apparel.
Here’s the Big Ten plus a fewmore:
5. Michigan
12. Penn State
13. Nebraska
15. Wisconsin
19 Texas A&M
20. **Missouri**
21, Florida State
22. Kansas
25. Illinois
29. Purdue
39. Minnesota
43. Maryland
68. Northwestern
Ohio State, Michigan State, Iowa, Indiana, and Rutgers were not ranked for some reason. I would think those first four would be pretty strong. Rutgers, on the other hand, I can’t imagine them ranking much higher than schools like Minnesota or Maryland. They’re one of if no the least successful football program in NCAA history.
As far as fan support, Missouri is a high three or low four. Rutgers is probably a 2.
You say that doesn’t matter. I disagree. I cite Nebraska as evidence. Their strong fanbase got them in as much as anything.
All talk of “Rutgers got in over Missouri” is hogwash. That did not happen in real life. You can talk about how it did all day long but it didn’t.
LikeLike
It’s all speculation. You speak as if you’re so sure, but there is no possible way of knowing if Missouri would have been taken had they been available when Rutgers ended up getting the spot and it’s silly to suggest otherwise.
What’s “silly” is describing other people’s posts as speculation, and then pushing out craploads of the stuff yourself.
This board wouldn’t really have much point without speculation. Go ahead and join the game, as you regularly do, but don’t act surprised when everyone else speculates as much as you do.
LikeLike
You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties.
I said it’s silly to state speculation as if it were fact.
Speculating is fine as long as you label it as such, which I do.
LikeLike
Notice I insert phrases like “I would think”, “I can’t imagine”, and “probably”. These are to denote that I am speculating or giving an opinion. Leaving out those phrases would be bullshit. And thats what some on here do. It’s a bullshit way of communicating.
LikeLike
I don’t recall you labeling your assertion that Rutgers was “lucky” as speculation.
You still refuse to see the value of the region/markets to the rest of the conference independent of the particular school that resides there.
LikeLike
Andy, in college realignment, athletic performance > apparel sales.
LikeLike
Notice I insert phrases like “I would think”, “I can’t imagine”, and “probably”. These are to denote that I am speculating or giving an opinion. Leaving out those phrases would be bullshit. And that’s what some on here do. It’s a bullshit way of communicating.
People commonly omit those phrases when it’s obvious, from the context, that the statement has to be an opinion, and couldn’t possibly be misconstrued (by intelligent readers) as a purported fact. In an opinion post, it gets tedious to insert “I think” in front of every sentence. Of course it’s what you think; why else would you be saying it?
In borderline cases, it can be useful to insert “I think” if there is an opportunity for confusion. But we all know that NO conference has publicly stated that they want, or do not want, particular teams. I therefore have no qualms with mentally inserting “I think” in front of every statement concerning what schools or conferences would hypothetically do, even if the writer has omitted those words. There’s no possibility of confusion, as no person posting here has the kind of inside access that would allow them to post anything but opinion, where it comes to future or imagined conference expansion.
LikeLike
ccrider, I did a “find” search over the last few threads and didn’t find any posts where I said that. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
vp, I pointed out in lots of detail that Missouri has had more athletic success in the revenue sports than Rutgers and Maryland. Reread the post that contains: “Basketball: Sagarin ranking average over the last 5 years in basketball: Missouri 21.6, Maryland 59.2. All time tournament apperances: Missouri 26, Maryland 24. Conference titles (regular season and tournament):Missouri 23, Maryland 10. Elite 8s: Missouri 5, Maryland 5. Maryland had One season in 100 where they had a better tournament run and won a title. Otherwise they’re on par with or worse than Missouri in basketball. Attendance for the two schools is basically even too.
Football: 5 year Sagarin average: Missouri 29.2, Maryland 77.2. 10 year average: Missouri 33.4, Maryland 57. Missouri’s average attendance is about 50% higher than Maryland’s. Missouri 29 bowls, Maryland 24 bowls. Bowls Peach or higher: Missouri 10, Maryland 7.”
LikeLike
Marc, it’s obnoxious to state your opinion as fact during a debate. It just is. If you want to be obnoxious certainly it’s a free country and you can do that but it’s a shitty thing to do.
LikeLike
Andy,
Your perception is way off if you think that Nebraska and Missouri fan support are even in the same league. As far as you ratings, using a scale of 2-4 does make Missouri look better but isn’t reality. Missouri football is not one step down from Nebraska, a top ten program of all time. Missouri’s market also isnt a single step down from Rutgers nor are they even close now academically after the merger which puts Rutgers into the top 30 research institutions in the country, which is the ony acedemics the BIG cares about.
Missouri is a nice program but is nothing special in anyway. It is merely a rounder to get a league to an even number. Even the SEC doesn’t appear to care much about Missouri as they dumped them in the East Divsion even though they are West of all but two schools, significantly adding to travel costs and hurting the fans ability to travel. I understand there might be some hard feelings after getting spurned publically by the BIG the first go round, but Missouri is in a very good conference. There is no reason to be jealous of Rutgers.
LikeLike
As long as you reach the athletic/academic thresholds (for non kings) then geography>athletic performance>merchandise sales.
Move Rutgers to Missouri and they aren’t invited.
LikeLike
psuhockey, Missouri is worlds better than Rutgers at all of the revenue sports. Their fan support is also tremendously stronger. Rutgers does happen to be located in a state with a larger population, but most in that state don’t give two shits about Rutgers. Why? Because they suck at sports. So is that Rutgers’s “market”? No way. Saying that would be like saying USF owns Orlando. I mean, sure, they have some fans there. But they do not own that market. And Rutgers is not even close to top 30 academically at the moment. May it happen some day? Sure, I guess. Why not?
Rutgers has some strengths but they have some glaring deficiencies. Specifically, they suck at sports and they don’t have any fans. This is probably kind of a big deal to an athletic conference that strives for excellence ON and off the field.
Nebraska has the opposite problem. They have a really good football tradition (although they haven’t done much of anything in over a decade), but they’re in a tiny market (Nebraska’s population is less than a third the size of Missouri’s), and their academics are weak (Missouri’s are claimed to be weak by some on here and yet Missouri ranks 25 spots higher in research and is an AAU school while Nebraska is not).
You scoff at Missour because they have a perfectly respectable football program AND a perfectly respectable basketball program AND a perfectly respectable market size AND perfectly respectable academics. Somehow to you being extra good in one or two of those and totally defficient in the rest is somehow better. I don’t see any logic whatsoever in that claim.
Nor do I see any logic in your claim that Missouri was put into the SEC East because the SEC somehow didn’t care about them or were neglecting them. Quite the contrary. Thanks to permanent crossover rivals, Missouri will play all four of their conference border rivals every single year: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Arkansas. This was the best way to get the closest possible games for Missouri. It would not have been possible in the west. But then you wouldn’t know anything about that because you apparently don’t know much about Missouri or the SEC. You seem to think you do though.
Rutgers did not get in over Missouri. They got in AFTER Missouri joined the SEC. All of your snide comments and innuendos are horseshit. Always will be. Maybe Rutgers would have gotten in over Missouri but we’ll never know and it’s foolish to claim otherwise.
LikeLike
ccridrer, more stating opinions as facts. if I recall you did the exact same thing a lot while talking about the Big 20. And I was a fool for questioning how UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Florida State, AND Notre Dame (and Texas, right?) would all join the B1G any minute now. And Kansas too. But not MIssouri. You guys are such tools.
LikeLike
“Maybe Rutgers would have gotten in over Missouri but we’ll never know and it’s foolish to claim otherwise.”
Just like it is foolish to claim Missouri would have gotten in instead of Rutgers if they were available, which has been a consistent argument of yours.
Click to access research2011.pdf
Add up Rutgers and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey research expenditures and you have a top 30 institution. The two merged as of July.
LikeLike
Andy:
Bad memory.
I, while not wanting it to occur, felt that IF the ACC fell apart then the B20 was fairly likely. I also maintained all along that the ACC was not nearly as fragile as many others thought. And even losing FSU and Clemson wouldn’t break it. The dysfunctional flyover conference remains the most volatile, but the GOR should keep things stable for near a decade. I have never thought UT would go to the B1G (and I wouldn’t want them to). How many times have I suggested the UT/OU plus two to the PAC was an offer no one else would match…if UT decided it was going to move?
I find your disingenuous, revisionist recounting of what I’ve said tedious.
LikeLike
psu, it’s more foolish to repeatedly make claims and innuendos to the end that Rutgers being in the B1G is somehow self evident proof that Rutgers was chosen over Missouri than it is to say that we’ll never know but I think it likely would have gone differently. One is innocent speculation. The other is a smear tactic given false weight by erroneous logical reasoning.
LikeLike
cc, I don’t remember every little thing you said. I do remember that I said I though that a Big 20 was a ridiculous idea, and you firmly disagreed.
now you’re telling me you somehow know that Rutgers would have been invited over Missouri if the two went head to head. You don’t know that. It’s just as much a guess as your Big 20 stuff. Except slightly more plausible I suppose.
LikeLike
You don’t seem to be aware you are stating as fact Missouri would be invited over Rutgers and that any other opinion is ridiculous. I happen to agree with cc. Missouri is more of what the Big 10 already had. Rutgers complements the Big 10. Missouri is better athletically, but Rutgers has pretty good support by standards other than the Big 10 and SEC standards, and with Nebraska, they could afford a Rutgers.
I have concerns with any conference going to 14 and diluting rivalries, but Rutgers made a lot of sense as #14 if the Big 10 was going to do it.
LikeLike
bullet, I’ve said no such think. I always worded it as an opinion or a speculation, never stated it as a fact. cc, psu, and others have stated the opposite as a fact.
And that’s another thing, rivalries. Who’s going to be Rutgers’s rivals? Nobody in the B1G cares about Rutgers.
Missouri had built in rivalries with Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, and to a lesser extent Indiana. They’ve played all of those schools a bunch and are within close proximity of all of them.
Yes, Missouri fits in as a typical midwestern B1G school. That would actually be GOOD for rivalries. Rutgers sticks out like a sore thumb. I don’t see how that’s a good thing for the BIg Ten. Who’s going to care about Rutgers vs Michigan State? Rutgers vs. Indiana? Rutgers vs. Iowa? How’s the attendance going to be at those games? How will the TV ratings be? I’ll tell you: they’re likely going to suck because Rutgers is a crappy draw and B1G fans don’t have much interest to them.
What was the public response when Rutgers was added? Were any sports fans happy? Very few. Very few.
Does anyone even what to try to to dispute that? No. Because it’s obviously true.
LikeLike
Andy:
Please stop spinning, you’re going to get dizzy.
This is a quote from myself: “Having added UNL it would seem the expansion strategy (aside from UT or ND suddenly applying as equals) had turned to the east and central Atlantic. We can’t know for sure, but that strategy suggests Rutgers would have been the choice even had Mizzu been available.”
Does that qualify as saying I know something? Or that I am deducing a possibility, and assigning a vague probability?
LikeLike
Well sure you did fine on that one, but then you make definitive statements like: “As long as you reach the athletic/academic thresholds (for non kings) then geography>athletic performance>merchandise sales. Move Rutgers to Missouri and they aren’t invited.”
LikeLike
It all rises from the premise of mid Atlantic focus that was stated by Delany and others, that you have continually ignored. If UM was in NJ don’t you think they would have been invited, possibly as 13?
LikeLike
The B1G took Nebraska so obviously the focus wasn’t all on the Mid-Atlantic. I can buy that Virginia and UNC were higher up the priority list than Missouri (which is where the mid-Atlantic talk may have come from at the time), but when that didn’t pan out it wasn’t necessarily the case that the B1G HAD to go east. Ohio State’s AD admitted a few weeks ago that he was in favor of adding Missouri and Kansas. I’m sure he wasn’t the only one. When it came down to it, if it was a choice between Rutgers or Missouri and it was either one or the other, the various presidents would have had to have voted on which one they wanted. I think it could have gone either way but probably Missouri would have won out because they were more well rounded. Rutgers is too weak on the athletics side and in brand strength/fan support. Missouri doesn’t have any glaring weaknesses, although they’re not super strong in any particular area either.
Sources who should know in Missouri are adamant that Missouri had serious talks about joining the B1G in 2010, but Nebraska got spot #12 and they needed an appropriate #13 to go with Missouri as #14 and they couldn’t secure one. This tells me that Missouri was a serious candidate.
LikeLike
Also, the entire premise of your question is faulty. Your implication is that Missouri was not invited when Rutgers was. In truth, Missouri could not have been invited, or if they were it would not have been accepted or made public, because Missouri had just joined the SEC and there’s no way they would switch to the B1G so quickly after joining the SEC.
LikeLike
The B1G took Nebraska so obviously the focus wasn’t all on the Mid-Atlantic.
Consider the order of expansion. One by-product of going to 12 was establishing a CCG, so football prowess was higher on the priority list — and for that Nebraska made a far better #12 than either Missouri, Maryland or Rutgers. (Whether that would have been the case had Nebraska lost AAU status before expansion, I can’t say.)
Ohio State’s AD admitted a few weeks ago that he was in favor of adding Missouri and Kansas.
Gene Smith was formerly AD at Iowa State, so he naturally had more familiarity with Missouri and Kansas than with Maryland or Rutgers. Anyway, he wasn’t Ohio State’s president, so he wasn’t making the ultimate decision.
LikeLike
Andy:
You couldn’t have written anything more inaccurate if you tried. Or we’re you trying? I’ve tried to make simple “if A then B, if B then C” explanation of what appeared to have happened. Following that seems to be beyond your ability. I’ve said repeatedly that it is no reflection on the schools discussed. You either cannot or will not accept that others do not share your position. Or you’re simply a Troll. I don’t care which, the result is the same. Worthless blather.
Good luck to Mizzou.
LikeLike
Nobody in the Big 10 cares about Rutgers, ok.
But nobody in the SEC cares about Missouri.
The Big 10 didn’t need another middling program from a slower than average growing Midwestern state. Kings (Nebraska) are almost always welcome. Maryland is from a fast growing state. Rutgers is from an average growth state in a huge population area. They offer access to important locations for decision makers-New York and DC. Missouri offers Kansas City. The Big 10 already has Indianapolis and Columbus and Minneapolis and Milwaukee.
The SEC apparently wasn’t interested in FSU as #15. They already had a team in Florida, have two kings and lots of princes. FSU is very valuable to the ACC and would be to the Big 12. To the SEC, they offer more of what they already have. They would rather have North Carolina who isn’t that good in football but a power in basketball in a new state. The Big 10 would rather have Rutgers than Missouri.
LikeLike
cc, your “what appears to have happened” is nonsense. What actually appears to have happened is that while Missouri was available the B1G was after bigger fish like Notre Dame, Texas, and UNC. By the time the B1G realized that they wouldn’t be getting those schools, Missouri was no longer available. It is 100% impossible to draw any conclusions about the B1G’s position on Missouri from them taking Rutgers AFTER Missouri was already off the market. All of your assertions to the contrary are nonsensical.
Now, it is perfectly valid for you to say that hypothetically, if the B1G actually had a choice between the two, it is your opinion that the B1G probably would have gone with Rutgers because you think the B1G presidents would have seen them as the better option. I’m basically saying the exact opposite of that. I’d be fine with that line of thinking. It’s fair. But the way you’re framing it is based on faulty reasoning at its core.
LikeLike
bullet the bitter Texas fan always with the hyperbolic trash talk about Mizzou ditching UT for the SEC.
“Nobody in the SEC cares about Missouri”, eh?
I happen to know for a fact that Florida and Vanderbilt were both huge proponents of Missouri. They wanted another strong academic school with AAU credentials in the Big 12. Florida was actually Missouri’s champion in the process. Arkansas was also very much in favor of Missouri. And border state schools Kentucky and Tennessee have also been proponents of Missouri’s membership. Texas A&M preferred Missouri as their #14 partner. I would say that Missouri had a lot more supporters for joining the SEC than Rutgers had for joining the B1G. Rutgers was likely something like plan F or plan G for them. Missouri for the SEC was probably something like plan C or plan D at the worst.
Missouri beat out Florida State, West Virginia, Clemson, Louisville, and, depending on who you believe, Virginia Tech, among others, for that spot. SEC schools ended up voting unanimously for Missouri.
SEC fans have been enthusiastic in welcoming Missouri to the fold. Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky fans traveled to Columbia in huge numbers last year. Huge crowds are expected this year from Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good trash talk, right? You never do.
LikeLike
A&M wanted to screw TX and the XII and for that purpose OU was by far the best choice. MO or KS were next in line after OU. The SEC would have taken OU over MO, probably VT too. MO clearly beat out KS, Clemson, FSU, WV, and Louisville.
LikeLike
*should read “They wanted another strong academic school with AAU credentials in the SEC”
LikeLike
OU I could believe for sure. They’re very much a King in football, and Missouri has only beaten them twice in the last 15 or so meetings.
VT I’m not so sure. I’ve heard specific rumors to the end that Missouri got the nod over VT for three reasons: 1) Missouri is AAU and Florida, Bama, and A&M very much wanted another AAU school, 2) supposedly market researchers studied which school had more market coverage and Missouri won out because VT splits Virginia with UVA but Missouri gets pretty much all of Missouri, and 3) the SEC prefers “flagship” schools, and Missouri is one and VT is not.
As far as comparing the two in sports: VT sucks at basketball, Missouri is fairly good. In football, VT has 99 wins over the last 10 years compared to 81 for Missouri, so VT has been better lately (although they did it in a weaker league), but all time VT has been to 26 bowls, 8 Cotton or higher, and Missouri has been to 29 bowls, 10 Cotton or higher. Outside of Frank Beamer, VT really hasn’t done much of anything. Also, Missouri ranks 24th in football attendance, VT ranks 25th.
So it’s not as clear cut as you might think.
LikeLike
* should read “Florida, Vandy, and A&M wanted another AAU school”. Need an edit feature on this site.
LikeLike
SEC fans like to travel to support their team. Its about their team, not Missouri. No fans in the SEC care about Missouri any more than fans in the Big 10 care about Rutgers. And Big 10 fans will undoubtedly show up in pretty good numbers for Rutgers. The Presidents of the Big 10 were very enthused about Rutgers academically just as may be the case that the presidents of the SEC schools were enthused about Missouri.
Its you who can’t seem to let go of the fact that the Big 10 chose Nebraska over Missouri and may well have preferred Rutgers over Missouri as well.
You just don’t acknowledge facts you don’t like. Like the fact that the Big 10 had Rutgers on their 3 team short list back in 1999 with Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
bla bla bla, yeah, and no big 12 fans cared about Missouri either, just ask them, they’ll tell you all about it at length, over and over and over again.
LikeLike
Other than Kansas and KSU that’s true.
LikeLike
Iowa State fans are pretty upset too. And Texas fans sure do complain a lot. OU and OSU have been decently cool about it. We never cared about Baylor and Texas Tech anyway. NU and CU are doing their own thing now.
LikeLike
Until 202? ND is contracturally obligated to go to the ACC if it joins any conference……….
ND won’t ever be in the Big 10 as long as the ACC is viable because 1. the big football donors detest the Big 10; and 2. ND is a better institutional fit in the ACC, with small catholic/private schools like Duke, BC, Wake, Miami, Syracuse and medium size scools like UNC, Pitt.
LikeLike
In all this talk about the ACC being one coach away from mediocrity, let’s not forget a basic fact:
College football has been dominated by large state schools since the Second World War. The basic “problem” the ACC, the 12PAC, and every other league has is that they contain a lower percentage of large state schools. Leagues that have more larger state schools are less impacted by coaching changes and typically have better recruiting.
Notre Dame has always been an outlier. When GI Bill money dried up and football players had to rely on school provided scholarships, most Catholic schools deemphasized or got out out football altogether since they couldn’t pay. Notre Dame has survived, and occasionally thrived by luck / the grace of God.
I think that in the almost 90 year dance between the B1G and ND TPTB have a pretty good handle on the situation. If it was all about the $$$, ND would be in. As long as the ACC has multiple schools that look kinda like us if you squint and stretch the definition of kinda, I think ND would be more likely to go there than try to form their own league, kinda like the NCHC did in hockey when the BTHC blew up western hockey a few years ago.
LikeLike
I am by no stretch a Notre Dame fan, but my feeling on their ACC deal is the complete opposite of yours.
Once it was determined ND was going to be taken care of in the new playoff/ “BCS” bowl system, they had three remaining issues as an independent.
1. Oct/Nov scheduling – their TV contract was coming up again after a period where, for example, ND’s consecutive NBC games were Western Michigan and Tulsa at a time other schools were deep in their conference schedule.
2. Bowl access- They needed better bowl access for bowl-eligible ND teams that don’t make the BCS.
3.A good home for their other sports
This ACC arrangement solves all of the above problems. Unless this move to a new Division of top schools screws ND over (which is unlikely considered how the playoff negotiations were handled) Notre Dame is in a perfect position for their purposes as an independent.
People thinking they would join another conference (or ACC fans thinking they will eventually become full members) are being foolish.
LikeLike
Notre Dame isn’t joining a conference for football until they feel they have to for competitive reasons. But they won’t choose solely because of TV money any more than Texas will. The ACC has more schools similar to Notre Dame than any other and a broad geographic range, including a lot of the northeast, which is important to Notre Dame. They make a good fit. Counting Notre Dame, the ACC has 6 private schools, one semi-private (Pitt) and 3 relatively small, highly regarded flagships (UNC, UVA, GT). That only leaves FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VT and Louisville as “dissimilar.” The Big 10 has 12 enormous state universities, 1 enormous semi-state university (PSU) and Northwestern.
LikeLike
The big problem with Notre Dame attaching itself to the the ACC is that a few of the ACC Schools ( Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Miami & Georgia Tech have seen better days in football (in the case of the Orange, Academics as well (leaving the AAU), and what happens in hoops when Boeheim leaves (Like “Coach K.” with Duke)?). While, Duke and Wake have rarely been good, and UNC and NC State have been fair (at best) football programs. That leaves Louisville, Clemson, Florida State and Virginia Tech as real solid programs. The question will be this? If ND in the next decade gets in at least 4 or 5 MAJOR Bowl Games and wins a National Championship (or two), then they made the right move. But if they don’t, and fellow Indiana Schools Purdue, and IU end up making more money than they do, they will end up kicking themselves (in private of course), for not joining the B10 (probably with Boston College as a running mate), for ego alone. My gut says they made the wrong choice.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech and Louisville could also take a dive in football when their coaches leave.
Notre Dame is a really interesting situation. They really rose from the grave last year. Another subpar season, which was close as they won all five one score games last year against some fairly mediocre opponents, and the program might have fallen into irrelevance. NBC might have not renewed there contract as the ratings were poor before last season. But last years run exploded interest in the program again. The pressure will be on Brian Kelly to maintain it because unlike the BIG universities, ND is completely reliant on t-shirt fans since their enrollment is so small. They have to convince a new generation of fans that they are cool because the bulk is still aging baby boomers.
LikeLike
I think one of the interesting things to watch over the next 10 years is the health of the ACC. I do believe those schools want to stay together but the television money could be dwarfed by the SEC and BIG. Will those schools stay together with 10 to 15 to possibly even 20 million dollars more available in the SEC or BIG? Will some of their better athletics programs still be relevant when their iconic coaches move on? Will ND special arrangement tick of the blue bloods? The ACC will be the most intersting conference to watch to whether they can maintain a power status or become the Big East part 2.
LikeLike
The big problem with Notre Dame attaching itself to the the ACC is that a few of the ACC Schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Miami & Georgia Tech have seen better days in football (in the case of the Orange, Academics as well (leaving the AAU). . . .
Syracuse academics didn’t get worse. They just realized the AAU was pruning the tree, and decided to get out before facing a Nebraska-like vote.
…and what happens in hoops when Boeheim leaves (Like “Coach K.” with Duke)?).
Overwhelmingly: kings tend to remain kings. These schools have huge institutional advantages that don’t dissipate when the coach leaves.
LikeLike
…and what happens in hoops when Boeheim leaves (Like “Coach K.” with Duke)?)
Overwhelmingly: kings tend to remain kings. These schools have huge institutional advantages that don’t dissipate when the coach leaves.
Who viewed SU basketball as a “king” when Boeheim succeeded Roy Danforth in 1975, even after the Orange had reached its first final four? It was a decent eastern independent with some good players in its history (e.g., Dave Bing), but in those days, its big games were with Niagara and St. Bonaventure.
And in 1980, when K came from Army to Duke and Jim Valvano went from Iona to NCSU, I think more people viewed State as the better job. In fact, many still had that belief a few years later when Valvano won an NCAA title (the Wolfpack’s second in less than a decade) and Duke was struggling. Perceptions do change.
LikeLike
Who viewed SU basketball as a “king” when Boeheim succeeded Roy Danforth in 1975, even after the Orange had reached its first final four? . . . . And in 1980, when K came from Army to Duke and Jim Valvano went from Iona to NCSU, I think more people viewed State as the better job. In fact, many still had that belief a few years later when Valvano won an NCAA title (the Wolfpack’s second in less than a decade) and Duke was struggling. Perceptions do change.
Sure; all the kings had to achieve that status somehow. I’m just saying that once it occurs, regardless of how or when it occurs, it tends to survive a coaching change. It’s not an ironclad law, but it’s true far more often than not.
LikeLike
I agree with your assessment regarding Notre Dame and the ACC. With the Big East imploding, it was imperative for ND to move elsewhere for all the reasons you cited. Once the ACC agreed to add ND as a partial member in return for a guarantee of five games per year, it was the best move available for the Irish.
I think it’s fair to reclassify ND as a football “semi-independent” in contrast to Brigham Young, who is a true football “independent” (all of BYU’s other sports are in the West Coast Conference and the WCC doesn’t have any football teams). With those five ACC games locked in addition to long standing rivalries with USC and Navy, that’s seven games on the football schedule that are set each year. The desire to physically play on the West Coast each season adds Stanford to the mix as the eighth “set” opponent.
That leaves Notre Dame with four football scheduling slots–which is the same that teams from the ACC and SEC face (and the Big Ten until 2016). By contract through 2021, Purdue will take up one of those annually. Michigan State is also going to appear on the schedule with Michigan falling off after 2014. Northwestern also makes an appearance in 2014 and 2018.
That means ND essentially has three slots to fill after you include at least one Big Ten opponent per year (and it’ll only be two slots when there are two B1G teams on the schedule in 2016 & 2018). Texas has a four-game series with ND coming up, so that will fill up one of the slots. Other will be pay for play opponents (such as UMass in 2015).
LikeLike
I still call them a full independent. The lack of scheduling agreements is not what I think defines an independent. What defines that it to me is not directly competing with those teams for the same goal (a conference title). Notre Dame could actually have all 12 games be exactly the same every year, but if they aren’t competing with those teams for the same thing (a conference title), then they’d still be a full independent in my mind.
With no possibility of a Big Ten title last year, I actually kind of felt like Ohio State was an independent last year. There was still meaning to every game, but it was just in the games themselves and nothing wider (unless you count the “Leaders” division title which I don’t).
LikeLike
Eric has it right: it’s not how many slots you have to fill, but whether you’re playing for a league championship: Notre Dame is not.
As I pointed out upthread, Notre Dame was regularly scheduling approx. 3 ACC teams per year anyway. So all they did was to add a net of 2 ACC games, one of which is offset by dropping Michigan.
LikeLike
re: Missouri leaving the SEC for the B1G, every rumor to that end is coming from places other than Missouri. I can tell you that this rumor isn’t going around in Missouri at all. If I had to guess I’d say it’s another WVU fantasy scenario.
LikeLike
They aren’t talking about it. They’ve got weirder rumors going on now.
LikeLike
The ACC is going to kick out Miami doncha know…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/23363976/prospective-selection-committee-members-being-contacted-for-college-football-playoff
CFP selection committee invites are starting to go out. The short list is 35 people for 12-18 spots.
LikeLike
The 2013-14 conference basketball schedule is out
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/2013-14/schedule/schedule.pdf
LikeLike
For those following the Johnny M matter more closely than I…..
As I understand matters, the position of A&M and the NCAA is that he signed thousands(?) of autographs for dealers, but got no $ in return?
If that is indeed their position, why has he received ANY suspension?
If he later is found to be lying (duh), would A&M have to forfeit games?
To those who think he certainly will be found out, we’re still waiting for Auburn’s NC to be vacated and for UK to be put on probation………………
LikeLike
The NCAA was not able to prove Manziel took any $$. However, the rule is vague enough on the duties to not allow profiting from image / signature that any moron should have know that if you sign thousands of items for a dealer the dealer will be profiting from it. So with the weak case they got A&M / Manziel to agree to a weak punishment: Manziel will sit the first half of the Rice game rather than the second half as the A&M coaches planned (assuming they get a large lead). Who will provide evidence that can actually prove the payments? The dealers? Manziel? Not likely. So Manziel is the new Cam Newton. No one believes the story, but they also cannot prove its not true. I expect this will be Manziel’s last year in college.
LikeLike
Fox Sports suggests 2 things:
1) NCAA is politically weak and didn’t want to take this on;
2) Manziel has had high profile attorneys working for him since July (the one who represented Baylor in the death) so he knew what was going on and the NCAA didn’t have the power to just run over him like it would a poor kid. Dez Bryant lost a year for lying about a dinner with Deion Sanders that wasn’t even a violation.
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/johnny-manziel-one-half-suspension-proof-ncaa-weak-texas-am-082813
LikeLike
I think the M.O.B. just got a new bit for their show for Saturday. It will be sympathetic to the O’Bannon position so they won’t have the fans storming the field. But they’ve got lots of material.
LikeLike
There will be no MOB show at aTm.
LikeLike
Too bad. That was one of the reasons I always tried to make the Rice games in Austin.
LikeLike
Did A&M prohibit the MOB from performing in College Station? If so,those Aggies are thin-skinned.
LikeLike
It’s not the aggies’ fault. The MOB doesn’t go to a lot of away games. And there was no time fro practice the first week of school. Unlike the big state schools, they don’t bring in the band early for training camp.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“As I understand matters, the position of A&M and the NCAA is that he signed thousands(?) of autographs for dealers, but got no $ in return?”
They have no evidence that he got paid, correct.
“If that is indeed their position, why has he received ANY suspension?”
It’s also a violation to sign things you know will be sold, even if you don’t profit directly, or to let someone else get paid for you to sign.
“If he later is found to be lying (duh), would A&M have to forfeit games?”
They’d probably have to vacate the wins, yes.
LikeLike
It looks like this case really flummoxed the NCAA. It doesn’t pass the laugh test that Manziel shows up in a hotel room, and spends hours signing stuff for no consideration. But they have no proof he took anything in return, and without proof there’s not much they can do.
So they come up with a lame half-game suspension, which is basically an empty gesture. A&M is not at much risk of losing to Rice, and Manziel was probably only going to play a half anyway. So now he’ll just play a different half.
Most people have the gut reaction that something is rotten here. Either he committed a real violation and should receive a real punishment; or he did nothing wrong that can be proven, and should not be penalized at all. If the NCAA has handled this correctly (which I am not at all sure of), they are a PR disaster. Almost anything they do these days looks foolish.
LikeLike
What was really bad was A&M basically vouching for JM’s character, talking about the honor code et al……that’s pretty damn cynical, imo.
LikeLike
Well since it was a former politician now on the A&M board, John Sharp, saying that, you can expect nonsense. But on the other hand, it was also typical Aggie.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think even Johnny admitted that he broke the rule of not signing things for others to profit from. It’s hard to deny when you sign over 4000 items. But without a paper trail, they couldn’t get him on the much bigger offense.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html?mod=quicklinks_tests#project%3DTEAMS082913%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
According to the WSJ, Mizzou is the 2nd most admirable program in the country, behind only Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Well, UCONN is sure not giving the ACC any second thoughts tonight as they are down by 10 points to FCS Towson at home with 3 minutes to go in the game…
LikeLike
Wow, Towson now up by 15 points on UConn, just a few seconds to go.
UConn should drop football down to FCS and join the Big East.
No, I don’t think that’s an overreaction.
LikeLike
Certainly not a good opening night for the American. Connecticut lost at home to Towson, one-season member Rutgers lost at Fresno State and future member Tulsa lost at Bowling Green. If the American wants to argue it should be alongside the five top BCS conferences in any potential Division 4, it didn’t persuade many people of that last night.
LikeLike
But future AAC member Tulane, led by Joe Montana’s son, defeated FCS Jackson State 34-7.
http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/2013/08/tulane_football_makes_a_statem.html
LikeLike
Basically, the AAC would have had a so-so night for a FCS conference.
Let that sink in for a minute.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, future BIG rival, Rutgers, really blew that game last night. It was an amazing game to say the least, though horrible defense much of the time, both sides. Rutgers blew a 43 yard FG to win it just after allowing Fresno to exploit them for a game tying TD. How Fresno was able to march down the field in well under 60 seconds to achieve a tie is beyond me. In OT, I’m not sure if I agree with Rutger’s decision to go for 2. But hey, if the convert they win. I’m certainly not a coach.
As for the AAC, UCF did win big and they’ll inevitably go up against PSU. Some of the stronger AAC teams have yet to play: SMU, USF, Cincy, Houston and Lville. If SMU somehow enters AAC play undefeated, the conference will have a legit argument in the BCS equation. They have a brutal OOC schedule: aTm, TCU, TTech.
Let’s not speak to soon either because the BIG faces a lot of AAC teams this season. Cincy plays Ill & Purdue, as stated PSU vs UCF, the Spartans face USF, Mich vs UConn. UConn also plays Md. I’m sure there are more games I’m missing. If the BIG flops in most these games then this thread is premature.
LikeLike
Cincy will likely beat Illinois and Purdue. They’re favored by 10.5 over Purdue tomorrow.
LikeLike
I think that UCF is going to be a whole lot harder than PSU bargained for.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that wins mattered anymore, at least that’s what Big 10 fans says whenever anyone questions Maryland and Rutgers joining the conference. I thought it was all about markets. Big East would be alive and well if winning mattered.
LikeLike
Well so far, the AAC vs the BIG favors the former. Cincy owning Purdue & they’re doing so in annihilating fashion. Bottom line, I’ve been watching BIG football since the late 70s, minus much of the 90s, the conference hasn’t won much in the NC domain (1.5) nor bigger bowl games. PSU and Neb don’t count, they weren’t members during their dominant runs.
The season is young, but if OSU is the class of the conference, a NC, heck a title game berth, will be a significant accomplishment for the BIG.
LikeLike
Mark,
That’s unfair. Lots of B10 fans don’t defend those additions. They explain that markets are why they were added. It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have preferred quality CFB teams instead.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Well so far, the AAC vs the BIG favors the former. Cincy owning Purdue & they’re doing so in annihilating fashion.”
That’s the worst (or second worst) B10 team versus a contender for the AAC title, and playing at the AAC team. OSU hosting Memphis might yield the opposite result.
“Bottom line, I’ve been watching BIG football since the late 70s, minus much of the 90s, the conference hasn’t won much in the NC domain (1.5) nor bigger bowl games.”
Do you mean that you didn’t watch in the 90s, or you’re excluding all B10 success from that decade?
1980s:
Rank for total AP poll points – 4. MI, 13. OSU (a bad decade for us), 23. IA
NC – 1985 MI #2 with a 1st place vote
3 Rose Bowl wins plus 3 other BCS wins.
This was a bad decade for the B10.
1990s:
Rank for total AP poll points – 5. PSU, 6. MI, 7. OSU, 25. WI
NC – 1997 MI, 1994 PSU perfect, OSU #2 twice with only a B10 upset loss
7 Rose Bowl wins plus 3 other BCS wins.
I don’t think having 3 top 10 teams of the decade is bad at all. It also essentially has 2 NCs (split) with 2 very close calls. 7-3 in the Rose is also strong.
2000s:
Rank for total AP poll points – 5. OSU, 10. MI, 19. PSU, 20. WI, 23. IA
NC – 2002 OSU, 2 NCG losses
1 Rose Bowl win plus 5 other BCS wins.
A good decade for depth, but not so great for kings not named OSU. PSU really suffered some lean years, and MI had the RichRod fiasco.
2010s:
Rank for total AP poll points – 7. OSU, 9. WI, 10. NE, 19. MSU
NC – 2012 OSU perfect
0 for Rose Bowl but 2 other BCS wins.
It’s too early to tell. The B10 seems to be improving, but who knows?
Basically, the 90s were a strong decade for the B10 while the 80s and 00s had one or more kings down for a while.
“The season is young, but if OSU is the class of the conference, a NC, heck a title game berth, will be a significant accomplishment for the BIG.”
Isn’t that true for every conference except the SEC?
LikeLike
USC and Hawaii are playing baseball, 5-3 Hawaii in the second.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/08/29/gary-stokan-chick-fil-a-kickoff-game-started-trend/2724051/
A look at how the Peach Bowl people re-started the trend of kickoff games. It also had some news:
Charlotte and perhaps KC and Orlando may add games soon.
Also, this:
the Chick-fil-A game projects to pay Alabama and Virginia Tech roughly $2.5 million each.
That’s why OSU and MI are unlikely to ever play there. MI barely agreed to play for $4.7M in TX.
LikeLike
KC really wants to have an annual game with Mizzou vs high profile teams. Rumor had it they tried to set up Mizzou and BYU this year in KC but it didn’t pan out. Missouri’s schedule is full next year too but maybe 2015.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/82424/b1g-to-allow-unlimited-replays-in-stadiums
The B10 is looking for suggestions for improving the game day experience. They have some plans already:
1. Unlimited replays at any speed are now allowed.
2. Encourage all schools to install Wi-Fi in their stadium.
3. Showing enhanced video, like locker room footage.
4. More coverage of other games (B10 and national).
5. Investigate adding social media lounges in stadiums.
If you have a suggestion for improving the gameday experience in the Big Ten, contact Big Ten staffer Kerry Kenny at kkenny@bigten.org.
My short list:
1. No TV timeouts. Get the networks to do side by side advertising like they do with auto racing. The audience won’t change the channel if the game doesn’t stop for 5 minute breaks so often.
2. Less piped in music and more use of the band (and subsets there of).
3. Lower ancillary prices (concessions, parking, etc).
4. Win more.
LikeLike
Which Top 25 teams are the most popular in which counties?
Facebook has the answer.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-now-gives-us-the-best-map-of-college-foot-1226797539
Some points from the Deadspin article about it.
* Texas, Florida, Ohio State, and Oregon seem to have established themselves as the “default” teams for places with no obvious rooting interest in the Top 25. Alabama, ranked number one and winner of two of the last three championship games, gets no such love.
* Florida dominates the Northeast, for some reason.
* ESPN may give a shit about Louisville football, but Kentucky does not.
* Eastern Pennsylvania breaks for Notre Dame, even though other states in the largely Catholic Northeast aren’t interested.
* Oregon State, UCLA, and Northwestern cannot be found on the map–zero counties picked them as their favorite team.
* TCU and Oklahoma State aren’t too popular either, each hold only one county.
1. The SEC backlash has an effect, perhaps. Note that MO goes for UT over any SEC team. Old habits die hard I guess.
2. Perhaps ND’s fan base is overestimated?
3. BE is still BE. ESPN can’t spin that.
4. Chicago’s B10 team, huh? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
re: old habits die hard… It’s only been a year. Missouri won’t become an SEC state overnight. But it will happen eventually. Missouri has had a grand total of 4 SEC home games so far, and two of them were Vandy and Kentucky.
LikeLike
Interesting map; will be interesting to see how these change over time. Apparently, 20-25 years ago, the colors in South Carolina would have been reversed as Clemson was the dominant school. Be interesting to see if A&M can make inroads against the dominance of Burnt Orange.
I am curious what is going on in Virginia and Maryland. Are those Burnt Orange counties? or some other orange?
Ohio State’s penetration is pretty deep in the states where various ACC schools are supposedly targeted for acquisition. If I read this right, tOSU is third behind S.Car. and Florida in the state of North Carolina (with MI taking a couple of counties).
Interesting that NJ has a lot of Florida blue; wonder if that will change as time goes on and Rutgers gets integrated into the B1G.
Teams are clearly regional with (as the article says, 4 teams have a somewhat national reach).
But so much regional-ness; so much splitting along state lines. Is upper MI REALLY so different from the attached Wisconsin as to fall in line with UM? Quite amazing really and part of what makes CFB so fun.
Saying the same thing in a different way, amazing there are really only about 7-8 fractured states: Upper Plains states, Minny, Mizzu, Illinois and Virgina.
the strength of Nebraska is noteworthy. More evidence that it was a good addition to the B1G. the Wiscy brand has some power providing some evidence that Wiscy has become somewhat of a Prince.
Necessary caveat. as we all know, the map is dependent on the top 25. the NE looks different if PSU is ranked, etc. conversely, the national map looks very different if Texas is unranked.
LikeLike
Yes that is TX with quite a few counties in VA, but it is only one rural MD county. SC football was not very good before moving to the SEC. TX will have to suck a long time before the fan base loses interest. FL in the northeast was interesting; may show how little they care about college football, thinking more about where they want to go on vacation.
LikeLike
Yes the SEC would trip over itself to sign the Longhorns.
There are a lot of Ohio State alums in Phoenix.
In States with direct competition (SC, GA & FL) the ACC is completely overshadowed.
Notre Dame would be better served by aligning with the B1G, but it’s not as apparent that the same holds true for the B1G.
LikeLike
The second schools in states do not get much respect
FSU has 3 counties, FL the rest
Clemson gets its home county with SC the rest
Ok St gets it home county with OU the rest
A&M gets its home county, TCU gets 3 (not its home) and TX gets the rest
Stanford gets its home with OR and USC splitting the rest of CA
Oregon State and Northwestern cannot even hold home county
TX has the most coverage in MO with NE next
LikeLike
Perhaps OrST and Northwestern fans are wise enough to not invite Big Brothers apprentice (Facebook) into their lives at as high a rate?
LikeLike
I noticed that about the 2nd schools.
LikeLike
LHN finally signed up one of the Big 4. Unfortunately, Time Warner traded off some of their Texas properties to Comcast a few years back so they aren’t as big as they used to be in Texas.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/08/time-warner-cable-launches-longhorn-network/
LikeLike
Um, TWC swapped Houston for DFW with Comcast, so they ended up with a bigger market than they lost.
And given Houston’s odd inferiority complex to Dallas, the local politicians might just start pressuring Comcast to reach a deal now.
LikeLike
TWC is the dominant cable carrier in Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, San Antonio, Beaumont, Waco/Killeen, Wichita Falls, Corpus Christi, Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley. That’s about 75% of Texas’ population. So yeah, a big deal. Further solidifies the B12’s future.
LikeLike
By solidifying UT’s dominance? Expanding the in conference inequity? Seems a strange way to solidify a conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think the success of the LHN is going to have any effect on the long term health of the Big 12. The LHN is a revenue generator for UT but money isn’t a problem for the school. If Texas leaves the Big 12 it won’t be for athletic money, but for other reasons. One is the success of Texas A&M in the SEC. It has only been one season, but if UT stops being the preferred destination for instate recruits because of A&M in the SEC, UT might look elsewhere to a conference with more brand names like the PAC or BIG.
LikeLike
Ok. Didn’t know Time Warner got Dallas for Houston (which was split 50/50 between the two cable companies).
Oiler/Texan fans have an inferiority complex to the Cowboys. Houston as a city doesn’t think too much about Dallas. Its actually Dallas as a city who focuses a lot on Houston, although I wouldn’t describe is as an inferiority complex.
LikeLike
It is how they play monopoly in TX; Dallas was also split before the swap; now both Comcast and TWC have less competition. Dallas is part of the TWC CBS blackout, so now they can watch the LHN rather than the NFL, or get an antenna for CBS.
LikeLike
Until an AFC team comes into Arlington to face the Cowboys, it won’t matter to most folks in the Metroplex, as they can catch Jerry’s team on Fox.
LikeLike
@VP19 – Broncos at Cowboys in week 5 is the first Cowboys game on CBS. I doubt it makes it that long. Broncos at Giants on CBS in week 2 will probably cause TWC to fold.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9616630/big-12-unveils-bowl-game-lineup-2014-2019
B12 bowl lineup announced.
[• Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, Louisiana, vs. SEC opponent.]
• Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas, vs. Pac-12 opponent.
• Russell Athletic Bowl in Orlando, Fla., vs. Atlantic Coast Conference opponent.
• Texas Bowl in Houston vs. Southeastern Conference opponent.
• Liberty Bowl in Memphis, Tenn., vs. SEC opponent.
• Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe, Ariz., vs. Pac-12 opponent.
• Heart of Dallas Bowl vs. Conference USA opponent or Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth vs. American Athletic Conference opponent.
They added a FL game and dropped the B10.
LikeLike
Is this a sign of what RU will be like?
Across the Hudson River, the College Classic at MetLife Stadium will feature Syracuse and Penn State, two programs with rich histories, yet New Yorkers have greeted their arrival with something like a collective yawn.
Selling tickets for even half of the 82,000-seat stadium — as MetLife organizers did for a game between Syracuse and Southern California last year — has been a struggle. Tickets went on sale in April, but were still being advertised this week on the daily deals Web site LivingSocial. Seats could be found on StubHub for as low as $31 on Friday afternoon — cheaper than a parking pass for the Giants’ home opener against the Denver Broncos on Sept. 15.
…
A study by Scarborough Sports Marketing from February 2012 through March 2013 ranked the top 77 markets in affinity for college football and found that only 7.6 percent New York area residents considered themselves to be “very interested” in the sport. That ranked 76th, slightly ahead of Providence, R.I.
…
To Nielsen, the more indicative figure in the rankings is the total number of fans who made up that percentage: more than 1.2 million, the third most behind Los Angeles and Atlanta. That is what conference officials and athletic directors want to capitalize on.
“Just because of the numbers, it can’t be dismissed,” Nielsen said. “You’re not telling the full story if you say New York is the lowest-ranking market. There’s over 1 million people very interested.”
If PSU can only half-fill the stadium for Syracuse, how much better would PSU/RU do? And remember, PSU has a lot more fans in NYC than OSU (MI is in between but closer to PSU).
LikeLike
Yep. Those who think Rutgers will bring NYC into the B1G are fooling themselves. Nobody over there cares about Rutgers.
LikeLike
It seems like you care about Rutgers, Andy. You know, because you won’t shut up about them and all.
LikeLike
It seems like you care a lot about me, Arch. You know, because you heckle me every day and all.
LikeLike
It is very true, Rutgers alone will not bring the New York market, Notre Dame comes closest, but no College team can (try as they may, Syracuse does not qualify). Perhaps the most popular College team is St John’s Red Storm Basketball, and if you rank the teams in popularity order they might be middle of the pack. Yankees, Giants, Knicks, Mets, Jets, Brooklyn Nets, Rangers, Islanders then St Johns. Teams like the New Jersey Devils, Rutgers & Army (football), Red Bulls (soccer), Liberty (Women’s Basketball), and the local men’s hoop teams (Hofstra, Seton Hall, Rutgers, Stony Brook, Iona & the rest take up the rear). Basically, New York is an ESTABLISHED PRO Sports Town (that means Basketball, Football, Hockey and above all, Baseball town (there is a reason why rumors are high that the New Yankee RADIO (yes, radio) Contract will be worth $18m or more to the Yankees. Even Soccer, is finding it difficult to get a foothold here. I have been reading how Red Bull Soccer has attendance problems, and how the start up New York City Football Club (NYCFC), is having trouble finding a place to build a Stadium (its not like there is a shortage of Soccer mad Hispanics from Central & South America (and other foreign-born people) in New York). That said, the College Football fan here (and there are lots of us), will watch Rutgers (I stayed up for Rutgers/Fresno State), and will make sure we have BTN even if it requires an extra couple of dollars (I did for Penn State prior to having Verizon FIOS), and getting BTN Carriage on Cablevision, Comcast & Time-Warner is exactly why Rutgers is in the B10.
LikeLike
(there is a reason why rumors are high that the new Yankee RADIO (yes, radio) contract will be worth $18m or more
Imagine how high it would be worth if that obnoxious, pompous hack John Sterling (the Ted Baxter of play-by-play) wasn’t doing the games. He’s the anti-Scully.
LikeLike
Have you been to New York? He is perfect for the fanbase.
LikeLike
It is foolish to use Met Life games as a barometer for the overall interest in college football, because they give such large payments to the schools to play there that the ticket prices for the game turn off all but the most avid fans (face value of tickets ranged from $75-175 for the Syr-PSU game).
Rutgers will draw around 50,000 in Piscataway for Norfolk State this weekend. They would draw about 1/2 that for a game like Army at Met Life, because Met Life already has a reputation of being an expensive hassle and most of the students won’t risk a DUI to go to a game 35 miles away.
Rutgers doesn’t need to “win” NYC to be a financial success for the B1G. The state of NJ would be the 8th largest TV market in the US, if it was a separate entity instead of being part of the Philly and NYC markets.
LikeLike
Rutgers itself wont bring in NYC nor will it bring in New Jersey. Same with Maryland. The question is will either plus the rest of the BIG provide enough demand to get BTN on basic cable. For all we know, the demand in New Jersey and Maryland might be there already due to the high saturation of BIG alumni but the cable companies have balked at giving in footprint prices since Maryland and New Jersey were technically not in the footprint. Adding Rutgers and Maryland make the footprint argument null and void. Or it is possible the demand was close in those states but not yet enough, and adding the fan bases of Rutgers and Maryland, as limited as they may be, is enough to push the desire for the BTN over the top so to speak. We wont know whether any of that is true until those two schools join and negotiations become public. However I would assume the research and pre-negotiations were done well before either was added judging from Delaney’s track record of success.
NYC is an entirely different animal. It is a pro sports town so college sports take a back seat. However, due to the massive population, scratching out a small portion is really all that is needed to be successful there. If the BTN gets on basic in Maryland and Rutgers, both additions will be considered a financial success regardless of any gains in NYC.
Penn State’s program is down right now due to the scandal and the last decade of mediocrity of the previous coaching staff. Plus a closed door policy of keeping outsiders and the national media out for decades, for reasons now obvious, has severely hurt the marketing of the program. It will be many years before that program can return to prominence. I wouldn’t judge anything by the next few years attendance or ratings. The Paterno loyalists need to die out and a new generation take over. With a current enrollment of 95,000, including branch campuses all under one name one mascot, and the largest alumni association in the country, if properly marketed, PSU can go along way in capturing a large portion of the Northeast. It will just take many years to do it and hopefully O’Brien will stay longest to get it going.
LikeLike
PSU Hockey, I do not thing the time frame is as long as you might think (the fact O’Brien landed Hackenberg is proof of that). In most cases (the Yankee, Laker, USC Trojan and Dallas Cowboy fan are the exceptions), people seem to tolerate quite a bit and still buy their tickets (Cub, Knick & Jet fans come to mind). Keep in mind, we will still get our 90,000 plus at Beaver Stadium (by comparison, don’t the Pitt Panthers WISH they could have their own on Campus Stadium?). As for the Paterno loyalists, they are essentially in denial that “Papa Joe” could essentially be a flawed human being (like the rest of us), instead of being a Saint, and many of them will not change. However, as time passes, and the sanctions end, their voices will get drowned out by the cheers of 100,000 people at Beaver Stadium.
LikeLike
The only thing I took from it is that maybe SU should rethink wanting to play a game every other year at the Meadowlands. They’re a bit more relevant come basketball time but trying to pretend to be NY’s team while playing games in NJ is a little too much to chew for them right now.
Btw, the RU fans I come across on the internet would prefer they avoid the Meadowlands for home games, altogether.
LikeLike
SU should look into an annual November game at CitiField in Queens, as it probably won’t be involved in late October play for at least the next few years and its capacity would be more along the lines of what the NYC-area Orange fan/alumni community can handle.
LikeLike
They did. The mental giants known as the Wilpons nixed it for fear of what college football will do to the precious blades of grass upon which Mets dreams die, one partially-torn UCL at a time.
But I’m not bitter.
LikeLike
MetLife seems close to full on TV. And mostly in PSU white.
LikeLike
The consensus seems to be that it was about 70-80% PSU fans. There is probably some Syracuse fatigue since they’ve had a bunch of games in the NYC area recently (Meadowlands vs USC, @ Rutgers, Pinstripe Bowl x 2).
LikeLike
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/30/217099442/how-ncaa-division-1-schools-make-money-with-sports
The rare article that refers to WF as a football heavyweight.
LikeLike
To NPR, with its Boston bias, anything above Ivy League is a “football heavyweight.”
LikeLike
Boston bias? NPR is based in DC and has the most diverse reporting staff in the nation. And Wake Forest is clearly a heavyweight compared to Presbyterian.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/08/30/cal-football-game-by-game-predictions/
John Wilner picks Cal over NW.
Aug. 31: vs. Northwestern
Comment: Gut call here, because all material evidence points to a Northwestern victory. But don’t underestimate Cal’s advantage in speed, especially on the perimeter. A spirited, uplifting opener for Sonny Dykes.
Result: Win
Record: 1-0
Cal’s speed advantage? Sure they have some fast players, but NW has a couple, too. Venric Mark, anyone?
LikeLike
I’ll be at that game.
LikeLike
It would be called a “brain bowl,” until somebody realized that Cal is a state school (shudder!). As for me, I’ll be at Scott Stadium today, watching the Cavs open with Brigham Young.
LikeLike
They also have a true freshman QB and are replacing a good chunk of their O-line. Cal fans are touting their WRs, but unless they are throwing screens and laterals all the time, their passing game doesn’t trouble me.
LikeLike
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=332422306
NDSU claims an FBS scalp for the fourth straight season with an upset of K-State.
LikeLike
B1G is 3-0 so far.
B12 is 1-1, and lost to a FCS school.
LikeLike
I think both Indiana and Minny have been turned around sufficiently that, now, they can be counted on to beat the patsies on their schedule. The B1G can worry a bit less about them gacking up losses to Div. 1AA teams (general statement: I know UNLV is Div 1A). The margins of victory and the half-time adjustments (?) are also positives. Both games were somewhat tight going into halftime but then ended up being blowouts.
There is a decent chance for the B1G to exit the weekend 12-0. But we are not really playing anyone.
By contrast, the SEC actually challenged itself this weekend. TCU, OkieState and Clemson are ranked; add in VirTech and NC; throw in the conference game between Vandy and Ole Miss and it was/is an very interesting weekend for the SEC. 7 of 14 teams are getting lots of media coverage if only because their games were interesting.
The ACC also challenged itself and scheduled well. PSU, BYU, ‘Bama, S. Car., Georgia. But they need to notch a win or two.
IMO, the SEC scheduling model is far superior to the one used by the B1G. Early season conference games, encouraging early big games against the BXII and ACC, using patsy games later in the season like bye-weeks; encouraging out-of-conference rivalry games as season-enders. All of these pump up the tv value of the SEC “inventory.” In this respect, Slive has lapped Delany a couple of times.
LikeLike
Problem is Delany can’t do every school’s schedule. That’s one of the drawbacks of keeping as close to tradition as possible, including scheduling close-by opponents from the MAC and FCS early. Sure, there are those legendary MSU-ND match-ups and OSU/MI will challenge themselves (and WI is feeling more confident now that they are winning) but many others would prefer to play the “likely win” game and hope to land a good bowl. OTOH, schools like FSU and Louisville had a “play anywhere, anyone, anytime” philosophy when they were wanting to rise to the big time, before they found their way into BCS conferences. Of course, today FSU plays the 1-AA card as a member of the ACC but nothing all that different from what the SEC has always done.
B1G was fortunate that they had two stout football programs who were neighbors to the original members, so when they both asked to join the conference found ways to let them in. That, in effect, has led many within the footprint to somewhat overvalue their own conference, as if they were destined to be the biggest power conference for a long time. If recent trends haven’t slapped them back to reality then nothing will. I actually think that Delany actually does know the true challenges and is trying to push the conference into a position that will leave them better insured. Much of that, as shown with recent moves, involves wanting to draw a deeper pool of prospective students into the member schools. That has also attracted a great push back (understandably on some level) from traditionalists and football-firsters who think he screwed the pooch.
It would be interesting to see the future culture clashes as these things continue to play out.
LikeLike
I often wonder what the B1G would be like now had PSU gotten into the Big East or petitioned instead to join the ACC 20+ years ago.
LikeLike
20 years ago, they’d have certainly preferred the Big East to the ACC as their rivals were mostly Big East programs.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“IMO, the SEC scheduling model is far superior to the one used by the B1G.”
While I totally disagree. I’d much rather play big games in November than cupcakes. Week 1 cupcakes don’t bother me at all.
“encouraging out-of-conference rivalry games as season-enders.”
The SEC doesn’t encourage that, they just have multiple teams that already have that tradition. They pushed to get a 4th one moved to that same weekend because it makes scheduling so much easier. It’s not like they’re pushing all 14 teams to do it.
“All of these pump up the tv value of the SEC “inventory.””
Not really. Sunbelt week in November doesn’t do well. GT/UGA and UK/UL don’t have much value. Where’s your comment on UF not leaving FL for an OOC game since 1991? What about all those I-AA and SB games?
“In this respect, Slive has lapped Delany a couple of times.”
Conferences don’t do OOC scheduling, schools do.
LikeLike
@ Brian. Your points are well taken, but we disagree; Florida’s scheduling is what it is and a single SEC school was not the focus of my thoughts; if they want, Conferences can have a tremendous influence on how schools schedule.
LikeLike
I prefer the SEC model as well – spreading the unattractive games out makes it more fun for the fans. Of course with Iowa and Purdue falling today, maybe the Big 10 is moving towards having better games early. By the way, I’ve been to 60 or so Purdue games and it was typical Purdue today – they had 1st and goal at the 5 and then missed a 40 yard field goal! I feel bad that Cincinnati is in the AAC with Purdue in the Big 10 – Cincinnati has a much, much better football and basketball program and they are in a large media market. Purdue is lucky they joined the Big Ten when they did!
In regard to Florida not playing non-conference outside of the state, that doesn’t bother me. They play Florida State annually, a “king”, Miami, also a “king” and South Florida, a BCS conference team. Certainly Florida could play northern teams, image the advantage they would have with a September game vs. Michigan or Notre Dame or Wisconsin – the game at Florida would be a hot, humid mess. They also play bowl games outside of Florida as well.
LikeLike
I think its ridiculous to have meaningless games late in the season. So do most fans.
I also think its ridiculous to have a critical game the first game of the season. Georgia/South Carolina have been playing way too early in recent years.
The purpose for the cupcakes is to get your team ready for the season, not to get a sure win in week 10.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I prefer the SEC model as well – spreading the unattractive games out makes it more fun for the fans.”
For some fans. Others disagree. That’s my point.
“In regard to Florida not playing non-conference outside of the state, that doesn’t bother me. They play Florida State annually, a “king”, Miami, also a “king” and South Florida, a BCS conference team.”
They happen to play Miami this year, but that’s unusual. They’ve played Miami 3 times in the regular season since 1992. They play a lot more MAC, SB and I-AA teams.
2013 – FSU, Miami, Toledo, GA Southern
2014 – FSU, EMU, EKU, Idaho
2015 – FSU, FAU, NMSU, ???
2016 – FSU, UMass, UNT, ???
LikeLike
I’m not sure this is a good thing:
http://www.cougcenter.com/2013/8/30/4678272/wsu-coug-cougs-fans-auburn-football-bar-runs-out-of-beer
LikeLike
I always though the deep south was more bourbon than beer.
LikeLike
The plantation owners, sure, but the masses drink what’s cheapest. It used to be ‘shine but now it’s American beer. Look who advertises in NASCAR.
LikeLike
hey Frank, great news here:
http://www.thechampaignroom.com/2013/8/11/4611288/illinois-is-very-interested-in-playing-missouri
LikeLike
shaking my head @ the Iowa-NIU score.
LikeLike
Well, NIU was a BCS team last year. Where was Iowa?
LikeLike
IA could have won that (or at least taken it to OT) but they blew it in the last minute.
LikeLike
The only happy town in Iowa today is Cedar Falls (home of UNI).
LikeLike
I counted 30! games on TV in Atlanta today. Only 5 were conference networks. Its probably 45 for the weekend. Everybody gets exposure now.
LikeLike
There are only two conference networks, and neither are near Atlanta.
LikeLike
BTN, LHN and PTN are all available if you have the right carrier and right tier.
LikeLike
One of those is not a conference network. 🙂
LikeLike
The American Conference is having about as bad a CFB opening weekend a conference can have: UConn loses to Towson and South Florida is losing to McNeese State 50 – 21. Two blowout losses to FCS programs this weekend.
Just imagine if the ACC had chosen UConn instead of Louisville. That loss would’ve been a dark cloud over the ACC all season.
LikeLike
Foremost, the AAC wasn’t really expected to be some world beating BCS conference, this is their first year & two members already have one foot out the door.
As BIG fan, I’m genuinely concerned, but actually almost habitually accepting of the fact that none of our teams will make it to the BCSCG & if one does, they’ll likely get blown out by yet another SEC team. Let’s face it, the BIG has been mediocre in the BCS era & the last two bowl seasons have been miserable. Eventually, the fans will start turning away if such mediocrity continues.
Nebraska, despite the win, got humiliated by Wyoming in front of 91 thousand – 600 plus yards of offense by the Cowboys. Iowa lost at home to Northern Illinois. I remember the days when a BIG-MAC game was a guaranteed win for the BIG team. Now, Northern Illinois may be the best team in the state of Illinois. Staying in Illinois, well the Illini nearly choked against Southern Illinois & NW may not hold on in Berkeley, which is actually pathetic considering Cal is playing a lot of freshmen, including their QB & they have a first year coach.
Btw, Cincy out of the AAC, completely destroyed Purdue. And I was far from impressed by no. 2 OSU, who never truly took control of their game against Buffalo, a mid tier MAC team.
In the years to come, the BIG will be better known as a hoops conference, on the football end they’ll continue to send great players to the NFL, but NC’s will be rare, which shouldn’t surprise anyone since the conference has only won 1.5 in the past 30 plus years.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“As BIG fan, I’m genuinely concerned, but actually almost habitually accepting of the fact that none of our teams will make it to the BCSCG”
Oh no, we might not have a top 2 team. The horror. At least 3 power conferences won’t have a NCG team this year.
“& if one does, they’ll likely get blown out by yet another SEC team.”
You mean like ND, UT and OU recently? In other words, the B10 would be just like everyone else? Or like in 2002 when everyone said OSU would get blown out by Miami?
“Let’s face it, the BIG has been mediocre in the BCS era”
They haven’t done as well as the SEC. The B10 played in the most BCS bowls and went 12-14. That’s better than the ACC, BE and B12. Only the SEC and B12 won more BCS titles (B12 had 2 to the B10’s 1).
In summary:
1. SEC
2. gap
3. B10 & B12
4. others
Is being the second best conference mediocre?
“Eventually, the fans will start turning away if such mediocrity continues.”
Got any evidence? ND was mediocre for almost 20 years and 1 good season has everyone back on the bandwagon. OSU, MI and NE still seem to be drawing fans just fine.
“I remember the days when a BIG-MAC game was a guaranteed win for the BIG team.”
The MAC was 5-16-1 against the B10 in the 70s. That dropped to 2-27 in the 80s, but we’ve already discussed that the 80s were a down decade for the B10. That means the MAC was even more down. The MAC was 6-47 in the 90s, a good decade for the B10. That’s not a guaranteed win at 87%. Since 2000, the W% is an almost identical 0.854. What about more recently? 2011-2012 the B10 was 0.810.
So you want the 80s back, when the B10 was down but the MAC really stunk?
Not only has the B10’s W% not changed that much, but you also aren’t factoring in how good those MAC teams are or aren’t.
“Now, Northern Illinois may be the best team in the state of Illinois.”
Beating a bad IA team doesn’t prove that at all.
“Staying in Illinois, well the Illini nearly choked against Southern Illinois & NW may not hold on in Berkeley, which is actually pathetic considering Cal is playing a lot of freshmen, including their QB & they have a first year coach.”
But NW won by 2 TDs on the west coast at night with their starting QB, RB and 1 CB lost to injuries.
“Btw, Cincy out of the AAC, completely destroyed Purdue. And I was far from impressed by no. 2 OSU, who never truly took control of their game against Buffalo, a mid tier MAC team.”
Of course not. It wouldn’t fit your narrative to admit any team looked good. And yet all the media had a vastly different take, talking about OSU rolling and then coasting. Did they look great? Not after the 1st quarter. But they only gave up 258 yards including 73 rushing, and that was with 3 starters out on D and all that youth in the front 7.
MI crushed CMU. WI crushed UMass. I notice you neglected to mention them, too. NW and PSU beat AQ schools as well.
Meanwhile, KSU, ISU and OrSU lost to I-AAs. NC and VT looked terrible. WV barely beat William & Mary. USC looked bad. Cal lost to a B10 team you consider weak at home. AL had no offense. UK lost to WKU. Every conference looks bad if all you do is look for the most negative possible spin.
LikeLike
OU got blown out by USC. They were very competitive against the SEC teams. UT was down by 3 with 3 minutes left against Alabama behind their 2nd string QB. Hardly blown out. Sounds like you are over-reacting because Ohio St. has a way of getting blown out by SEC schools.
But yes, gfunk is overstating the case. Big 10 has been down in fb for 5 or 6 years, but not the whole BCS era.
LikeLike
bullet,
Not that it’s important, but UT lost by 16 to AL and it only got close because AL went on cruise control after leading by 18. If OSU’s 14 point loss to LSU was a blow out, so was UT’s loss to AL. UF was dominant enough against OU that OU dropped to #5 in the final AP poll. The score was closer than that game felt, and the polls reflected that.
LikeLike
Texas didn’t wake up from the shock of losing McCoy until they were down by 18. And Alabama’s last TD was stupid by Saban. Gilbert had turned it over again and instead of taking a knee 4 times and running out the last 2 minutes of the clock they scored and actually gave Texas a mathematical chance of catching up.
LikeLike
It’s mighty convenient for you that OSU was blown out but UT wasn’t despite all the similarities in those two games.
MOV: OSU -14, UT -16
Yardage advantage: OSU +27, UT +13
TOP: OSU 26:04, UT 26:21
TO margin: OSU -2, UT -3
Penalties: OSU 7/83, UT 8/77 (both opponents had 3 fewer)
Largest lead: OSU 10-0, UT 6-0
When the game was lost: OSU – 2nd qtr (LSU got 21 pts), UT – 2nd qtr (AL got 24 pts)
2nd half score: OSU 14-14, UT 15-13
LikeLike
Oh Lord, here goes Brian again.
Foremost, I don’t overstate (Bullet or Brian) when I say the BIG has been mediocre in the BCS era. The conference has a 12-14 record, two of those wins being vacated: OSU in 2011 and PSU in 2006. Technically, the BIG is below average, thus not even “mediocre” in BCS performances, in terms of winning %. In my original post, I never compared the BIG to other BCS conferences, for outside the Pac12 and SEC, the others are mediocre or below as well. But here’s some actual BCS facts to digest.
Of the major BCS conferences, I will include the former Big East in this comparison, only the BIG and ACC have failed to send more than one representative to the BCSNCG:
For the ACC – FSU has all 3 appearances, similarly OSU has 3 appearances for the BIG. The SEC, Pac12, Big12 and Big East (VTech and Miami) have sent at least two different teams to the NCG.
For further breakdown, I’ll stick with actual BIG membership during the BCS era – BIG versus other BCS conferences. Thus, Nebraska’s 1-1 BCS record does not apply. I will not count TCU’s victory over Wisconsin for the Big12.
SEC vs the BIG – BCS games – should not need to illustrate, but the SEC holds a 3-2 advantage. Two of the SEC’s victories were convincing NC victories. Mi did beat Bama in the 2000 Orange Bowl. OSU’s victory against Ark has been vacated. LSU pounded Illinois in the 2002 Sugar Bowl – don’t let the score fool you.
Pac12 vs the BIG – BCS games – the Pac12 holds a commanding 8-3 advantage over the BIG. All but one of the Pac12’s victories (2003 Orange Bowl) came in Rose Bowl games.
The Pac12’s all time King (USC) is 5-0 against the BIG’s kings (PSU, Mi, & OSU) during the BCS era. USC’s victories over OSU came during the regular season, one of those victories was a blowout. In fact, all of USC’s victories over the BIG’s kings or BCS games were dominating victories.
Big12 vs BIG – BCS games – the BIG and Big12 are knotted at 2-2. However, the Big 12 has one more BCS NC than the BIG (Tx 2005, OU 1999 vs OSU 2002), and more than 2x the NCG appearances (OU = 4, Tx = 2, Neb = 1).
Furthermore, one of the Big12’s kings (Texas) won 2 of its 3 BCS games at the expense of BIG kings (OSU 2009 and Mi 2005 – both nail biters, nonetheless victories for the Big12).
Thus, I think it’s fair to say the Big12 and Pac12 have outperformed the BIG, either head to head, or overall BCS games that matter (NC’s, NC appearances, and head-to-head games between so-called kings).
BIG vs ACC – BCS games – BIG holds a 4-0 advantage (one of the wins has been vacated – PSU 2005).
BIG vs BigEast – BCS games – BIG holds a 1-0 advantage over the former Big East (NC win for OSU over Miami).
Other facts:
The BIG has only one team with a winning BCS record – OSU. Whereas the SEC, Big12, Big East and Pac12 have at least THREE, repeat THREE teams with a winning BCS record & yes the former Big East falls in that category (Lville 2-0, WVa 3-0, Miami 3-1).
Last, but not least, and indirectly related the BIG’s BCS performance and the seasons to come: three of the BIG’s kings (Neb, Mi, OSU) have losing all-time bowl records, which is not the case amongst the elite of the Big12 and SEC. Sadly, 6 of PSU’s 27 bowl wins have been vacated. But they still hold a winning bowl record with the vacated records.
At most, the BIG is the 4th or 5th best major conference in the BCS era. BCS appearances are overvalued, while in my opinion losses in NC games, number of different teams with a winning BCS record, as well teams outside of OSU to appear in the NCG are significant realities that factor into BIG BCS era success.
LikeLike
I don’t think Al went on cruise control against Tx, considering Alabama only lead 24-21 with 6:15 to play. Bama scored 14 of its points in the last 2:01 of the game, their last td was a needless rub in because Tx, without McCoy, gave them a surprisingly good game.
Unlike OSU, now that I know Brian is an OSU homer, you were out of the the Florida game by halftime & you were completely destroyed on every level of that game. Against LSU, you were in the game til about midway through the 3rd qtr, at most, but your QB gave no one any hope from opening kickoff. OSU only deserved to truly be in the 2002 BCS game & unlike most folks, you deserved that game and should have won in regulation had the game been called properly – Gamble was robbed on 3rd down play where the Miami player clearly held or interfered – had that call been made, OSU runs out the clock in regulation. OSU’s next best team was 2005-2006, they could have beaten anyone that year outside of Tx in Columbus, but a rematch might have gone differently. Outside of those years, OSU has brought too much needless negative attention to the BIG & has been overrated.
Don’t get me wrong, many programs would die for OSU’s athletic success – but talk about underachievers in football and basketball. OSU hoops is the only program with double digit FF’s, yet only 1 NC to show for it. You still have a losing record against Michigan in football, and at least the Wolverines can beat the SEC in big games, half the time. You guys crap your pants against the SEC. That’s just a fact, accept it. OSU = perennial runner’s up, most sports, outside of synchronized swimming.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Foremost, I don’t overstate (Bullet or Brian) when I say the BIG has been mediocre in the BCS era.”
Yes, you do. Bullet’s neutral and he clearly thinks so, too.
“The conference has a 12-14 record, two of those wins being vacated: OSU in 2011 and PSU in 2006. Technically, the BIG is below average, thus not even “mediocre” in BCS performances, in terms of winning %.”
Math doesn’t work that way, especially when every conference has a different number of games. AQs:
SEC 17-8, 0.680 (10 at-large)
P12 13-7, 0.650 (5 at-large)
B10 12-14, 0.462 (11 at-large)
B12 9-11, 0.450 (5 at-large)
BE 8-7, 0.533 (0 at-large)
ACC 3-13 0.133 (1 at-large)
The ACC was clearly the worst. The BE was next worse with no at-large bids. The B10 played more games and won at a higher rate than the B12, but it was close. The P12 had a higher W% but played in only 5 at-large games versus 11 for the B10. They also got home games that the B10 never got. All 3 have basically the same W% in the NCG, too. You can group those 3 together more or less, leaving the SEC alone at the top.
“In my original post, I never compared the BIG to other BCS conferences,”
You did inherently by calling the B10 mediocre. That word is meaningless except in the context of other conferences to compare against the B10.
“But here’s some actual BCS facts to digest.”
You’re calling me a liar, now? Are things only facts if you state them and they fit your narrative?
“Of the major BCS conferences, I will include the former Big East in this comparison, only the BIG and ACC have failed to send more than one representative to the BCSNCG:”
So? If OSU played in all 15 NCGs, would you still penalize the B10 for only 1 team going to the NCG? How about penalizing other conferences for not getting 2 teams into the BCS nearly as often as the B10? Why isn’t that a feather in the cap of the B10?
“SEC vs the BIG – BCS games – should not need to illustrate, but the SEC holds a 3-2 advantage.”
Just to be clear, that’s 0.600 for the SEC vs the B10 compared to 0.680 overall. In other words, the B10 did better than the field against the SEC (0.722 against non-B10, non-SEC).
“Pac12 vs the BIG – BCS games – the Pac12 holds a commanding 8-3 advantage over the BIG. All but one of the Pac12′s victories (2003 Orange Bowl) came in Rose Bowl games.”
Shockingly, the local teams beat the teams from 2000 miles away regularly. USC was 4-0 in the Rose, including against 2007 #13 IL (replacement for #1 OSU) and 2006 MI (replacement for #1 OSU). The rest of the P12 went 3-3 in the Rose Bowl. USC also beat 2002 IA (replacement for #2 OSU) in the Orange. So as has been repeatedly stated here, I agree that USC has a decided advantage over the B10 in the Rose Bowl. It just doesn’t apply to the rest of the P12. Thus, so far we’ve shown that the B10 was worse than the SEC and USC in BCS games.
“Big12 vs BIG – BCS games – the BIG and Big12 are knotted at 2-2.”
So they’re on par, like I said.
“Thus, I think it’s fair to say the Big12 and Pac12 have outperformed the BIG,”
Of course you do. The issue is that others don’t necessarily agree with you.
You go on to agree with me that the B10 was better than the ACC and BE.
“The BIG has only one team with a winning BCS record – OSU.”
Yes, but 2 are 1-1 and 2 more are 2-3. And OSU is 6-3, meaning these 5 teams went 12-11 collectively. Only 0-2 IL is 2+ games below 0.500. The B10 had 6 schools go to multiple BCS games. Only the SEC can match that (B12 – 4, P12 – 3, ACC – 2).
“Whereas the SEC, Big12, Big East and Pac12 have at least THREE, repeat THREE teams with a winning BCS record”
The SEC is a given. Nobody has debated there place in BCS history.
The B12 has 2 1-0 teams to go with 3-1 UT. They have 2 schools 2 games below 0.500 (3-5 OU, 0-2 KSU).
The P12 also has 2 1-0 teams to go with 6-1 USC and 3-2 OR. They have no team 2 games below 0.500, helped in small part by sending fewer at-large teams to risk extra losses.
“Last, but not least, and indirectly related the BIG’s BCS performance and the seasons to come: three of the BIG’s kings (Neb, Mi, OSU) have losing all-time bowl records, which is not the case amongst the elite of the Big12 and SEC.”
So now the 40s- mid 90s impact BCS performance?
NE – 24-25 (2-6 vs ACC/Miami in FL, 22-19 other)
MI – 20-22 (1-6 vs USC in the Rose Bowl, 19-16 other)
OSU – 19-23 (1-9 vs SEC in FL and LA, 18-14 other)
Is that really a big difference from Miami at 18-16 or ND at 15-17 (oh look, another northern king with a slightly losing bowl record)? USC is tops at 65% (24-8 in Rose, 7-9 other), AL and OU are strong at 60%, but PSU is at 58% (you counted NE, so PSU clearly counts). UT is at 55%.
“BCS appearances are overvalued,”
Because those stats don’t fit your narrative. If the B10 had the fewest appearances I bet you’d magically change your mind on their value.
“while in my opinion losses in NC games, number of different teams with a winning BCS record, as well teams outside of OSU to appear in the NCG are significant realities that factor into BIG BCS era success.”
Other than the SEC, everyone is 0.333 or worse in the NCG. The B10 is 0.333.
Of course the number of teams with a winning BCS record matters more to you. Otherwise you’d have to admit the B10 has more BCS games, more BCS wins and a higher BCS W% than the B12 and again disrupt your narrative.
Conveniently for these stats you count NE as a B12 team but magically NE counts as a B10 team when you talk about kings with losing bowl records. Whatever makes the B10 look worse, right?
LikeLike
gfunk,
“now that I know Brian is an OSU homer,”
It took you this long to figure out my allegiance?
“you were out of the the Florida game by halftime”
No, we were out after the opening KO return TD when Ginn broke his foot. It was just a matter of time, then.
“OSU only deserved to truly be in the 2002 BCS game”
I disagree. A 12-0 #1 ranked AQ champ deserves to be in the NCG. OSU backed into the 2007 NCG by everyone else losing later than them in November.
“you deserved that game and should have won in regulation had the game been called properly – Gamble was robbed on 3rd down play where the Miami player clearly held or interfered – had that call been made, OSU runs out the clock in regulation.”
Yep. Even Dan Fouts said that while calling the game (he was not pro-OSU).
“OSU’s next best team was 2005-2006, they could have beaten anyone that year outside of Tx in Columbus, but a rematch might have gone differently.”
I think 1998 might have been better. 2003 would have been if Clarett didn’t go insane.
“Outside of those years, OSU has brought too much needless negative attention to the BIG & has been overrated.”
It’s not OSU’s fault nobody else in the B10 rose to the challenge while Tressel was there. We didn’t force PSU to keep JoePa as HC for too long, nor did we make MI hire RichRod. We’re the only B10 team to win the Rose Bowl this millennium. It’s also not our fault that USC had their great run in the past decade. USC was 11-0 against the B10 in the BCS era, and OSU only played them twice.
“You still have a losing record against Michigan in football,”
44-46-2 in B10 play (since 1918). I can live with that. AQ teams with a better record against MI (10 game minimum) over that same period – USC (6-4) and ND (15-15-1).
Are you sure as a MN fan you want to have a pissing contest about how good your school’s teams have been?
LikeLike
Brian, you are Andy level delusional on this. First time I remember seeing that with you.
2004 LSU 21 OU 14
2006 Florida 41 Ohio St. 14
2007 LSU 38 Ohio St. 24 (that game was closer in score than I remembered. It felt like a blowout).
2008 Florida 24 OU 14
2009 Alabama 37 UT 21
As pointed out, there was a meaningless score at the end. And Ohio St. didn’t lose the winningest college QB in history on the 2nd drive.
From the BCS official website:
LSU roared from behind to win the BCS national championship game. The Tigers became the first two-loss team to claim a BCS title. Ohio State jumped to a a 10-0 lead before many of the Superdome-record 79,651 fans had settled into their seats. But LSU’s speed, power and Matt Flynn’s four touchdown passes were too much
Top-ranked Alabama scored ten points in the final 29 seconds of the first half and then held off a furious Texas rally to win the BCS National Championship Game on a beautiful evening in the Rose Bowl stadium. The Longhorns were shocked by the injury to quarterback Colt McCoy on the game’s fifth play, but regrouped and rallied to cut a 24-7 deficit to 24-21 before fading. Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram rushed for 116 yards for the Crimson Tide, and Trent Richardson added 109.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Brian, you are Andy level delusional on this.”
That’s a low blow.
We both watched all 3 games in questions, we just got a different feel apparently. I never felt like UT was threatening AL and neither did anyone I talked to in the days after the game. I’m sure UT fans felt otherwise. Similarly, everyone I know felt that UF suffocated OU in that game despite the score. OU came in averaging 54 ppg and were held to 14. I don’t know anyone that ever felt like UF was in danger of losing despite the score.
“2004 LSU 21 OU 14
2006 Florida 41 Ohio St. 14”
Irrelevant to the discussion since I didn’t cite 2004 and didn’t deny 2006.
“2007 LSU 38 Ohio St. 24 (that game was closer in score than I remembered. It felt like a blowout).”
You mean exactly the way I felt about UT and OU? Funny how that works.
“And Ohio St. didn’t lose the winningest college QB in history on the 2nd drive.”
How is that relevant to whether or not UT was blown out? It might explain why it happened, but that’s a different discussion entirely. Besides, I can provide “reasons” why OSU didn’t do better against LSU, too.
I’ll freely stipulate that 2009 UT (before McCoy’s injury) was better than 2007 OSU. It’s just not relevant to the topic at hand.
“From the BCS official website:”
Really? Corporate PR statements as evidence? It’s their job to make the games sound good.
LikeLike
They didn’t make Ohio St./LSU sound good. A 7 point game isn’t a blowout and 3 points with 3 minutes to go isn’t a blowout. For that matter a 10 point game isn’t a blowout.
In any event you made the comment that the Big 12 schools got blown out by the SEC schools when the only clear blowouts have been Florida/Ohio St. and Alabama/Notre Dame.
LikeLike
In any event, I think this is the year the SEC’s luck runs out. 3 out of 4 is very impressive, but Saban just isn’t going to be able to do it 4 out of 5. He’s going to lose a game or two and this year there will be 2 teams with better records. South Carolina and Florida don’t have the offense. UGA lost to Clemson. And I don’t think LSU has what it takes either. Johnny Autograph is going to be a constant distraction to A&M who lost a lot on defense anyway. But its just time for the breaks to go against them.
My guess is Ohio St. plays FSU. Alternate is Oregon beating out one of those.
LikeLike
It’s fool’s gold to predict the national championship participants at this early date. In close cases, the voters tend to favor the SEC, which is how Saban made it to the NCG two years ago despite not even winning his division, and Miles made it with a two-loss LSU team. Of course, it also depends on who the other guys lose to, and at what point in the season they lose, which you just can’t predict. That two-loss LSU team backed into the NCG when teams ahead of them lost games late in the season that they were favored to win.
Ohio State is a bit overrated. They were a very lucky 12-win team last year, going 6-0 in games decided by seven points or less. Over time, you’re not going to keep winning all of those games; it just can’t be done. I certainly think they’re the favorites to win the Big Ten, given the quality of the competition, but somewhere along the line, I think they drop a game no one expects them to lose, and that takes them out of NCG contention. Because of the low esteem in which the Big Ten is held, a Big Ten team probably needs to go undefeated to make it to the NCG.
LikeLike
Brian,
No, Bullet is not neutral, you are just stating an opinion. I think the facts speak clearly & I predicted your BCS appearances line, re-read my post. BCS appearances by conference don’t tell the whole picture. Of course I’d like to see the BIG improve in the BCS dept, but times have been rough much of the past decade, conference wide. I could speak too long as to why this happened.
As usual, you come back to planet Earth & I do enjoy your rebuttals, but you continue to misinterpret to fit your narrative, while at the same time accusing me of doing the same. I can’t do it today, it’s just too easy to counter your routine: quote-captures then purely biased interpretations. Textual analysis doesn’t work if you remained biased & stubborn to facts. Oh no, here you come again.
I posted several BCS facts you can’t argue, no matter how hard you try. Clearly the BIG has not matched the prestige of the SEC and Pac12 (<– as stated, they simply hold a "commanding" lead on the BIG, head-to-head BCS games). As of right now, the BIG can't jump the Big12 as 3rd best BCS conference because of 4 simple reasons.
1.) One less NC
2.) Less NCG apperances
3.) Tx won its BCS games against Mich and OSU (battle of the Kings)
4.) The BIG has two ugly vacated BCS wins – not to say this isn't a problem for other conferences.
Bottom line, the BIG is 4th best, at most, among conference peers in the BCS era – stat lines that matter. Sure the BIG is first in appearances, but I'd rather see the BIG succeed in many of the stats illustrated in my previous rebuttal, maybe not you, which is understandable since OSU has dominated the BCS success of the BIG. But you also got pulverized in two NCG's, which can never be overstated – you embarrassed the BIG, but most of all, the state of Ohio and OSU : ). The rest of the BIG all knew you were cheating : ). I love the smiles.
Sure, I'd love Minnesota to have Ohio State's football success, but we simply don't have the prep football culture in this state. I'll live.
As a Minnesota alumnus, I'm faithful to most Gopher teams, esp Hockey, Wrestling and Volleyball – in these sports, we are simply better than OSU, now and historically. We also have a better baseball history. Until the PSU scandal, I was a huge JoPa – PSU fan which started with the the goal line loss to Bama, long before PSU joined the BIG. I think PSU has held its own against OSU since BIG membership – without vacations – it's pretty close. But PSU football crossed a line & I'm not a Pa native, nor a PSU alum – I moved on.
Right now, I'm a homeless CFB fan in terms of a team, which is fine. I've never really liked the way CF crowns a NC. I enjoy the BIG as a whole because as a league they'll always have an understated advantage when it comes to producing NFL talent – cold weather games. The NFL, esp most, not all, of its elite cold weather teams, will continue to stay faithful to the elements. Too bad Minnesota sold out, but the likes of New England, Buffalo, Pitt, Philly, NY teams, Cincy, Cleveland, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, KC, & Green Bay will stay true to the roots of pigskin played outdoors, regardless of the conditions.
I've never been a big Gopher hoops fan – always on some kind of probation during my youth, just as Clem the Gem almost converted me, scandal struck again – hopeless. But I've liked many of Minnesota's players over the years and the Barn is a great place to wear a Michigan State jersey. MSU vs Indiana State and Magic Johnson will always ring as the start of my Spartan Hoop's allegiance & Showtime Lakers, both are quite deep passions, Lakers past tense, but not MSU – will always be a huge fan. My next favorite college basketball program isn't in the BIG yet: Maryland – Lefty then Gary, Wade's tenure is quite forgettable.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“No, Bullet is not neutral,”
A UT fan living in the South is biased in favor of the B10? Whatever helps you sleep at night.
“I think the facts speak clearly”
So do I, and yet we think they say something different. Of course, I think you only look at a very small group of facts hand-picked to fit the conclusion you’ve already reached.
“but you continue to misinterpret”
You state a few facts and I rebut them with a larger group of facts. Where is the misinterpretation?
“while at the same time accusing me of doing the same.”
No, I accuse you of cherry-picking data that fits your narrative and ignoring all contrary facts.
“it’s just too easy to counter your routine:”
You always say that, but never do it successfully.
“I posted several BCS facts you can’t argue, no matter how hard you try.”
I never argue facts. I may dispute them if I think you have them wrong, but facts are facts. What I take issue with is your interpretation of the facts and how you choose the facts to back your position.
“Clearly the BIG has not matched the prestige of the SEC and Pac12”
No. They clearly haven’t matched the SEC. Everything else is interpretation. I’d say the vastly greater number of at-large bids is an indicator of greater prestige for the B10. I’d say USC clearly had greater prestige than the B10, but not the P12.
“they simply hold a “commanding” lead on the BIG, head-to-head BCS games”
And who decided that was the definitive way to determine the prestige of the conferences? That’s a small fraction of the games played by both conferences, and the P12 plays them at home. As I showed, only USC has an edge over the B10 and the Rose Bowl is in their home metro area. OSU has a commanding record versus the P12 at home, too. Kings tend to do that.
“As of right now, the BIG can’t jump the Big12”
I never claimed that they did. I said they were on par over the BCS era and well behind the SEC. I also said you could lump in the P12 on this level if you wanted. But feel free to continue your strawman arguments. There are lots of things I haven’t said that you can argue against.
“Bottom line, the BIG is 4th best, at most, among conference peers in the BCS era”
According to your biased selection of stats that place them fourth at best.
“Sure the BIG is first in appearances,”
Which is, of course, completely worthless and to be ignored.
“but I’d rather see the BIG succeed in many of the stats illustrated in my previous rebuttal,”
Which is nice, but not a way to rank conference success. I’d like to see the B10 be #1 across the board in the future. Any fan would. That doesn’t mean that any stat they rank highly in suddenly loses value or that those they aren’t as high in gain in value. You have to look at the entirety of the stats and give all of them weight. And when you do that, so see 4 tiers:
1. SEC
2. B10, B12, P12
3. ACC, BE
4. Other
“maybe not you, which is understandable since OSU has dominated the BCS success of the BIG.”
No, I’ve always rooted for the rest of the B10 to be better. I still want OSU to be the best of the bunch, but I want that bunch to be elite, too.
“But you also got pulverized in two NCG’s, which can never be overstated”
Yes, it can, especially since you neglect to mention that NCG win or the Sugar Bowl win over the SEC to provide context. OU is 1-3 with a 36 point loss included and they don’t hurt the B12.
” – you embarrassed the BIG, but most of all, the state of Ohio and OSU : ).”
No, they didn’t. They disappointed them.
“The rest of the BIG all knew you were cheating : ).”
Except we weren’t (and you have no proof that we were). The NCG years were before Pryor and company joined OSU.
“I think PSU has held its own against OSU since BIG membership – without vacations – it’s pretty close.”
Really? 13-7 OSU. That doesn’t seem that close to me, especially since you mocked OSU’s record against MI (44-46-4 in B10 play).
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, this Michigan fan splits the difference. I do think you have to look at all the metrics, and that makes the race for 2nd/3rd/4th closer than @gfunk is making it out to be.
I agree with Brian that a lot of the Pac-12’s wins are essentially “home games.” But still, those are the rules under which the games are played. You can’t entirely discount them.
I am a little leery of counting “appearances,” because at-large bids are decided by bowl committees based on whether the school’s fans “travel well,” a factor that often has very little to do with competitive merit.
4.) The BIG has two ugly vacated BCS wins – not to say this isn’t a problem for other conferences.
That’s a total non-factor. We’re discussing the competitive strength of the two leagues. Ohio State and Penn State were better in those games. The later discovery of “violations” having nothing to do with the games themselves is irrelevant.
(Penn State’s “violation” was totally invented and had nothing to do with football at all. In Ohio State’s case, you could at least argue, albeit tenuously, that if Tressel had behaved as he should, they never would have been in a position to play that game in the first place. For what it’s worth, I’m a staunch opponent of vacating wins; I’d put them all back in the record books.)
LikeLike
“And when you do that, so see 4 tiers:
1. SEC
2. B10, B12, P12
3. ACC, BE
4. Other”
If you look at the whole BCS era, I would agree with you. And the gap between 1 and 2/3/4 isn’t very large. If you look at the last 5 years, Its more like:
1. SEC
2/3 Big 12/Pac 1X
4/5/6/7 ACC/Big 10/Big East/MWC
8. Other
With expansion, the ACC and Big 10 don’t have to worry about the Big East and MWC much anymore.
The Big 10’s at large bids aren’t prestige as Mark points out, its because they travel well. Bowls prefer Big 10 and SEC schools to those from other conferences except for a few schools which you could count on one hand (ND, USC, UT-that might be it).
LikeLike
bullet,
“And when you do that, so see 4 tiers:
1. SEC
2. B10, B12, P12
3. ACC, BE
4. Other”
If you look at the whole BCS era, I would agree with you.
I’m definitely talking over the whole period (and not weighting recent years more).
And the gap between 1 and 2/3/4 isn’t very large.
I’ll let you fight that battle.
If you look at the last 5 years, Its more like:
1. SEC
2/3 Big 12/Pac 1X
4/5/6/7 ACC/Big 10/Big East/MWC
8. Other
I’d agree with your top 2 tiers. I’d have it then go 4 B10, 5 ACC, 6 BE and 7 MWC.
The B10 is 4-5 over the past 5 years. 1-4 in the Rose (thanks, WI) and 3-1 elsewhere.
vs ACC 2-0 (MI edged VT and IA whipped GT)
vs SEC 1-0 (close at the end but OSU had a big lead early)
vs P12 1-3 (PSU lost to USC, OSU beat OR, OR beat WI close, Stanford beat WI close)
vs B12 0-1 (3 pt loss to UT in the final seconds)
vs MWC 0-1 (WI forgot to run the ball vs TCU)
The ACC was 2-4 with wins over the MAC and BE.
The BE was 2-3 including UC getting crushed by UF and that horrible UConn team getting drilled by OU.
The MWC was 2-1, but never had to put a weaker champ into a BCS bowl so that skews their record. How would #16 TCU have done in 2011? They won at Boise, but lost at Baylor and to SMU. How would #18 Boise have done last year? They lost at MSU and versus SDSU. As a non-AQ, I default to them being rated lower unless they prove otherwise.
With expansion, the ACC and Big 10 don’t have to worry about the Big East and MWC much anymore.
Agreed, the winners are clear.
The Big 10′s at large bids aren’t prestige as Mark points out, its because they travel well.
That’s certainly part of it, but the teams still had to make the top 14 and I think there is some prestige to it. Teams have to earn their brand status over time, too.
How many eligible teams were there in each conference over those 5 years?
Total:
SEC – 18
B12 – 14
B10 – 10 (doesn’t count OSU last year)
P12 – 9
ACC – 7
BE – 2
Other – 10
LikeLike
Do Penn States and Nebraska’s national championships in the last 30 years not count because they happened before they entered the BIG?
The SEC has dominated in national championships and for the most part and they will continue to win a big share of them because it means more in SEC country. Football is the identity of those schools. That being said, the BIG has been down with bad coaching hires and some coaches staying on way too long to the detriment of the programs. Lastly, the playoffs is going to change a lot. Results will be determined by on the field instead of arbitrary and biased rankings.
LikeLike
Do Penn States and Nebraska’s national championships in the last 30 years not count because they happened before they entered the BIG?
A team’s accomplishments before they join the Big Ten do not count as the league‘s accomplishments. I mean, it would be a little strange to say that the Big Ten has 44 national championships in men’s lacrosse [or whatever you think the right number is], when all of them belong to Hopkins before it joined.
LikeLike
Uh, Maryland won more than a few mythical national titles in men’s lacrosse before the NCAA established a tournament, as well as two under NCAA auspices (1973 and 1975).
LikeLike
Tell that to the BTN and its “Greatest Games” broadcasts of Nebraska’s 1995 Orange Bowl win.
LikeLike
Uh, Maryland won more than a few mythical national titles in men’s lacrosse before the NCAA established a tournament, as well as two under NCAA auspices (1973 and 1975).
I wouldn’t count Maryland’s pre-Big Ten titles either.
LikeLike
Understand; just a point of reference.
LikeLike
It’s early to say this, but the Big 12 may be in for somewhat of a down year. We’ll have to see how things shake out. But I do find this interesting: In years past, when the ACC had some ugly losses to FCS schools like Va. Tech to James Madison or Duke to whomever, the national media from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, various podcasts, whomever, have run away with the narrative about how bad the ACC is in football. The same thing has happened with the Big Ten when it has had losses to FCS schools or to MAC/Sun Belt schools, or even just for losing bowl games to the SEC in SEC country. I’m not sure why this is exactly, but my guess is that the B1G and ACC have such easy (and lazy) narratives to sell for the media to sell their audiences: “The ACC loses games because all it cares about is basketball,” or “The Big Ten loses games because their teams are slow.” I have yet to see any similar narrative for the Big 12 after the awful weekend 30% of its teams just had (Iowa State, K-State, plus WVU, who barely beat an FCS team coming off a 2-9 record). Maybe Big 12 schools, especially the ones north of Oklahoma, just don’t have much of a narrative of any kind, so the media doesn’t know how to make a big story out of a bad weekend. I suppose that declaring, “The Big 12 is so bad! How can their conference champion lose to North Dakota State?” just doesn’t draw in ratings the way that B1G or even ACC bashing will.
LikeLike
Two reasons
A. A whole bunch of teams lost to FCS schools this weekend so it is harder to relentless pick on one
B. Neither ISU nor KSU is ranked. Michigan and V-Tech on the other hand where 5th and 11th (I believe).
C. No one cares about ISU or KSU unless they are on a title run. Michigan, on the other hand, is one of the most popular teams in the country and a top 15 V-Tech is much bigger ratings draw than an unranked ISU or KSU.
LikeLike
Frug,
B and C are fair points.
I don’t buy point A as fair. Yes, there were a lot of FBS losses to FCS schools this past weekend, but those losses are not created equally.
Two of the eight losses were by Sun Belt schools which just completed the transition from FCS. South Alabama is only in its fifth year of existence as a football program at all, and Georgia State is only in its fourth. Beyond the local media in Atlanta and Mobile, those two losses to FCS teams hardly deserve any scrutiny at all, let alone the same level as the other six teams. They’re much, much closer to being at the FCS level in terms of resources and talent than they are to Power 5 leagues or even to Mountain West or AAC teams.
Three more losses were by a Mountain West team (San Diego State) and two AAC teams (UConn and USF). Technically UConn and USF are still AQ programs for this year and deserve plenty of criticism. SDSU isn’t in a power conference but should be plenty established enough not to suffer a loss like this, especially to a team with far fewer scholarship players traveling all the way from Illinois.
But none of those programs are in Power 5 conferences, where television revenue completely towers over that of the Mountain West, the American, and most certainly the Sun Belt. KSU, ISU, and Or. St. are in those Power Five leagues. No one should go easy on them just because teams with far fewer resources had similar failures.
Among the Power 5 conferences, only the Big 12 had 2 out of only 10 teams lose to FCS teams, compared with 0/14 for the ACC, 0/12 (soon to be 14) for the B1G, 0/14 for the SEC, and 1/12 for the Pac-12. And, again, the count was almost 3/10 for the Big 12 had West Virginia not squeaked by William & Mary, a team that went 2-9 against an FCS schedule last year.
I’m telling you: if this had been the ACC or B1G, even if the schools doing the losing were non-brand name programs like Duke/Wake Forest/Boston College or Minnesota/Indiana/Purdue, they’d be getting hammered for this regardless of what South Alabama and Georgia State were doing.
LikeLike
Oregon State bailed out the XII. The FCS does not upset a ranked FBS team every year, so that became a bigger story than two FCS loses for the XII, and as many media stories noted NDSU upsetting FBS teams is becoming routine, with NDSU going 7-3 since 2006 (2-1 against both B1G and XII, 2-0 MAC, 1-1 MWC).
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Two of the eight losses were by Sun Belt schools which just completed the transition from FCS. South Alabama is only in its fifth year of existence as a football program at all, and Georgia State is only in its fourth. Beyond the local media in Atlanta and Mobile, those two losses to FCS teams hardly deserve any scrutiny at all, let alone the same level as the other six teams. They’re much, much closer to being at the FCS level in terms of resources and talent than they are to Power 5 leagues or even to Mountain West or AAC teams.”
GA State was actually the underdog in that game despite being I-A.
LikeLike
I have yet to see any similar narrative for the Big 12 after the awful weekend 30% of its teams just had (Iowa State, K-State, plus WVU, who barely beat an FCS team coming off a 2-9 record).
That’s because there isn’t one. Schools schedule and prepare for their OOC games independently. Wins and losses are thus random events. If people think of the Big Ten as “too slow,” it’s not because of one weekend’s worth of games, but because of years of games.
Sure, the Big 12 was the only league with two losses to FCS squads. But Iowa State was one of the losers, and no one outside of Iowa cares about ISU when it loses. K-State’s loss was obviously more embarrassing, given that they’re the reigning conference champions, but K-State isn’t a traditional king. Had Texas lost to an FCS school, it would have been FAR more newsworthy.
And to repeat, the K-State and ISU losses are independent events. They would have been independent, even if Oklahoma and Texas had been the losers. But when one of them is ISU, nobody cares.
It’s early to say this, but the Big 12 may be in for somewhat of a down year.
Everyone expects ISU to have a down year, because “down” is practically the only direction they go. After a league title last year that they weren’t favored to win, K-State was probably going to revert to the mean. That tends to happen in sports. If Texas or Oklahoma wins the league championship, then the media narrative will be that the Big 12 had a typical year, not a down one.
LikeLike
And Oregon St. joins 2010 V-Tech, 2007 Michigan and 1983 Penn St. as the only ranked teams to ever lose to an FCS/1-AA team.
Congrats Beavers!
LikeLike
EMU punted once in the whole game. Oregon St. only 3 times-all in the 1st half.
LikeLike
Correction=EWU-Eastern Washington.
LikeLike
Almost had two in two days. Kansas State was 26th when you look at other receiving votes, in at least one of the polls.
LikeLike
And Iowa St. loses to Northern Iowa.
That makes five AQ teams by my count who have already lost to FCS schools this year (ISU, KSU, OSU, UConn, and USF)
LikeLike
+ S. Alabama, Georgia St. and San Diego St.-8 wins for FCS in one weekend. That’s better than some years. AQ wins are pretty uncommon.
LikeLike
Isn’t SDSU and the MWC FBS?
LikeLike
Never mind…
LikeLike
1983 Penn State? Their losses that year were the Nebraska, Cincinnati, Iowa and Boston College. The only I-AA team that PSU played that year was Brown, whom they beat.
LikeLike
It’s complicated, but technically Cincinnati was I-AA in 1983.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Just arrived home after that weird Brigham Young at Virginia game delayed two-plus hours by lightning (the Cavs rallied to win 19-16). BYU had a great fan section at Scott Stadium; whether most of them came east from Provo or are alums/LDS from this neck of the woods, I don’t know. But Cougar blue was all over the place today — very impressive.
LikeLike
BYU fans are quite rabid and, pound for pound, are among the best fans in college football. The reasons the school is not in the Pac 12 are entirely unrelated to the size and fervor of its fan base.
If the school were not a prominent religious institution, it would likely have been asked to join before Utah. (of course, if it weren’t a religious institution, it might not have such a passionate fan base, but that’s a separate issue).
LikeLike
Football can be a crazy game. 2-hour lightning delay. Flooded field and stadium hallways. BYU underperformed, but still controlled most of this game (if you ignore Mother Nature). But, Virginia comes somehow comes away with a victory.
Virginia’s 2 scoring drives were from 19 yards out (after a blocked punt that came after the first punt was called back for illegal formation) and 13 yards out (after a tip-drill interception on 3rd and long when BYU looked to be running the clock down for the win. The interception happened at about the 40-yard line, but a lateral on the INT return got the ball down to the 13). Crazy game.
LikeLike
Alan,
Congrats on the TCU win. Young squad that can fly under the radar till they get better. Richt still can not win the key game so will be interesting when they meet. Good luck on the rest of the season as the young guys improve.
As for the rest of the B12
Kansas had a bye week
Iowa State lost to FCS school
Kansas State lost to FCS school
West Virginia squeaked by a FCS school
Baylor beat a FCS school
FBS opponents
TCU lost to LSU
OK State got 3 TD’s against bad SEC team who lost QB with concussion
Texas beat New Mexico State
Oklahoma beat LA – Monroe
Texas Tech beat SMU
LikeLike
To help your annual diatribe, I’ll start you off with Sagarin’s pre-season ratings:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/conference/
B12 – 2nd best conference (just ahead of SEC East and well behind SEC West)
4. Oklahoma State
8. Oklahoma
13. Texas
14. TCU
24. Kansas State
26. Baylor
37. Texas Tech
42. West Virginia
57. Iowa State
82. Kansas
To be fair to him, he doesn’t claim these have any meaning. I just present them so you can track the changes as the impact of 2013 games takes effect.
LikeLike
At lest this time the spread is greater as last year as 90% was Top 30. This time the scatter is greater but 2 FCS losses (including the B12 winner last season) should really ding the B12 this time. It will be interesting to see how the B1G sits after this first weekend. I noticed he breaks the conference down by divisions this season.
LikeLike
duff – thanks. I just made it back from Fort Worth. The game was a lot of fun. I’m very pleased with the Cam Cameron offense. TCU is a very good team and put up a good fight, even though the frogs were aided by a few LSU miscues. But to play the top Big XII defense in the first game of the season, 20 miles from their campus, LSU accounted well for themselves.
LSU catches a breather the next two weeks in UAB and Kent State before starting SEC play with Auburn at home, and then a pivotal game at Georgia on September 28. It will be interesting to see how Georgia responds to that tough Clemson loss.
LikeLike
B1G week #1 10-2
Iowa lost by 3 to Northern Illinois
Purdue lost to Cincinnati
Could have been 11-1 and that is not a bad start.
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of “grading” conferences based on one week of a season. There’s a lot of randomness in football, and the schools schedule their non-conference games independently, years in advance. The Big Ten’s collective record on one particular weekend is not a statistic imbued with great meaning.
In these early weeks of the season, how you win is just as important as whether you win. No sane Nebraska, Michigan State, or Illinois fan should be very happy with what they saw, even if their wins count the same as the blowouts by Michigan and Wisconsin. How comfortable is Urban Meyer with his defense right now, when he surrendered 20 points to Buffalo?
Even in a blowout win, there can be harbingers of disaster. Most sober Michigan fans knew that the Wolverines were weak at the free safety position. Sure enough, Central Michigan exploited that spot a couple of times yesterday for long gains. The Chippewas were too weak overall for that to matter, but it could be a very different story against Notre Dame next week.
Obviously, no coach is ever truly content after an opening game, regardless of the score. But I’d say at least half the conference came out of the opening weekend with major question marks, even though only two lost.
LikeLike
In these early weeks of the season, how you win is just as important as whether you win. No sane Nebraska, Michigan State, or Illinois fan should be very happy with what they saw, even if their wins count the same as the blowouts by Michigan and Wisconsin. How comfortable is Urban Meyer with his defense right now, when he surrendered 20 points to Buffalo?
Treu enough and all your points are valid but Washington beating Boise State takes at least one team out of the Top 25 and Kansas State losing @ home to a FCS team may do the same. That can mean 2 spots down the road for a B1G team that may have gotten off to a shaky start but can get better and keep winning as the season goes on.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m not a big fan of “grading” conferences based on one week of a season. There’s a lot of randomness in football, and the schools schedule their non-conference games independently, years in advance. The Big Ten’s collective record on one particular weekend is not a statistic imbued with great meaning.”
Agreed. 12 games is barely enough data to form an opinion, let alone 1.
“How comfortable is Urban Meyer with his defense right now, when he surrendered 20 points to Buffalo?”
Actually, he’s probably quite comfortable. The D only gave up 14 (pick 6). They also only gave up 258 yards (73 rushing) and 3/14 on 3rd down conversions. UB was only 19/32 for 185 yards. That’s with 2 starting DBs (including our top CB) not playing and our top LB missing most of the game with cramps.
LikeLike
And while Maryland’s 43-10 rout of Florida International doesn’t count for much in the overall scheme of things, it’s the type of game it would have at least struggled in during the first two years of Randy Edsall’s tenure. Ahead are OOC games with Old Dominion (a good FCS program), at Connecticut (off to a stumbling start) and vs. West Virginia in Baltimore (this doesn’t appear to be a vintage Mountaineer squad). It’s quite possible that the Terrapins could be 4-0 before ACC play begins, and unless they completely collapse in the conference, that likely would carry them into some sort of bowl game before they head off to the Big Ten next fall.
LikeLike
@vp19
How does the B1G schedule OOC games in terms of game time? Some on the Maryland board are asking for early season OOC games to be played at night (or late in the day like 4 PM). Is this something the B1G handles, or is it a matter of TV schedules? Just curious as you’re a Terp alum and now how B1G scheduling works.
Nemo
LikeLike
On football Saturdays, the BTN normally has multiple channels, so I think for the most part the conference is fairly flexible in these matters. That won’t guarantee Maryland will have complete leeway in OOC game times, but on the whole it should be better than under ESPN auspices.
LikeLike
Nemo,
“How does the B1G schedule OOC games in terms of game time? Some on the Maryland board are asking for early season OOC games to be played at night (or late in the day like 4 PM). Is this something the B1G handles, or is it a matter of TV schedules?”
TV controls kickoff times. Schools have some ability to refuse a night game, but basically TV gets what it wants.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/09/01/week-1-college-football-misery-index-georgia/2753353/
USA Today’s new Misery Index, ranking the top 10 most miserable fan bases for the week. He explains his choices in the article.
1. UGA
2. UConn
3. Boise
4. IA
5. USC
6. WV
7. BYU
8. USM
9. UT
10. AL
RV. USF, NE, NM
LikeLike
Considering how many teams actually lost to their FCS opponent this week, and considering the level of personnel turnover, this WVU fan is not miserable in the least in regards to the 1-0 record.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9625040/4-5-schools-beef-policy-penn-state-saga
Some good came out of the PSU scandal.
In all, 55 of 69 BCS football schools — 79.7 percent of those playing at the highest level in college — either reviewed or strengthened their policies regarding minors on campus in the wake of the case involving Jerry Sandusky, an Associated Press review found.
…
While schools were rewriting their rules, no fewer than 32 state governments were also reviewing their statutes, with at least 18 of those adopting new laws, most of them adding university employees and volunteers to the list of those required to report child sex abuse.
…
The AP canvassed the 69 schools in the BCS conferences in 2012, along with Notre Dame, and found that, in addition to the 55 that said they reviewed or changed their rules in response to the Sandusky case, another 12 had recently done that work in response to a push from the U.S. Department of Education, or because of incidents that occurred on their own campuses or laws passed in their states.
…
Two schools, Oklahoma and South Carolina, reported no action: South Carolina sent AP a copy of its sexual-harassment policy, last revised in 2010; Oklahoma said its policies are under constant scrutiny, though events elsewhere don’t trigger changes.
And to keep it fair and balanced for the PSU folks:
Not that rules can prevent everything. Before the scandal at Penn State, the university had a long list of rules on the books that were in line with what existed at other schools. Despite that, the Freeh Report noted that 234 of 735 coaches paid to work at summer sports camps in 2009 didn’t have their required background checks completed before their camp began.
David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center said anecdotes like that help explain why new policies and laws are important, but maybe not as important as the light shed on the issue of child sex abuse because of the Sandusky case.
“I don’t think the problem at Penn State was that they didn’t have enough rules, or that they didn’t have a mandatory law that required this reporting,” Finkelhor said. “I think the problem was that they didn’t have a higher level of awareness about the problem itself and they thought they could kind of get away with the way they were handling it.”
LikeLike
Wonderful. More laws, regulations, rules, and policies. Thanks, but I’ll pass on celebrating that.
Our moral slide is not due to the absence of a sufficient # of laws.
LikeLike
Penn State was not an example of not enough laws and regulations but of an abuse of power. There is great danger of absolute power being in too few hands. Sadly, nothing has changed because of Sandusky. Schools still attempt to cover up and minimize crimes committed by big time athletics: look up sexual assault cases at Notre Dame and Michigan. Nick Saban could kill and eat five hookers and there aint a police officer in Alabama that would arrest him. Nor are there many media outlets that would willingly kill the cash cow that is Alabama football or others like it, including ESPN.
The only reason Sandusky got caught was because he went outside of Centre County, the home of Penn State. Years of abuse took place with county limits, yet nothing happened until he got caught in another town. There is too much money in big time college athletics and money corrupts all the way to the top. Something of this ilk will happen again.
LikeLike
The only reason Sandusky got caught was because he went outside of Centre County, the home of Penn State. Years of abuse took place with county limits, yet nothing happened until he got caught in another town. There is too much money in big time college athletics and money corrupts all the way to the top. Something of this ilk will happen again.
I am not that pessimistic. In almost 150 years of intercollegiate football, there’d never been a Sandusky. Monsters like him don’t grow on trees; and no one else of his ilk was ever a college football coach. A lot of really unusual events had to occur, for PSU to even be in a position to look the other way.
And I am not so sure other programs really would look the other way, in so serious case as rape or murder.. Had Paterno turned in Sandusky as soon as he realized [or should have realized] what was going on, it would have burnished his already legendary stature. Everyone thought he ran a squeaky-clean program; sending Sandusky up the river would have proved it.
Although the PSU administration obviously behaved horribly, I am not convinced they knew that Sandusky was a child rapist. I can’t believe that so many responsible people would have turned their backs to THAT. The signs may have been so obvious and so numerous that they shouldn’t have been overlooked. But that’s not the same thing as knowing you have a rapist in your midst, and not only doing nothing, but allowing him to remain on-premises after he’s no longer even employed by the program.
LikeLike
“In almost 150 years of intercollegiate football, there’d never been a Sandusky.”
That we know of. And, that, is really what this is all about. People in power looking the other way because no one dare take on the football machinary at places like Penn State. There are probably 30 schools at least where something similar could be happending right now and most in the know would be too scared to do anything about it. A place like Penn State is almost the perfect storm where you have a huge, national-scale program in a relatively small town. There are a lot of schools like that.
LikeLike
But the Catholic church had some. And Montana had rapists.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the Penn State administration knew for a fact that Sandusky was a rapist but they didn’t try to find out either with some very questionable occurrences. Burying your head in the sand is in no way a defense. None of them followed up as to the welfare of the child or to see what really happened which makes them just as guilty to me.
LikeLike
Believe me, I am not defending them. I am just saying that I don’t think there ever was an actual moment, when anyone said, “Child rape is fine with us, as long as the football team is winning.”
LikeLike
http://www.app.com/article/20130825/NJSPORTS0210/308250045/Rutgers-marketing-chief-striving-enhance-football-fan-s-experience?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
Rutgers using minor league baseball stunts to try and drive up attendance.
LikeLike
Just because I’ve been giving updates, the new school year/athletic season has officially begun and the Big East still has the same terrible temporary website up.
bigeast.com
LikeLike
excuse me,
bigeast.org
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130902/craig-james-will-not-return-to-fox-sports-southwest/?sct=cf_t2_a1
Craig James was cut from Fox Sports Southwest’s CFB coverage. Fox Sports was upset that FSS hired him and they fired him.
Yay!
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130901/clemson-washington-opening-statements/?sct=cf_t1t_a1
People are using this weekend to argue for not eliminating I-A vs I-AA games. I’d say it’s evidence why you shouldn’t schedule them, at least not the better ones. Better to lose to the MAC or SB than I-AA.
LikeLike
Exactly right. No one gives you any credit for winning those games, and it’s absolutely miserable when you lose them.
LikeLike
Alas, Wake and Duke want to take no chances with even the Sun Belt or C-USA…which leads to the likes of Presbyterian and North Carolina Central facing ACC teams in football.
LikeLike
I’m willing to cut Duke a little slack, given that their football team is barely functional. For now, I’d ask what excuse Florida has for scheduling Georgia Southern; or Tennessee for scheduling Austin Peay?
LikeLike
Our national (or at least New York, Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth) nightmare is over — CBS and TimeWarner Cable have agreed to terms! Service in all three markets resumed at 6 p.m. EDT, so you can get your fix of (rerun) David Letterman and Craig Ferguson tonight…and, oh yes, college and pro football this weekend.
LikeLike
Uh, for Jets fans in NY, LA, and DFW, the national nightmare will now be televised.
Brady Quinn. THE MIGHTY QUINN!!!
Ugh.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/09/02/miami-florida-series/2755295/
UF/Miami may never play again after this year. UF’s AD says the only way is a neutral site game or a bowl, and the neutral site game may be off the table if the SEC goes to 9 games.
LikeLike
UF may never play Miami again H and H, but the article is incorrect when it says Florida will only play 6 home games this season. They have 7.
LikeLike
I only count 6 – Toledo, TN, AR, Vandy, GA Southern, FSU. UGA is neutral site.
LikeLike
Yep, my bad. I just glanced at their schedule and saw the Georgia game was in Florida and automatically pegged it as a home game.
LikeLike
Sagarin 2013 initial numbers (interesting breakdown by division now) :
01 SEC : West = 7 teams (1+3+6+27+35+44+47) : 163/7 = 23 average
02 BIG 12 : 10 teams : 307/10 = 31 average
03 SEC : East = 7 teams (5+10+12+34+38+39+75) : 213/7 = 30 average
04 PAC 12 : North = 6 teams (2+7+25+40+59+94) : 227/6 = 38 average
05 B1G : Legends = 6 teams (19+21+30+41+54+66) : 231/6 = 39 average
06 PAC 12 : South = 6 teams (20+22+23+49+58+103) : 275/6 = 46 average
07 ACC : Costal = 7 teams (28+29+43+46+56+68+86) : 356/6 = 59 average
08 B1G : Leaders = 6 teams (9+17+33+71+74+99) : 303/6 = 51 average
09 ACC : Atlantic = 7 teams (16+18+50+63+67+70+91) : 375/6 = 63 average
10 AAC : 10 teams : 652/10 = 65 average
11 MWC : West = 6 teams (55+62+77+80+121+128) : 523/6 = 87 average
12 MWC : Mountain = 6 teams (16+51+73+105+130+155) : 530/6 = 88 average
13 IND : 6 teams : 539/6 = 90 average
14 MAC : West = 6 teams (53+76+90+107+114+151) : 591/6 = 99 average
15 CUSA : West = 7 teams (45+79+81+115+131+147+181) : 779/7 = 111 average
16 CUSA : East = 7 teams (84+97+106+111+124+136+140) : 798/7 = 114 average
17 MAC : East = 7 teams (83+87+102+127+132+161+164) : 856/7 = 122 average
19 SunB : 8 teams : 1,023/8 = 128 average
.
…
.
SEC 14 teams : 075 high – 001 low = 74 range : 376/14 ~ 27 average
001 Alabama
003 Texas A&M
005 Georgia
006 Louisiana State
010 South Carolina
012 Florida
027 Mississippi
034 Vanderbilt
035 Mississippi State
038 Missouri
039 Tennessee
044 Auburn
047 Arkansas
075 Kentucky
B 12 = 10 teams : 082 high – 004 low = 78 range : 307/10 ~ 31 average
004 Oklahoma State
008 Oklahoma
013 Texas
014 Texas Christian
024 Kansas State
026 Baylor
037 Texas Tech
042 West Virginia
057 Iowa State
082 Kansas
PAC = 12 teams : 103 high – 002 low = 101 range : 502/12 ~ 42 average
002 Oregon
007 Stanford
020 UCLA
022 Arizona State
023 Southern California
025 Oregon State
040 Washington
049 Arizona
058 Utah
059 California
094 Washington State
103 Colorado
B1G = 12 teams : 099 high – 009 low = 90 range : 534/12 ~ 45 average
009 Ohio State
017 Wisconsin
019 Michigan
021 Nebraska
030 Michigan State
033 Penn State
041 Northwestern
054 Iowa
066 Minnesota
071 Indiana
074 Purdue
099 Illinois
ACC = 14 teams : 091 high – 016 low = 75 range : 731/14 ~ 52 average
016 Clemson
018 Florida State
028 Miami (FL)
029 Virginia Tech
043 North Carolina
046 Georgia Tech
050 North Carolina State
056 Pittsburgh
063 Maryland
067 Syracuse
068 Virginia
070 Wake Forest
086 Duke
091 Boston College
AAC 10 teams : 126 high – 031 low = 95 range : 652/10 ~ 65 average
031 Louisville
036 Cincinnati
048 Rutgers
052 Central Florida
061 South Florida
064 Houston
069 Southern Methodist
072 Connecticut
093 Temple
126 Memphis
MWC 12 teams : 155 high – 016 low = 139 range : 1,053/12 ~ 88 average
016 Boise State
051 Utah State
055 Fresno State
062 San Diego State
073 Air Force
077 San Jose State
080 Nevada
105 Wyoming
121 Hawaii
128 UNLV
130 Colorado State
155 New Mexico
IND 6 teams : 165 high – 011 low = 154 range : 539/6 ~ 90 average
011 Notre Dame
032 Brigham Young
065 Navy
108 Army
158 Idaho
165 New Mexico State
MAC 13 teams : 075 high – 001 low = 74 range : 1,447/13 ~ 111 average
053 Northern Illinois
076 Toledo
083 Ohio
087 Bowling Green
090 Ball State
102 Kent State
107 Western Michigan
114 Central Michigan
127 Buffalo
132 Miami (OH)
151 Eastern Michigan
161 Akron
164 Massachusetts
CUSA 14 teams : 181 high – 045 low = 136 range : 1,577/14 ~ 113 average
045 Tulsa
079 Louisiana Tech
081 Rice
084 East Carolina
097 Marshall
106 Southern Mississippi
111 Middle Tennessee
115 Texas – El Paso
124 Alabama – Birmingham
131 North Texas
136 Florida International
140 Florida Atlantic
147 Tulane
181 Texas – San Antonio
Sun Belt 8 teams : 200 high – 078 low = 122 range : 1,023/8 ~ 128 average
078 Louisiana – Lafayette
089 Louisiana – Monroe
095 Arkansas State
110 Western Kentucky
120 Troy
157 Texas State
174 South Alabama
200 Georgia State
LikeLike
duffman,
“Sagarin 2013 initial numbers (interesting breakdown by division now) :
01 SEC : West = 7 teams (1+3+6+27+35+44+47) : 163/7 = 23 average
02 BIG 12 : 10 teams : 307/10 = 31 average
03 SEC : East = 7 teams (5+10+12+34+38+39+75) : 213/7 = 30 average
04 PAC 12 : North = 6 teams (2+7+25+40+59+94) : 227/6 = 38 average
05 B1G : Legends = 6 teams (19+21+30+41+54+66) : 231/6 = 39 average
06 PAC 12 : South = 6 teams (20+22+23+49+58+103) : 275/6 = 46 average
07 ACC : Costal = 7 teams (28+29+43+46+56+68+86) : 356/6 = 59 average
08 B1G : Leaders = 6 teams (9+17+33+71+74+99) : 303/6 = 51 average
09 ACC : Atlantic = 7 teams (16+18+50+63+67+70+91) : 375/6 = 63 average”
I just wanted to point out that he ranks them by central mean and not the average. That’s why the B10 East is below the ACC Coastal. IN, IL and PU are so low that it pulls the CM down.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/conference/
Here are a few examples of how the “central mean” is computed.
4-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-2-1
5-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-2-1
6-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-3-2-1
7-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-3-2-1
8-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1
9-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1
10-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1
LikeLike
Remember Sagarin is still including last year’s ratings, so its not very meaningful until he drops them in October.
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after 1st run with SoS rank – B1G shows game results :
B1G
009 013 Ohio State – 128 : beat Buffalo @ home 40-20
017 021 Wisconsin – 160 : beat Umass @ home 45-0
019 019 Michigan – 129 : beat C Michigan @ home 59-9
021 029 Nebraska – 116 : beat Wyoming @ home 37-34
030 035 Michigan State – 124 : beat W Michigan @ home 26-13
033 033 Penn State – 74 : beat Syracuse @ home 23-17
041 036 Northwestern – 44 : beat Cal @ Cal 44-30
054 054 Iowa – 80 : lost N Illinois @ home 27-30
066 066 Minnesota – 141 : beat UNLV @ home 51-23
071 068 Indiana – 143 : beat Indiana State @ home 73-35
074 074 Purdue – 23 : lost @ Cincinnati 7-42
099 103 Illinois – 142 : beat S Illinois @ home 42-34
SEC
001 001 Alabama- 34
003 006 Texas A&M – 95
005 005 Georgia – 7
006 004 Louisiana State – 15
010 009 South Carolina – 72
012 012 Florida – 98
027 020 Mississippi – 24
034 034 Vanderbilt – 54
035 039 Mississippi State – 10
038 046 Missouri – 170
039 053 Tennessee – 198
044 045 Auburn – 114
047 041 Arkansas – 105
075 083 Kentucky – 96
Big 12
004 002 Oklahoma State – 46
008 008 Oklahoma – 112
013 016 Texas – 158
014 015 Texas Christian – 17
024 028 Kansas State – 82
026 023 Baylor – 133
037 032 Texas Tech – 53
042 052 West Virginia – 149
057 063 Iowa State – 108
082 070 Kansas – moved up 12 spots by not playing anybody
PAC
002 007 Oregon – 188
007 003 Stanford – moved up 4 spots by not playing anybody
020 018 UCLA – 103
022 017 Arizona State – moved up 5 spots by not playing anybody
023 024 Southern California – 84
025 037 Oregon State – 109
040 026 Washington – 55
049 044 Arizona – 140
058 055 Utah – 83
059 059 California – 68
094 085 Washington State – 31
103 102 Colorado – 119
ACC
016 011 Clemson – 27
018 014 Florida State – 41
028 030 Miami (FL) – 144
029 025 Virginia Tech – 1
043 040 North Carolina – 5
046 048 Georgia Tech – 169
050 042 North Carolina State – 106
056 058 Pittsburgh – 43
063 062 Maryland – 147
067 064 Syracuse – 42
068 061 Virginia – 70
070 093 Wake Forest – 205
086 095 Duke – 199
091 090 Boston College – 127
AAC
031 027 Louisville – 111
036 031 Cincinnati – 104
048 043 Rutgers – 35
052 057 Central Florida – 162
061 091 South Florida – 138
064 077 Houston – 194
069 072 Southern Methodist – 67
072 088 Connecticut – 125
093 084 Temple – 6
126 116 Memphis – moved up 10 spots by not playing anybody
MWC
016 022 Boise State – 18
051 050 Utah State – 39
055 051 Fresno State – 77
062 086 San Diego State – 137
073 075 Air Force – 166
077 071 San Jose State – 150
080 073 Nevada – 12
105 092 Wyoming – 21
121 113 Hawaii – 58
128 126 UNLV – 49
130 130 Colorado State – 97
155 170 New Mexico – 172
IND
011 010 Notre Dame – 113
032 038 Brigham Young – 45
065 060 Navy – moved up 5 spots by not playing anybody
108 128 Army – 211
158 164 Idaho – 88
165 150 New Mexico State – 11
MAC
053 047 Northern Illinois – 38
076 067 Toledo – 8
083 081 Ohio – 19
087 069 Bowling Green – 86
090 087 Ball State – 136
102 110 Kent State – 171
107 099 Western Michigan – 25
114 109 Central Michigan – 13
127 107 Buffalo – 9
132 136 Miami (OH) – 66
151 162 Eastern Michigan – 201
161 155 Akron – 40
164 153 Massachusetts – 14
CUSA
045 056 Tulsa – 51
079 078 Louisiana Tech – 29
081 065 Rice – 2
084 089 East Carolina – 145
097 094 Marshall – 146
106 125 Southern Mississippi – 151
111 118 Middle Tennessee – 183
115 108 Texas – El Paso – moved up 7 spots by not playing anybody
124 122 Alabama – Birmingham – 089
131 120 North Texas – 168
136 137 Florida International – 47
140 133 Florida Atlantic – 22
147 148 Tulane – 190
181 171 Texas – San Antonio – 122
Sun Belt
078 076 Louisiana – Lafayette – 28
089 082 Louisiana – Monroe – 4
095 101 Arkansas State – 191
110 098 Western Kentucky – 85
120 121 Troy – 139
157 144 Texas State – 91
174 177 South Alabama – 156
200 201 Georgia State – 155
LikeLike
How does Rutgers move up 5 spots (48 to 43) for losing to Fresno while Fresno only gained 4 spots (55 to 51) for winning. Moving up 5-12 spots while idle easier to understand than that.
LikeLike
Quick top 25 review:
Losers – #5 UGA to #8, #19 Boise, #20 TCU to #12, #25 OrSU to I-AA, #28 VT to #1
Really ugly wins – #18 NE, #26 MSU
UGA will stay in the poll, TCU might survive (but probably not) and OrSU is gone. NE will drop but might stay just in. MSU won’t climb in with that record.
There will be some shuffling, too.
LikeLike
Mostly as I predicted. Some shuffling, plus Boise and OrSU dropping out. TCU clung on to #24 while I thought voters would overreact. NE only dropped to #22. MSU dropped from #26 to #28.
Baylor and UW joined the poll.
LikeLike
@Frank: I think we need a new thread, as this one drags when loading.
LikeLike
The listed attendance for PSU v. Syracuse at the Snoopy Dog House was 61,202. http://suathletics.syr.edu/boxscore.aspx?path=football&id=5977
I present this without comment because I have no idea if this is a good attendance figure for a college football game on Labor Day Saturday in NY between a good but scarred PSU and a decidedly mediocre Syracuse.
Though, there is a reason the NFL used to start Labor Day weekend but switched to starting a week later, as fans (and TV viewers) are on vacation/out enjoying the last unofficial weekend of summer.
“The NFL generally had a Labor Day weekend start through the 1990s, but broadcasters protested, said Mike Trager, a sports TV consultant who previously worked for NBC Sports and recalled arguing with then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle to move the opening weekend later.
“The networks complained about it because of the ratings,” he said. “It was a very difficult weekend to start. But the biggest issue [now] would be the disruption of the existing schedule of programming that might overlap.””
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/10/03/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-schedule.aspx
LikeLike
Here is the Top 50 SoS according to Sagarin from this past weekend
01 Virginia Tech vs #01 Alabama (Georgia Dome, GA)
02 Rice @ #06 Texas A&M
03 Nicholls State @ #07 Oregon
04 Louisiana – Monroe @ #08 Oklahoma
05 North Carolina @ #09 South Carolina
06 Temple @ #10 Notre Dame
07 Georgia @ #11 Clemson
08 Toledo @ #12 Florida
09 Buffalo @ #13 Ohio State
10 Mississippi State vs #02 Oklahoma State (Reliant Stadium, TX) = ????
11 New Mexico State @ #16 Texas
12 Nevada @ #18 UCLA
13 Central Michigan @ #19 Michigan
14 Massachusetts @ #21 Wisconsin
15 Louisiana State vs #15 Texas Christian (JerryWorld, TX) = ????
16 Wofford @ #23 Baylor
17 Texas Christian vs #04 Louisiana State (JerryWorld, TX) = ????
18 Boise State @ #26 Washington
19 Ohio @ #27 Louisville
20 North Dakota State @ #28 Kansas State
21 Wyoming @ #29 Nebraska
22 Florida Atlantic @ #30 Miami (FL)
23 Purdue @ #31 Cincinnati
24 Mississippi @ #34 Vanderbilt
25 Western Michigan @ #35 Michigan State
26 Eastern Washington @ #37 Oregon State
27 Clemson vs Georgia @ #11 Clemson = ????
28 Louisiana – Lafayette @ #41 Arkansas
29 Louisiana Tech @ #42 N C State
30 Northern Arizona @ #44 Arizona
31 Washington State @ #45 Auburn
32 Murray State @ #46 Missouri
33 Elon @ #48 Georgia Tech
34 Alabama vs #25 Virginia Tech (Georgia Dome, GA) = ????
35 Rutgers @ #51 Fresno State
36 William & Mary @ #52 West Virginia
37 Austin Peay @ #53 Tennessee
38 Northern Illinois @ #54 Iowa
39 Utah State @ #55 Utah
40 Akron @ #57 Central Florida
41 Florida State @ #58 Pittsburgh
42 Syracuse vs #33 Penn State (MetLife, NJ) = ????
43 Pittsburgh vs #14 Florida State @ Pittsburgh = ????
44 Northwestern @ #59 California
45 Brigham Young @ #61 Virginia
46 Oklahoma State vs #39 Mississippi State (Reliant Stadium, TX) = ????
47 Florida International @ #62 Maryland
48 Northern Iowa @ #63 Iowa State
49 UNLV @ #66 Minnesota
50 Indiana State @ #68 Indiana
???? – curious why
Why Oklahoma State is #2 but Mississippi State gets a 10 SoS, same with reverse
Why TCU or LSU don’t have better SoS numbers with Jerry World game
Why Clemson only gets a 27 SoS for the Georgia game
Why Alabama only gets 34 SoS when Va Tech is #25 and neutral
Why Syracuse SoS is 42 when Penn State is #33
Why Pittsburgh SoS is 43 when Florida Sate is #14
LikeLike
???? – curious why
The answer to pretty much all those questions is because SoS incorporates homefield advantage.
(It’s also possible (and I think likely) that his current numbers are incorporating preseason projections along with this weekends results)
LikeLike
Could be, but the neutral games seemed to get hammered the hardest when they were arguably harder games and should have garnered better SoS numbers, not worse?
If Sagarin penalizes SoS for neutral games it seems puzzling?
LikeLike
Could be, but the neutral games seemed to get hammered the hardest when they were arguably harder games and should have garnered better SoS numbers, not worse?
If Sagarin penalizes SoS for neutral games it seems puzzling?
I think it is less that teams are getting punished as much as neither gets a boost for playing a “true” road game.
Don’t get me wrong, playing Oklahoma St. in Houston or V-Tech in Atlanta is certainly no easy task, but is it really more difficult than playing Oklahoma is Norman or Oregon is Eugene?
LikeLike
Any updates on the Maryland / ACC lawsuits? I figure no more major news will come until after that is resolved.
Last I was able to find was Maryland asking a higher court to re-institute their lawsuit filed in Maryland.
LikeLike
ACC is trying to delay this as long as possible.
LikeLike
Sep 3 AP Poll by Conference.
SEC (6) #1 Bama, #6 South Carolina, #7 A&M, #9 LSU, #11 Georgia, #12 Florida
P-12 (5) #2 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #20 Wash, #25 USC
B1G (5) #3 Ohio St, #17 Michigan, #19 Northwestern, #21 Wisconsin, #22 Nebraska
B-12 (5) #13 OK State, #15 Texas, #16 Oklahoma, #23 Baylor, #24 TCU
ACC (2) #4 Clemson & #10 Florida State
AAC – #8 Louisville
IND – #14 Notre Dame
The ACC may be relevant this season. Florida State’s QB looks like a special player, albeit after only one game against Pitt. The October 19 game with Clemson could be a play-off game.
This week’s slate looks pretty weak with only games pitting ranked opponents.
#12 Florida at #24 (USAT) Miami
#6 South Carolina at #11 Georgia
#14 Notre Dame at #17 Michigan
Other games of interest (P5 v P5) are:
#2 Oregon at Virginia
Syracuse at #22 Northwestern
#15 Texas at BYU
West Virginia at #16 Oklahoma
Wash St at #25 USC
Wake Forest at BC (Thursday)
LikeLike
AP and USA Today polls
AP
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 South Carolina, #7 Texas A&M, #9 LSU, #11 Georgia, #12 Florida
(5) PAC : #2 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #20 Washington, #25 Southern Cal
(5) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #17 Michigan, #19 Northwestern, #21 Wisconsin, #22 Nebraska
(5) B12 : #13 Oklahoma State, #15 Texas, #16 Oklahoma, #23 Baylor, #24 TCU
(2) ACC : #4 Clemson, #10 Florida State
(1) AAC : #8 Louisville
(1) IND : #14 Notre Dame
USA
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 South Carolina, #7 Texas A&M, #9 Florida, #11 LSU, #12 Georgia
(5) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #17 Michigan, #19 Nebraska, #20 Northwestern, #21 Wisconsin
(5) PAC : #3 Oregon, #4 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #22 Southern Cal, #23 Washington
(4) B12 : #14 Oklahoma State, #15 Oklahoma, #16 Texas, #24 TCU
(3) ACC : #5 Clemson, #10 Florida State, #24 Miami (FL)
(1) AAC : #8 Louisville
(1) IND : #13 Notre Dame
Viewed another way (no Top 25 teams not in the Big 5) :
AP
(4) ACC : #4 Clemson, #8 Louisville, #10 Florida State, #14 Notre Dame
USA
(5) ACC : #5 Clemson, #8 Louisville, #10 Florida State, #13 Notre Dame, #24 Miami (FL)
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2013/09/03/north-carolina-rawlings-panel-athletics-scandal-recommendations-jim-delany/2759871/
UNC’s panel came back with a report about how to improve their AD and college sports in general. The panel included UNC’s president as well as Jim Delany.
A committee appointed by the University of North Carolina to find ways its scandal-scarred sports program can improve submitted a series of recommendations Tuesday that included considering making specially admitted athletes ineligible for a year, increasing the transparency of the athletics department’s financial data and developing a mandatory education program for coaches.
However, as it was asked to do by then-UNC chancellor Holden Thorp, the committee also made a series of suggestions for broader national consideration that included conferences and/or the NCAA establishing “spending caps on specific sports for all team operating expenses,” as well as a cap on the subsidies that schools provide their athletics programs.
I like that they want to make it harder to get special admit status (the same academic profile as for special admits in the arts, etc) and also essentially force them to redshirt that first year with limited practice time so they can get their academics in order. It will cost them recruits, but it’s good for the school.
I’m not sure about their plan to limit subsidies to the AD. I’d need to see more details about what counts as a subsidy and how they plan to calculate their proposed ratio.
I’m less excited by their proposal to implement spending caps at the conference or NCAA level for each sport. I don’t see why some schools should be held back from spending more since every schools is different. Should a school with 50k students and 500k alumni have the same restrictions as one with 10k students and 100k alumni? Why? If alumni want to donate money to a sport, why shouldn’t the school be able to spend it?
LikeLike
I could be wrong about this, but I do believe Delaney has targeted the athletic factory schools. There is very little being done at some of these schools to educate the athletes. I believe all schools are guilty of varying degrees of this, but when one or two conferences seems to dominate the single digit wonderlic scores each year at the combine, which means the athletes can barely read after 3 years of college, some are just completely flaunting the rules. I also believe it is not the welfare of the student athlete that Delaney cares about, but competitive balance.
LikeLike
I don’t think competitive balance is the issue that drives Delany as much as concern for the welfare for student athletes. He’s been very outspoken in favor of cost of living scholarships for players, and if you look through Google News archives, he was very much in favor of blanket freshman ineligibility to allow for an adjustment to college life. The leading schools in his conference (OSU, UMich, PSU, Neb) would be competitive under pretty much any rules framework.
Ironically, freshman eligibility is the main reason for the B1G’s only BCS-era national championship, as the 2002-03 OSU Buckeyes were powered by true freshman RB Maurice Clarett. Without him, OSU likely does not likely play for title, let alone beat Miami.
LikeLike
It could very well be student welfar but there is a competitive advantage for schools with low acedemic standards and especially oversigning. The fact the SEC heavy weights Alabama and LSU, and now Texas A&M, oversign under he premise that some of their signees won’t qualify and then run their program NFL style with cuts is ridiculous under the umbrella of student athlete.
LikeLike
Most college football fans would list Ohio State as a football factory school, and with Katz, Clarett, etc it is impossible to argue otherwise.
LikeLike
I agree about OSU. That’s why I don’t think it is about student welfare and more about competitive balance. Four year scholarships, at risk student development before they can hit the field, and spending caps on specific sports sounds like rules that would hurt the SEC more than the BIG and the other power 5 conferences. If you can’t beat them on the field, hurt them off of it.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Ironically, freshman eligibility is the main reason for the B1G’s only BCS-era national championship, as the 2002-03 OSU Buckeyes were powered by true freshman RB Maurice Clarett. Without him, OSU likely does not likely play for title, let alone beat Miami.”
On the other hand, he would have been eligible in 2003 when he didn’t play due to his issues. That team was also very talented and might well have made the NCG with Clarett.
LikeLike
Big Ten teams are scheduled to play nine FCS opponents in 2014, including Michigan’s opener against, yes, Appalachian State.
The number of FCS opponents penciled in by Big Ten teams drops to four in 2015, two in 2016 and one in 2017.
http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/b10-wont-penalize-schools-schedule-fcs-teams
Unsurprisingly, some B1G ADs and coaches are not enthusiastic about the change.
LikeLike
Delany said: “It doesn’t mean if you’re Indiana you have to go play Southern Cal, but maybe you can go play Kentucky.”
Why does everyone in the Big 10 seem to like taking cheap shots at Kentucky so much?
LikeLike
Maybe its not a cheap shot as much as a recognition that Indiana and Kentucky, rivals in basketball, could develop a decent football rivalry borne of geographic proximity and comparable football success?
LikeLike
I am not sure if it was a cheap shot at Kentucky. He referenced Indiana and there is much history between the 2 schools and a now dormant border rivalry. They first played each other in football back in 1893 then picked back up in 1967 till 2005. It is almost perfectly balanced in the W/L for each school and they used to play for “Bourbon Barrel” trophy that fell out of favor after some players were killed in a car wreck after post game drinking. With the current ACC vs SEC OOC games it would give the B1G exposure with a B1G vs SEC game. If the game is not picked up at a top tier it should be good content for the BTN when the game is played @ IU. The only other current B1G OOC rival game is Iowa/B1G vs Iowa State/Big 12 so adding IU vs UK probably make more financial sense.
It is further enhanced by the basketball border war between the 2 schools. IU first played UK in 1924 and the current series record is IU 24 UK 32 including the IU win in December 2011 that got all kinds of media attention. The rivalry was so great the games were moved to the Hoosier Dome to handle the bigger crowds. This was UNC vs Duke before UNC vs Duke and was very good for the local economy in Indianapolis when the games were held there. Delany may be looking at Louisville now in the ACC and the UL/ACC vs UK/SEC stealing thunder from the old IU/B1G vs UK/SEC matchup. IU and UK both have strong traveling basketball fans (probably #1 and #2 in the country) and that means green in somebodies bank account. If IU and UK play again it marginalizes any inroads Louisville has been picking up in southern Indiana.
Delany sees dollars and allowing the IU vs UK rivalry to be replaced by UL vs UK is just not good business sense for the B1G.
LikeLike
In fact, Kentucky is definitely on the list of BCS-level nonconference schools with geographic proximity that B1G schools should try to schedule more regularly.
Other schools on this list (that don’t already have a regular nonconference game with B1G programs) include MizzAndy, Syracuse, WVU, Pitt, L’ville, Kansas/KSU, and UVa/VaTech.
LikeLike
I forgot Cincinnati and Tennessee from my list above.
I left off the North Carolina schools because they lack close geographic proximity and a real cache in football.
As for Memphis, well, as Sir Charles would say, Memphis is turrible.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I forgot Cincinnati and Tennessee from my list above.
I left off the North Carolina schools because they lack close geographic proximity and a real cache in football.”
TN:
2016-7 – NE
UC:
2013 – IL
2013, 2016 – PU
2014, 2018 – OSU
2017 – MI
2020, 2025 – NE
“As for Memphis, well, as Sir Charles would say, Memphis is turrible.”
Worse than KU?
LikeLike
I don’t think Ohio St. or Kentucky would be interested in playing each other in football.
Duffman, you missed NCAA tourney games in basketball. 1968 is one I remember well. Its when I started disliking Marquette. UK beat Marquette in the semi-finals in Lexington and lost to Ohio St. in the finals. UK fans were outnumbered in their own arena. The Marquette fans stayed and cheered for Ohio St.
LikeLike
I have always been surprised by the proximity of Columbus to Lexington (about 3 hours drive time) with such limited interaction. Games played in the ESPN era in BOLD.
In football :
10/05/1935 win in Columbus
10/18/1919 win in Columbus
11/15/1895 win in Lexington
In basketball :
12/05/1981 (#2) Kentucky @ Ohio State loss 78 – 62
12/03/1980 (#9) Ohio State @ (#2) Kentucky loss 70 – 64
12/28/1959 (#3) Ohio State @ (#13) Kentucky loss 96 – 93
12/19/1958 Ohio State @ (#2) Kentucky loss 95 – 76 in UKIT
12/04/1957 Kentucky @ Ohio State loss 61 – 54
12/23/1944 Ohio State @ Kentucky loss 53 – 48 OT
12/13/1943 Kentucky @ Ohio State loss 40 – 28
01/02/1943 Ohio State @ Kentucky win 40 – 45
12/13/1941 Kentucky @ Ohio State win 41 – 43
01/02/1933 Ohio State @ Kentucky win 30 – 46
.
…
.
As for other schools :
Vanderbilt / Louisville are straight shot south for Indiana and I-65
Cincinnati / Kentucky are straight down I-75 from Michigan / Michigan State
Missouri and Kansas would be great for B1G schools in the west
Colorado games reunites Big 8 history with Nebraska and Air Force is close
East coast from VA to MA has lots of good OOC possibilities
LikeLike
I forgot Tennessee as well but they are certainly in driving range of Ohio State and Indiana. I tend to agree about Memphis except they do have solid recruiting in both basketball and football at the high school level. I also noticed both Tennessee and Kentucky scheduling Western Kentucky. My guess is proximity to Nashville but they have a rising football presence and a historic basketball presence. If you are at that level then Iowa State and Kansas State fall in there too. I was mainly looking at the schools above the straight line between the bottom of VA and the bottom of CO with the two TN schools being close to that line.
LikeLike
I left Iowa State off because they already play Iowa annually (Cy/Hawk), and I doubt they would want two B1G teams on top of their conference schedule.
LikeLike
duffman,
What does OSU have to gain from playing UK in football? Why would UK want to add OSU to their schedule?
LikeLike
duffman,
What does OSU have to gain from playing UK in football? Why would UK want to add OSU to their schedule?
Ohio State gets a MACrifice type win against a weak SEC school
Kentucky (under Stoops) is recruiting OH so a win weakens UK recruiting
Kentucky would want the game (until they get beat) for recruiting
.
…
.
Buckeyes by year where UK (SEC) is bigger media value than who they scheduled
2013
Buffalo < UK
San Diego State < UK
California ? UK (Cal is 0-1 this season)
Florida A&M < UK
2012
Miami (OH) < UK
UCF ? or < UK
California ? UK (Cal went 3-9 last season)
UAB < UK
2011
Akron < UK
Toledo UK (Miami went 6-6 that season)
Colorado ? or = UK (Colorado went 3-10 that season)
2010 : UK went to a bowl
Marshall UK (Miami went 7-5 that season)
Ohio < UK
Eastern Michigan < UK
2009 : UK went to bowl
Navy ? or UK
Toledo < UK
New Mexico State < UK
2008 : UK went to bowl
Youngstown State < UK
Ohio UK
Troy < UK
2007 : UK went to bowl game (beat LSU in BCS MNC season)
Youngstown State < UK
Akron < UK
Washington ? UK (Huskies were 4-9 that season)
Kent State < UK
2006 : UK went to bowl game
Northern Illinois UK
Cincinnati ? or < UK (Bearcats went 7-5 that season)
Bowling Green < UK
It is like in 4 OOC games the Buckeyes play every season you have (1) high view game and (3) MACrifice type games. With the trend to early neutral games against Big 5 teams seems like Ohio State drops a MACrifice game for UK / Duke / KU type game and plays it at a site where Buckeyes want to recruit.
LikeLike
duffman,
“Ohio State gets a MACrifice type win against a weak SEC school”
OSU buys home games from MAC teams, so they get more home games plus the wins. UK would demand a home and home. OSU gains nothing from playing in KY. Besides, UK is so historically bad that there’s no bump from beating an SEC team.
“Kentucky (under Stoops) is recruiting OH so a win weakens UK recruiting”
UK isn’t a threat for any player OSU wants. Besides, giving UK games in Columbus would only help their OH recruiting. OSU beating UK would change nothing since everyone expects that to happen.
“Kentucky would want the game (until they get beat) for recruiting”
Wins and bowl games help them more than a series that they get crushed in. They have built-in losses to SC, UGA and UF already. They’ll often get one of AL, LSU or TAMU. They also have UL locked in. The last thing they need is another guaranteed loss.
“t is like in 4 OOC games the Buckeyes play every season you have (1) high view game and (3) MACrifice type games.”
Yes. That way we get 7.5 home games per year. Smith is changing that in the future, and so is the 9 game schedule.
“With the trend to early neutral games against Big 5 teams seems like Ohio State drops a MACrifice game for UK / Duke / KU type game and plays it at a site where Buckeyes want to recruit.”
OSU doesn’t like neutral site games and we haven’t played one since they stopped being exempted games (not counting playing Toledo at Browns Stadium for a road game). Besides, those games tend to feature two prominent teams, not a king versus a UK or KU.
OSU has a major OOC home and home game scheduled for every year through 2023 (VT, OU, TCU, OR, UT). We also have a second home and home in 2014 (UC), 2017-8 (UNC) and 2020-1 (BC) and even a third in 2018 (UC).
LikeLike
Mizz/Andy has home and homes in football with Indiana and Purdue scheduled and is in talks to restart a series with Illinois, hopefully a long term one.
In basketball we play Illinois every year and also have had home and homes with Indiana, Iowa, and Purdue in the recent past. I’d like to see more.
Mizzou plays Northwestern this year at the Las Vegas Invitaitonal on Thanksgiving Day.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Other schools on this list (that don’t already have a regular nonconference game with B1G programs) include MizzAndy, Syracuse, WVU, Pitt, L’ville, Kansas/KSU, and UVa/VaTech.”
Pitt:
2014-5 – IA
2016-9 – PSU
SU:
2013 – PSU, NW
2020-1 – PSU
UVA:
??? – PSU
VT:
2014-5 – OSU
2019-20 – WI
2020-1 – MI
2022-2023 – PSU
KU:
2015, 2018 – RU
KSU: none
UL: none
MO:
2013-4 – IN
2017-8 – PU
WV:
2013-7 – UMD
You have to consider what the schools do for the B10 teams, too. Nobody is really looking to recruit better in KS. UL has been a good team in a non-AQ league, making them the worst team to schedule. It also takes two to tango.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“Why does everyone in the Big 10 seem to like taking cheap shots at Kentucky so much?”
How is it a cheap shot to say UK isn’t USC in football?
LikeLike
Well, I should have clarified that that comment was really more of a joke than anything, but how is saying, “You don’t have to play a good team, you can play Kentucky” not a cheap shot? Even if that wasn’t Delaney’s intent, it sure sounds like it was, especially after Gordon Gee (who I know doesn’t speak for the majority of OSU’s supporters much less the Big 10 as a whole) essentially called trashed the entire secondary education system in Kentucky.
LikeLike
Because the truth isn’t a cheap shot. UK isn’t AL. It’s not a shot to say that.
LikeLike
App State will be Div I next season.
LikeLike
It’s a shame that there’s no penalty for scheduling a I-AA. There’s no point to reaching that agreement when schools can break it with impunity.
Look for IA to schedule UNI yet again and IN (among others) to try to buy some wins.
LikeLike
LOL at Skip Bayless: “I grew up, I couldn’t WAIT for Michigan-Notre Dame, going back to Bubba Smith.”
Also, a good history on how the modern UM-ND series began.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130904/michigan-notre-dame-rivalry/#ixzz2dwpHiqDo
LikeLike
Why let a little thing like facts get in the way of promoting a position. It’s the ESPiN way.
LikeLike
Great article. I think it is useful to remember that ND has played Northwestern more than Michigan, and only played Georgia Tech a few less times than the Wolverines. I think Kelly’s initial comments were spot on, and was a bit disappointed when he tried walking them back; seemed like he was finally showing some appreciation of the lore of ND. In the histories of ND, the animosity between UM and ND was almost always off field. As a BA in History, it is kind of nice to see that return.
LikeLike
According to previous comments made by others, ND and Michigan have only met 31 times in the last 104 years…and almost all of them have been in the last 35.
LikeLike
29 times since 1978. The previous 2 were 1942-3. Before that all the games were before 1910. Of course, they stopped playing because of animosity between coaches and ADs and they often recruited against each other, so the rivalry is really stronger than the number of games indicates.
On the other hand, you have rivalries like Navy and PU where ND wins so often that they really don’t consider the other team a peer. That diminishes those rivalries compared to the frequency of play.
LikeLike
Large numbers of fans of both schools have said otherwise. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and they’re right, of course. I think a rivalry is subjective and clearly lots of people feel this is a rivalry. The world won’t end for it going away, clearly. Frankly, I think MI is better off in the long run playing a variety of teams rather than ND over and over. CFB, on the other hand, is worse off for this series going away.
LikeLike
I’m not saying it isn’t a rivalry. However, I also can’t say that its as sad as watching Texas – TAMU, NEB-OU, Pitt-PSU, or even Kansas-Mizzou go away.
There’s a lot of fans in their 30s who think Michigan is ND’s biggest rival since Southern Cal couldn’t beat the Irish from ’83 until 1996. The ND-UM series is once again dead even since ’78 and neither team has led the new edition of the series by more than 3 games in the ESPN era. It has definitely been competitive, even if I don’t remember any of the games being especially well played. Especially from the early 90s on, UM-ND is the probably biggest game in September outside the South. But again, my first two years at ND (95-96) we didn’t play them, and there have been many two year breaks since ’78.
The biggest thing I’ll miss about the series is the opportunity to make up the extra ground in retaking our rightful place as the all-time win percentage leader.
I also find it fairly amusing we easily replace them with Texas, and they have a hard time replacing us…with Arkansas.
LikeLike
FLP, I respect your ND viewpoints, which are usually fair and balanced on this board. But I can’t let this slide… You are completely re-writing history.
The ND-Texas series was signed in 2010 for games in 2015-16 and 2019-20.
In September 2012, Notre Dame chickened out of the Michigan series, canceling games in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Series was scheduled to take a two year break in 2018-19, before resuming again. I believe that the series would proceed until 2031, but there may have been another two year break.
In November 2012, Michigan announced the two-game set with Arkansas for 2018-19, when Notre Dame was never on the schedule.
While it may have made good business sense, Jack Swarbrick behaved like a third grade girl, handing a note to Dave Brandon before kickoff last year, cancelling two Michigan home games and one Notre Dame home game. And then trying to claim that you wanted Texas more than Michigan, two years after having signed both on the schedule for 2015-16? Definitely Third Grade Girl behavior.
The thing is, I get it from ND’s standpoint. They wanted their sweetheart deal and 5 ACC games, and they want to keep two games with California schools and Navy. And playing Texas occasionally makes more sense than playing Michigan annually. But the optics of dumping Michigan, but keeping Purdue and Michigan State sure aren’t helping any. Nor does playing Wake Forest or Syracuse or Pitt or Duke. ND certainly had other options to preserve the UM rivalry.
ND simply can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that they are a national program and they will play anyone anywhere, and they have a hard schedule, and then champion Navy as a significant rivalry, and also choose Purdue, Michigan State, Northwestern and (on average) a much weaker ACC school over Michigan
As far as the rivalry, it’s a big deal. Of course it’s not the best rivalry in sports UM-OSU, or even a top ten college football rivalry like ND-USC. But over the last 35 years, it has usually been the marquee game of the week, and has often been highly anticipated for a number of different storylines. It always had national attention, high tv ratings, and high ticket prices, and College Gameday regularly visiting. I believe that in 2011, the UM-ND game earned the second highest tv ratings of the year for a regular season game, only behind Alabama-LSU. This series is absolutely a national game that matters and draws attention.
And finally, the games have usually been tremendously entertaining. They were generally very well played in the 80s and 90s, and often were two top ten teams playing each other. And even in the 00s, when it was just as likely that only one program was up, the games were still very entertaining.
After all this, I just can’t respect your opinion that losing a very moderate regional game like Mizzou Kansas is sadder than losing UM-ND. Or even a very one-sided PSU-Pitt series.
Finally, I enjoy the “rightful place” comment, as wrong as it may be. The bitterness of always following Michigan in wins and winning percentage, and eternally Michigan’s student in football shines through.
LikeLike
@Cliff – I can’t let this comment go,” Or even a very one-sided PSU-Pitt series.” While PSU leads the series 48-42-4. I would not call this one sided. Pitt won the last meeting in 2000, 12-0. There is alot of revisionist history on this blog. Hail to Pitt
LikeLike
In September 2012, Notre Dame chickened out of the Michigan series, canceling games in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
I’m a Michigan supporter, but I think “chickened out” is just plain incorrect, whatever Brady Hoke may say. The ACC deal (which ND had no realistic choice about) forced them to drop some games, and the Michigan series was the one that made the most business sense, as you have conceded.
While it may have made good business sense, Jack Swarbrick behaved like a third grade girl, handing a note to Dave Brandon before kickoff last year, cancelling two Michigan home games and one Notre Dame home game.
You’re certainly not the first Michigan partisan to have said this, but I just don’t get it. Michigan’s deal with ND had a three-year cancellation clause. It was mere coincidence that, the way the calendar worked out, two Michigan home games were canceled vs. one ND home game. Historically, there’ve been more games in the series played in Ann Arbor than South Bend.
The announcement that Notre Dame was joining the ACC came just ten days before the two teams played, so however Swarbrick delivered the news, it was going to be in that ten-day window. My guess is that he figured it was better to deliver in person, rather than impersonally via fax or FedEx. I think he handled it correctly.
LikeLike
Marc,
Obviously I don’t know the negotiations behind the ACC deal, and how much of a “strength” Notre Dame was negotiating from. ND has traditionally needed to work to fill in their last 8 games of the schedule, as most everybody is flexible in September. Purdue has often been Notre Dame’s fifth game, either in the last weekend of September or the first game of October. So they could keep that and look for 7 more games. The Stanford, USC, and Navy games are also usually in October/November. So they really needed only 4 ACC games (not 5) to completely fill their commitments. Or they could have started with 4 games until the end of the Michigan contract and then bumped it up to 5 games.
The bottom line is that they chose to keep Stanford, Navy, MSU, and Purdue on annual deals, but not Michigan, and they chose to go out and add a random ACC game over Michigan. Michigan – the school they keep comparing themselves to whenever they talk about all time wins or winning percentage.
And then, out of the other side of their mouths, they want to talk about playing a difficult national schedule! Or talk about their all time winning percentage, but they are avoiding Michigan! So they downplay the rivalry! Ha!
Look, there are legitimate reasons to avoid opponents. I recall that when Va Tech suddenly became relevant in the late 90s, somehow word got out that Va Tech wanted to play Michigan. And Michigan said no. Because Va Tech was playing a garbage schedule in The Big East, while Michigan was playing Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, and the rest of the Big Ten schedule. Michigan had nothing to gain by adding to one of the nation’s toughest schedules, while Va Tech was the one needing to bulk up their schedule.
And finally, Swarbrick could have talked to Brandon up front. I know he had “only” 10 days after the ACC deal was announced, but c’mon. We know that deal was in the works for some time. Notre Dame could easily have negotiated some alternate arrangements with Michigan. I’m sure Brandon would have been agreeable to play in 15, postpone the 16-17 games to 18-19, and then go on a two-years-on-two-years-off schedule. That type of deal has been suggested countless times, which would allow the rivalry to continue, and allow every four year player at UM and ND the chance to play in each stadium, but still allow each school some variety. But instead, ND just decided to use any available excuse to drop Michigan.
And really, it’s the excuses, and downplaying of the rivalry, and the backtracking that says it all. If ND wants the title, come try to take it from us! If you want to be the man, you gotta beat the man.
LikeLike
First, I need to apologize about the Texas replacement comment. Upon further review, it looks like I got the information on who replaced who and when from a Bleacher Report article. I’m sorry and that will not happen again.
That said…
Even before that game was played, there was speculation that the series would be ending with the ACC agreement and/or the B1G move to 9 conference games. The assumptions were that either ND would keep UM over Sparty or Purdue because it was a bigger game, or that ND wouldn’t end the series with an uneven number of games. You know what they say about assumptions.
Swarbrick’s notice was pretty slick, but valid, and still infinitely more classy than Yost’s ending of the series in ’10 when the Irish were already on the train because it was literally the day before kickoff.
ND hasn’t been willing to play anyone anywhere in years. Notre Dame has often cited small stadiums as a reason not to play road games or move games to “neutral sites” i.e. local NFL fields. Even Navy never plays ND at Navy. Whether I agree with that senitment or not is immaterial, ND has unfortunately been like the other powers in this way since Leahy, if not before. Frankly I am still shocked we played @ Wake, and cannot believe we agreed to play at all the ACC schools within 5ys.
IIRC, and after going with a BR article I can’t say that I am, Michigan due to it’s many extra years playing and to its decades of seven home game schedules (in a 9 game season) has had the most wins probably since the early twentieth century. I seriously remember reading that UM played IU, a conference game, 15 in a row in Ann Arbor. WTF? However, ND held the all-time winning percentage lead for decades up until the last ten or fifteen years (I wanna say Weis era, but it may have been late Willingham, I’ve tried to forget). And yes, there was wailing and the grinding of teeth.
Heck, UM-OSU isn’t the best football rivalry in the Midwest (Wabash and DePauw fight over the same pool of coeds). And I’m not sure it’s the best rivalry in the B1G (Purdue-IU hoops)…but I go through the arguments every year.
I stand by that statement that I will miss other rivalries more. These are games that were contested more often than not for over a century. NEB-OU was for an Orange Bowl slot, and UT-TAMU was for a Cotton Bowl slot, just like UM-OSU was for a Rose. Missou-KU had historical basis from before the Civil War even if the basketball games were typically better, and Pitt-PSU was a great East vs. West match-up in a traditional recruiting hotbed between two of the great Independents. For ND and Michigan, two schools that did most of their fighting off the gridiron, it seems appropriate to return to that state every so often.
And, Marc, thanks for the support.
LikeLike
The ESPN guy MAY have been making an honest mistake. The ND/Michigan games were high profile. ND/Michigan St. was high profile prior to that. I was surprised it hadn’t been around forever one time when I looked it up. Basically Michigan replaced Northwestern on the ND schedule in the 70s when Northwestern got really bad (or you could interpret it as replacing Pitt when they got really good).
LikeLike
@Cliff: I agree, we don’t know how much flexibility ND really had with the ACC deal. But it’s not right to call someone a “third-grade girl” when you don’t know.
I do know two things about that deal. 1) The ACC said, not that long ago, that it would never allow a partial member; as it is, some ACC members are unhappy that ND got the deal they did. 2) ND treasures its football independence over just about everything else. I think ND committed to five ACC games because the ACC wouldn’t accept less.
In addition, it’s been reported that if ND joins any conference in football before 2027, they are required to join the ACC. Regardless of where ND might ultimately belong, why would they bind themselves to that, if they didn’t have to? I think it’s a fair inference that Notre Dame made some concessions in the ACC deal that they did not truly want to make.
I certainly would not have expected ND to start calling around to cancel or re-negotiate games until after the ACC deal was signed, so Swarbrick had only a 10-day window before he’d have been committed to play Michigan in 2015.
Did ND have better options than bailing out of the Michigan series altogether? Let’s stipulate that there was no way they’d drop Navy, USC, Stanford, or Purdue. I don’t know what kind of cancellation windows they had with Michigan State, as that’s not public knowledge.
I also don’t know at what point in the ACC negotiations they committed to five games. For all we know, the Irish may have fought that, and it may have been one of the last things agreed to.
It may be that Swarbrick had other realistic options. But I don’t think he behaved badly by choosing the option he did; it’s just business. And I don’t think it makes a bit of difference how he delivered the notice.
LikeLike
FLP – First and foremost, that was a very gracious response.
I think we’ll agree to disagree on the value or intensity of the rivalry compared to others. Kansas-Missouri may be a big deal to them, but it has no resonance nationally, or even regionally when you consider that they seldom were fighting for a championship or an unbeaten record. Texas-Texas A&M also doesn’t carry the same weight nationally. I’m not touching the importance or value of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry, except to say that it wasn’t directly demolished by one team dissing the other. The Big XII broke that up on their own.
Michigan-Michigan State is a big deal to us, and has been called the nastiest game of the year nationally, but it still doesn’t resonate nationally like UM-ND. Texas-Texas A&M and PItt-Penn State may hate each other more than UM/ND, but I think the national profile of those games are closer to UM/MSU than UM/ND.
And that leads to my point: Even if UM-ND is the third or fourth biggest game on each other’s schedule, there is absolutely more electricity in the air and a bigger bounce in your step when you know the entire nation is focused on your game, and the intensity gets amped up. Even when Michigan and ND entered the game 0-2 and Ryan Mallett was the emergency starting QB for Michigan, there was still a major buzz about the game and the results mattered.
Marc – After all the gossip, rumors, and innuendo about secret meetings and phone calls about conference realignment, I refuse to believe that Swarbrick had his hands completely tied. But even if he did, lett me restate this:
Swarbrick had ten full days to pick up the phone to discuss saving the rivalry that produced the second highest rated game on tv the year before, and a rivalry that draws College GameDay roughly once every three meetings . From all indications he chose not to even have the discussion.
I mean, it’s completely possible that Swarbrick and Brandon did have that conversation and are keeping it a secret. Brandon especially is a habitual liar and ego maniac. But nonetheless, based on what we do know, Swarbrick is either a fool, a terrible negotiator, a terrible manager, or afraid of Michigan. And I stand by my statement that he behaved like a third grade girl. While it was legal and slick and allowable, he should know better and should have treated a partner much better, and should have realized how his action would open up Notre Dame to criticism from not only his fanbase, but of course others.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“I’m not saying it isn’t a rivalry.”
Well, you kind of did in your first comment:
I think Kelly’s initial comments were spot on, and was a bit disappointed when he tried walking them back;
Kelly’s initial comments said it wasn’t a historic rivalry but just a big regional game. His later comments said it was a big rivalry. Your endorsement of his initial comments isn’t pretty close to saying you don’t think it’s a rivalry.
“However, I also can’t say that its as sad as watching Texas – TAMU, NEB-OU, Pitt-PSU, or even Kansas-Mizzou go away.”
And that’s where lots of fans disagree with you.
“There’s a lot of fans in their 30s who think Michigan is ND’s biggest rival since Southern Cal couldn’t beat the Irish from ’83 until 1996.”
Denard Robinson recently tweeted that MI’s top rivals are: 1. OSU, 2. ND, 3. MSU
That’s a little insight into what MI players think about it, anyway.
“I also find it fairly amusing we easily replace them with Texas, and they have a hard time replacing us…with Arkansas.”
Of course an independent can schedule a king more easily. You don’t have a conference schedule to deal with. You can adjust the rest of the schedule to keep it from getting too hard, or to balance your home and road games. Besides, it’s not like ND’s schedule is full of newly added kings. One school wanted to work with ND for reasons of their own. A lot of schools don’t want to play major home and homes any more. MI will start getting them on the schedule, it’s just hard to do short term.
LikeLike
I love how Michigan is keying in on the term ‘rivalry’, but that’s not what Kelly or I were focusing on. We were focusing on “historical, traditional”. And, as we know, this was a barely played game most of the twentieth century. I think as far as “historical” and “traditional” Michigan belongs on a tier with Army and Miami, i.e. big games in their day, but not permanent.
After listening to Kelly’s Wednesday presser, I don’t think he was trying to walk the comment back so much as being exasperated it got the amount of attention it did, and trying to move the conversation forward. And compared to USC and Navy, true inter-sectional rivalries, Michigan is a regional game, probably the biggest in the Midwest. It gets national attention…but when you’re ND, that’s pretty typical.
Even under Bo, Michigan players thought it was a big deal, and as I’ve quoted previously, Bo tried to squash that. Actually, that’s been the party line up there for over a century.
“They have a good team down there, but you must recognize the fact that we went into that game caring little whether we won or lost. Practice was what we wanted.” — Fielding Yost on the 1909 loss.
ND has always mentioned Michigan as a team that they circle on the calendar in the off-season, especially during down USC cycles. Michigan…not so much.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“I love how Michigan is keying in on the term ‘rivalry’, but that’s not what Kelly or I were focusing on. We were focusing on “historical, traditional”.”
Maybe you were, and that’s fine. I’d suggest that most people would word their responses differently if they were attacking the adjectives only and not the noun in that phrase, but you certainly know what you meant. You do not get to speak for Kelly, though. You have no more insight into his mind than anyone else.
“And compared to USC and Navy, true inter-sectional rivalries,”
I’ll give you USC, but Navy is not a rivalry. You won 43 in a row. It’s a historical series and nice thank you to Navy for helping ND out, but it’s not a rivalry.
“Michigan is a regional game, probably the biggest in the Midwest. It gets national attention…but when you’re ND, that’s pretty typical.”
The biggest OOC series, yes. The biggest September series, yes. OSU/MI is bigger overall, though. It’s the #1 rivalry for both teams involved plus there are conference stakes on the line. In addition, it’s in November when a loss hurts more.
“Even under Bo, Michigan players thought it was a big deal, and as I’ve quoted previously, Bo tried to squash that. Actually, that’s been the party line up there for over a century.”
He also said ND was a measuring stick. What ND fans will never understand is that as a conference member, MI always had a higher goal to aim for. Beating ND was great, but it didn’t help them make the Rose Bowl. Making the Rose Bowl was their only shot at a national title for a long time, so that took precedence. Now that ND has returned from the dead and a playoff is coming, I think that series would have gained in importance.
Besides, coaches say what they think players or fans need to hear. Their actions speak louder and Bo took the ND game very seriously.
“ND has always mentioned Michigan as a team that they circle on the calendar in the off-season, especially during down USC cycles. Michigan…not so much.”
That’s crap. MI players talked all the time about having ND circled on the calendar. I lived in MI for a long time, so I heard/read it frequently. They just also had OSU circled (and secretly MSU).
LikeLike
You don’t get to speak for Bo, then, Brian. Not like Kelly isn’t fairly transparent. I will say Bo probably should have stepped it up more, what with the 4-6 record against the Irish and the lack of Nat’l Titles compared to ND’s 3 during his tenure.
Navy may not be the best rivalry, but that’s what the marketing says, and it is most assuredly inter-sectional.
And can we please lay off the “ND doesn’t get being in a conference” meme. We all went to High school, we were in the Big East and the CCHA for decades in everything else. We know that the “conference chase” is really just an elaborate rivalry game gauntlet for bragging rights. We all saw the video of App State/UM conference-wide reaction. We know. It ain’t rocket science.
I understand it must suck for Michigan to lose their current #2 rivalry. I would have been nicer for them to embrace it like UF-FSU-Miami troika as opposed to downplaying it vis-a-vis OSU.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“You don’t get to speak for Bo, then, Brian.”
I didn’t. I paraphrased Brady Hoke talking about how Bo viewed the game.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/82913/hoke-players-react-to-kellys-comments
Hoke said he will miss the game, because it always has stood as a benchmark for Wolverines teams.
“I think it was always a game that really, it kind of gave you a little bit of a true north of what type of football team you’re going to have,” Hoke said. “You’ve got two traditional, national powers playing each other, and it kind of gave you an indication. I remember coach [Bo] Schembechler all the time talking about how that game, you can kind of get an idea of where you were as a team.”
“And can we please lay off the “ND doesn’t get being in a conference” meme.”
No, because it’s true.
LikeLike
@Cliff: I stand by my statement that he behaved like a third grade girl. While it was legal and slick and allowable, he should know better and should have treated a partner much better, and should have realized how his action would open up Notre Dame to criticism from not only his fanbase, but of course others.
Swarbrick is a business man. Third-grade girls are not especially known for their business acumen. I am just not getting the analogy.
Whether or not canceling the series was a good idea is an entirely different matter. Was Yost “a third grade girl” when he canceled the series? Did he “treat his partner much better”?
I do agree with you that Swarbrick probably had other options, including options I would personally have preferred. Scheduling in Michigan’s interest is not among his job responsibilities.
Navy may not be the best rivalry, but that’s what the marketing says, and it is most assuredly inter-sectional.
Well, it turns on the definition of “rivalry”. Notre Dame has played Navy more, but in most years Navy never had a prayer of winning. The Michigan game was competitive.
I understand it must suck for Michigan to lose their current #2 rivalry. I would have been nicer for them to embrace it like UF-FSU-Miami troika as opposed to downplaying it vis-a-vis OSU.
As a long-time Michigan resident and a life-long Michigan fan, I can assure you that they did embrace it. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Kansas-Missouri had a value all out of significance to the competitive strength of the teams, because the state rivalry went back to 1854.
Texas-Texas A&M wasn’t that often for the Cotton Bowl. A&M has only been there 13 times and 4 were since the SWC broke up. 6 others were in a short period while the conference was dying in the late 80s and early 90s and Texas was in a slump. Historically, it was just a chance for one team to mess up the other’s season.
LikeLike
I was sadder when these older and more played rivalries died, because frankly I couldn’t imagine them going away. They seemed permanent. Bullet, thanks for the history lesson. I was usually on my second day of Turkey Coma (turkey is just better on day 2) during the UT-TAMU game and a lot of it is fuzzy. It’s not an issue of importance or intensity, but of the idea of things changing and not necessarily for better. Historically, the ND – UM series exists, when it exists at all, at the whim of UM and tends to end ugly.
Michigan ended it abruptly when it suited Yost in 1910, when ND no longer was an easy game.
Fritz Crisler ended the ND series after only two games during the War citing their desire to play only MSU, an eastern team and a Western team. Even when the rationing stopped, the series did not resume. The “western” teams during Crisler’s tenure as AD after the Irish were dropped were Marquette (’44, 14-0), Stanford (’47 49-13 @UM, ’49 27-7, ’51 13-23 @UM, ’52 7-14), Oregon (’48 14-0 @UM, ’60 21-0 @UM), Tulane (’53 26-7 @ UM), Washington (’54 14-0), Mizzou (’55 42-7 @UM, ’59 15-20 @UM), UCLA (’56 42-13 @UM, ’61 29-6 #9@UM), USC (’57 16-6, ’58 20-19 @UM), Oregon State (’59 18-7 @UM), Nebraska (’62 13-25 @UM), SMU (’63 27-16 @UM), Air Force (’64 24-7 @UM), Cal (’65 31-24 #5@UM, ’66 17-7 #9@Cal, ’67 9-10 @Cal, ’68 7-21 @UM). The second time they played a ranked western team on the road was UCLA at the Coliseum in ’72. Maybe that’s why they did so bad in the Rose Bowls since they rarely played road games, even in the Midwest.
tl;dr: After Michigan dropped ND, they replaced them on the schedule with mid-table PAC-8 teams or Non-elite teams during that time that didn’t demand a return date. Glass houses, stones, y’know.
As the article above indicated, the current ND – Michigan series was based entirely on $$$. UM needed a boost to sell season tickets since they were in their pre-Bo doldrums, and ND was willing to go when Alabama and Penn State wouldn’t. ND was Michigan’s third choice. I assume he’s right because SI still has some semblance of objectivity and I haven’t looked it up.
Southern Cal, that’s a rivalry. For Notre Dame, the USC series has history and glamor. Also USC has the kind of fans that make you hate a team. Growing up during the ‘Decade of Dominance’, USC wasn’t a team I had a lot of opinions on as a non-ND fan. However, by kick-off freshman year I had nothing but contempt for the lot of them. Southern Cal’s refusal to play the SB games in November doesn’t help. And it warms my heart to know they value it as much as we do.
Michigan State was a nice game, but nothing to get up for, nor was Purdue. We knew they cared way more than we did. Same thing with BC, BYU, and Pitt (seriously, when I saw they were a top 5 played opponent you coulda knocked me over with a feather) and practically most other teams. Navy was more about maintaining the streak and upholding our word than the actual game. Miami could have been a rivalry, but the admins put the kibosh on it before it got *really* good. FSU and PSU might have grown into one if they hadn’t left for conferences. I still have no idea why the administration was so infatuated with Stanford, since I would give up that game yesterday for a rotation of UCLA, Oregon, Washington and Stanford,
Truth is that Michigan did in many ways seem like a great rivalry, but unfortunately UM historically was constantly trying to downplay it.
“I don’t know whether [playng Notre Dame] is in the best interests of Michigan because Michigan should be pointing to Iowa or Michigan State or Ohio State.” –Bo Schembechler
“Okay men, we’re going to shoot for Notre Dame, but I’m going to tell you something, Notre Dame is a non-conference game, and we’ll always play it as that.” –Bo Schembechler
Sure it’s not like with MSU, where most UM fans wouldn’t admit under torture that it’s a rivalry, but Michigan has only embraced the rivalry when ND walked away.
As far as I’m concerned, watching UM fans gripe about the ND game going off the schedule is practically as satisfying as beating them. Considering how most ND fans I know were cheesed at having to give up five games to the ACC, I can’t believe Swarbrick wasn’t pushing HARD for four at most. If one of the B1G teams had to go, especially since getting out was relatively easy, it couldn’t happen to a better group than UM. It’s nice that the NDPTB did not throw good partners like Purdue and Michigan State under the bus to keep the Michigan game, since it was likely just a matter of time before UM pulled out…again.
P.S. I find it exceptionally amusing that the Michigan AD is so naive as to not read the letter ’til he’s on the way home the next day. God, if a lawyer hands you an envelope, the very first thing you should do is read it! Whatta maroon!
LikeLike
I find it exceptionally amusing that the Michigan AD is so naive as to not read the letter ’til he’s on the way home the next day. God, if a lawyer hands you an envelope, the very first thing you should do is read it! Whatta maroon!
I find it amusing to see Notre Dame and Michigan fans in competition to see who can say dumber things about the other. Although Swarbrick has a law degree, he did not hand the letter to Brandon in a legal capacity, but as a colleague. An athletic director has a lot of game-day duties, and I can well believe Brandon didn’t have a free moment to look at it until after the game.
Of course, both sides ridiculously over-play the incident, or perhaps I should say, the non-incident. I mean, who cares when Swarbrick delivered it, or when Brandon read it? Who cares???
LikeLike
What do you do for a living if colleagues hand you sealed envelopes? I don’t know any lawyers who can turn it off.
LikeLike
. Frankly I am still shocked we [ND] played @ Wake, and cannot believe we agreed to play at all the ACC schools within 5 years.
Wake must pay excellent guarantees, as that’s the only way a school its size can get notable teams to visit Winston-Salem. Over the past decade, the Deacons have hosted the likes of Nebraska and Stanford.
LikeLike
Oopsie on the reply:
Wake must pay excellent guarantees, as that’s the only way a school its size can get notable teams to visit Winston-Salem. Over the past decade, the Deacons have hosted the likes of Nebraska and Stanford.
LikeLike
LOL at Skip Bayless: “I grew up, I couldn’t WAIT for Michigan-Notre Dame, going back to Bubba Smith.”
Skip, don’t schedule any trips to East Lansing for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Funny thing is, over at ND nation they have only love for their two supposed top ‘rivals’ USC and Navy, yet have seething hatred for Michigan. Celebrating when Michigan players get hurt? Classy. Guess it comes down to how you define a rivalry. I would put ND third behind OSU and MSU. With that said, glad the series is being mothballed after next year.
LikeLike
…to be fair. I just went back and re-read the thread and a number of people commented on how unacceptable that was and have asked it be deleted.
LikeLike
Michigan and Notre Dame homers seem to say equally dumb things about the other. In a race to fanbase irrationality, I am not sure who would win.
The Michigan coach and AD both would like the series to continue. If you look at Michigan’s future schedules, you see why. Brandon has been trying to get at least one premier game every year. The best he can do, so far, is Arkansas (2018-19) and Virginia Tech (2020-21). Those aren’t terrible, but neither is the stature of Notre Dame, in terms of media attention and prestige. There are only so many opponents of Notre Dame’s caliber, and many of them have no openings or don’t want to play Michigan. Brandon has approached a number of top-tier programs, like Oklahoma, and been turned down.
The years 2015-17 are almost totally barren, as far as interesting non-conference opponents go. There are still a couple of slots open in 2017. We’ll see who he gets. I’d be surprised if it’s anyone that would bring College Gameday to Ann Arbor.
Many of the Michigan-Notre Dame games have been iconic. The 2009 game got the Michigan QB onto the cover of Sports Illustrated. The 2010 sent a different Michigan QB to the top of the Heisman race. The 2011 game…well, if that isn’t one of the most exciting games you have ever watched, you need to get your pulse checked. And still, some fans will be glad when they’re no longer playing. Go figure.
LikeLike
Long term I think this will be better for MI. OSU has done pretty well finding opponents.
2013-2023 OOC AQs: Cal, VT, OU, UNC, TCU, OR, BC, UT
LikeLike
I’d make two points about that.
1) OSU has done fairly well; but it’s a zero-sum game. Slots on OU’s and UT’s dance cards are limited, and a lot of people want to play them.
2) How many of those opponents you listed are comparable to Notre Dame, in terms of prestige and media attention? OU and UT certainly are; Cal, UNC, TCU, and BC, certainly are not. Oregon has been a king the past few years, but historically they haven’t always been. If you have Notre Dame on your schedule for 2020, you can be sure it’ll be a high-profile affair, no matter whether the Irish are good that year or not; there’s no such guarantee with Oregon.
If you’re the Michigan AD, and you can get Notre Dame to agree to it, you’d probably like to play the Irish about 50% of the time, which means you’re absolutely guaranteed to have a high-profile OOC game two years out of every four; but you give both clubs an opportunity to schedule other major opponents.
The fact that Brandon is still bemoaning the loss of the series, a year after it happened, tells me that replacing them on the OOC schedule with an equally sexy opponent, year after year, is not so easy.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree with you here. There’s really only a couple of programs that – for Michigan – would compare to ND. I would suggest that the list is USC, Texas, and Alabama, and that’s it. While Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Miami, Florida State would be incredible games, they still wouldn’t have the level of storylines and history and hype as Michigan-Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“1) OSU has done fairly well; but it’s a zero-sum game. Slots on OU’s and UT’s dance cards are limited, and a lot of people want to play them.”
Yes, but they also want to play other kings for exposure purposes. MI is in that exclusive club and not many others are.
“2) How many of those opponents you listed are comparable to Notre Dame, in terms of prestige and media attention?”
Big picture: 2 – OU and UT.
Near term: 3 – add OR
TCU and VT will also get a lot of coverage. LSU/TCU got a ton of exposure this year, and so did AL/VT.
Also, some of those teams are the second AQ on the schedule (BC, UNC).
As for Cal, they were a top 10 team back when OSU scheduled them. Nobody foresaw them getting this bad.
“If you’re the Michigan AD, and you can get Notre Dame to agree to it, you’d probably like to play the Irish about 50% of the time, which means you’re absolutely guaranteed to have a high-profile OOC game two years out of every four; but you give both clubs an opportunity to schedule other major opponents.”
Yes, that might be ideal from their standpoint. But getting a constant rotation of prominent programs can be better for recruiting (students and players) and can be bigger games than ND provided in the past decade before Kelly arrived.
“The fact that Brandon is still bemoaning the loss of the series, a year after it happened, tells me that replacing them on the OOC schedule with an equally sexy opponent, year after year, is not so easy.”
He gets paid well to do his job. I don’t feel sorry for him.
LikeLike
“The fact that Brandon is still bemoaning the loss of the series, a year after it happened, tells me that replacing them on the OOC schedule with an equally sexy opponent, year after year, is not so easy.”
He gets paid well to do his job. I don’t feel sorry for him.
I don’t feel sorry for him, but he’s not a magician. As I noted, Ohio State gets a “Notre Dame” type of opponent less than half the time, so Gene Smith can’t do it either.
LikeLike
Michigan and Notre Dame will both do fine. That said, Michigan vs. Notre Dame always felt bigger than a random Michigan vs. other king or Notre Dame vs. other king (besides maybe USC).
Don’t get me wrong, given the 9 game Big Ten schedule and 5 games Notre Dame will be playing the ACC, I’d be looking for breaks, maybe only play 1/2 the time or slightly less, but I doubt either school has a replaces the series with games that the national public cares about as much as the games between the two.
As for ability to find opponents, I don’t think that’s an issue long term. You want a relatively large name on the schedule, but I don’t even know if the schools care about it being a full king every year. Cal was kind of a disappointment this year (win or lose, there is not the hype with it that could have been there), but a relatively big name you are more likely to beat is probably just as good in their eyes as a full king where a loss would be more likely.
LikeLike
Michigan and Notre Dame will both do fine. That said, Michigan vs. Notre Dame always felt bigger than a random Michigan vs. other king or Notre Dame vs. other king (besides maybe USC).
“Do fine,” yes. But most of the time, the game that replaces ND on Michigan’s schedule will be worse. That is evident, not only in the games Michigan has managed to line up so far, but also in the plain reality that there aren’t enough kings to go around.
As for ability to find opponents, I don’t think that’s an issue long term. You want a relatively large name on the schedule, but I don’t even know if the schools care about it being a full king every year.
I don’t know how often Dave Brandon would schedule a king, if he had his wish. It is fairly apparent, from his stated regrets at losing the ND series, that he’s getting them less often than he wants.
LikeLike
15 December 2009: Big Ten announces it will revisit expansion for first time since 2003. Jim Delany envisions a 12-18 month evaluation period.
5 January 2010: David Brandon replaces Bill Martin as Michigan’s Athletic Director
8 April 2010: Big Ten accelerates time table for expansion because fiscal years for universities end in June. Numerous schools are rumored to be in consideration as Big XII contemplates possible collapse.
18 May 2010: Michigan announces San Diego State will be the final non-conference team on the 2011 season schedule. Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan and Notre Dame are the other three teams.
19 May 2010: David Brandon tells Ann Arbor News that UM and ND never signed the 20-year contract they agreed to three years earlier. Brandon was asked what his intentions were with the unsigned contract.
“To work with Jack (Swarbrick), the athletic director at Notre Dame, and hammer out something that’s good for both schools,” he said. “He’s new and I’m new from where that 20-year announcement was made so we’ll just have to kind of pick that up, and when we have something to share publicly we’ll share it.”
11 June 2010: Nebraska joins the Big Ten Conference.
15 October 2010: Michigan finalizes deal to play Alabama at Cowboy Stadium in Dallas to open the 2012 football season.
12 December 2010: Big Ten announces creation of Leaders and Legends Divisions. Michigan is joined by Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern in the Legends. The first B10 Conference Championship Game is schedule for December 2011.
11 January 2011: Brady Hoke replaces Rich Rodriguez as Michigan’s head football coach.
28 January 2011: Michigan adds Air Force to 2012 schedule. UM is due to play AFA the weekend after the Alabama game. Michigan is hosting Notre Dame that season.
19 April 2011: David Brandon states that if the Big Ten goes to nine-game conference schedule, it may it will become increasingly difficult for Big Ten programs to schedule (and maintain) annual out-of-conference rivalries–even rivalries as great as Michigan-Notre Dame. That’s because programs such as Michigan say they need at least seven home games, every year, to pay the bills. He’s quoted as saying: “I have to have seven home games a year. If you think about a nine-game Big Ten schedule, there will be one year I have four home games and one year I have five. In the year that I have four, I have to play every one of my non-conference games at home, so I can’t be in a world where I have four Big Ten home games and I’m supposed to play Notre Dame (in South Bend). I can’t live in that world. Those are the kinds of issues I have to deal with.” Brandon is on record as support a nine-game conference schedule.
25 August 2011: Michigan announces it will play Appalachian State to open the 2014 football season. UM is schedule to play at ND the following Saturday. The Wolverines still need two more non-conference opponents to round out the schedule.
27 September 2011: Michigan announces it will play Massachusetts in 2012. UMass is the final non-conference team added to a schedule that includes a neutral site opening game with Alabama, a home game with Air Force and a road game at Notre Dame. UM also announces its 2013 schedule which will include three home non-conference games with Central Michigan, Notre Dame and Akron with a road game at Connecticut.
28 December 2011: Multiple reports discuss Big Ten-Pac 12 scheduling agreement that would take place starting in 2017. This agreement would have football teams from the two conferences playing annually in non-conference play. David Brandon indicates that he can begin scheduling Pac 12 schools “whenever we can work out a scheduling agreement with them”. Michigan has two open dates for 2014 season with the only games scheduled to date against Appalachian State and Notre Dame. IRT ND series, he says, “In the near term, it will not change anything.” Brandon also adds that UM has a clear scheduling principal of seven home games minimum.
21 May 2012: Big Ten announces its 2015/6 conference schedules. With Pac 12 scheduling alliance in place, B10 opts to remain at eight conference games instead of nine. UM will continue to have Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State all at home or all on the road thru 2016.
27 June 2012: A four-team college football playoff system approved by the NCAA’s Presidential Oversight Committee.
Michigan announces its 2014 through 2016 non-conference opponents. The schedule for those years is as follows:
2014 – Appalachian State, at Notre Dame, Miami (Ohio), Utah
2015 – at Utah, Notre Dame, Oregon State, UNLV
2016 – at Notre Dame, Colorado (needs to more non-conference opponents)
Michigan also announces it will take a two-year hiatus in the ND series in 2018/9. The schools are tentatively scheduled to meet from 2020 through 2031.
From the Ann Arbor News:
As for Notre Dame, Brandon says Michigan will continue to operate under the same agreement it’s been under since he took over as Michigan’s athletic director.
Once the two-year hiatus ends, Michigan and Notre Dame still fully intend to maintain a football rivalry.
“The plan always was to do the hiatus for ’18 and ’19 and then resume the rivalry,” Brandon said. “That’s our plan.”
Michigan and Notre Dame took two-year breaks in annual scheduling in 1983-84, 1995-96 and 2000-01.
Brandon says he has no issue with continuing to take periodic breaks from the Notre Dame series down the road, even if he might miss seeing the Fighting Irish on the schedule.
“I think some people will miss the rivalry, and I will, too, because it’s such a great game,” he said. “But on the other hand, we’ve done this before. And this gives us an opportunity to look at some other scheduling flexibilities that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to look at.
“I’m fine with holding to the spirit of the agreement that was struck before I arrived and we’ll try to take those two years and make them special for our fans, and do something unique.”
3 July 2012: Brand discusses importance of strength of schedule and states he is holding off on schedule programs going forward until he gets an idea how playoff committee will weigh SOS.
14 July 2012: Big Ten-Pac 12 scheduling agreement collapses. David Brandon indicates Michigan will keep its commitments to play Utah home-and home in 2014/5 and to host Oregon State (2015) and Colorado (2016)
12 September 2012: Notre Dame joins Atlantic Coast Conference and agrees to play five ACC teams per year starting in 2014.
25 September 2012: Notre Dame cancels its series with Michigan. The final game is scheduled for the 2014 season.
“The decision to cancel games in 2015-17 was Notre Dame’s and not ours,” said UM athletics director Dave Brandon. “We value our annual rivalry with Notre Dame but will have to see what the future holds for any continuation of the series. This cancellation presents new scheduling opportunities for our program and provides a chance to create some new rivalries.”
In its press release, Michigan stated that the future of the games set for 2020-2031 “…has yet to be determined.”
From the Ann Arbor News:
After Notre Dame announced its new football agreement with the Atlantic Coast Conference, Brandon said he did not receive any contact from Swarbick indicating whether or not Notre Dame was considering dropping Michigan from its future slate.
He said, like everyone else, he was “listening to the quotes Jack was making in the press.” From there, he said he just did the “simple math” of figuring out that Notre Dame wanted to keep USC, Stanford and the service academies on its schedule, and that the future with Michigan was likely in jeopardy.
6 November 2012: Michigan announces home and home series with Arkansas for the 2018 (Ann Arbor) and 2019 (Fayetteville) seasons. UM also announces Brigham Young will be added to the 2015 schedule and shifts the dates of the Oregon State and UNLV games. BYU replaces Notre Dame on the non-conference schedule.
Michigan also announces the additions of Hawaii, Miami (Ohio), and Ball State to the 2016 schedule. Colorado was previously announced as an opponent for that season earlier in the year. Miami (Ohio) will be removed from schedule when Big Ten announces its intent to adopt a nine-game conference schedule in April 2013.
20 November 2012: Maryland announces it will leave ACC and join the Big Ten effective 1 July 2014.
21 November 2012: Rutgers announces it will leave the Big East and join the Big Ten effective 1 July 2014.
4 February 2013: In an interview with Eleven Warriors website, David Brandon discusses the possibilities of nine or ten-game conference schedules. He is quoted as saying the following:
The consequences are that in a world where we go from eight to nine conference games, we would still have the ability to schedule three non-conference games. You could schedule two at home and schedule a home-and-home and make that work. If we were to go to 10 conference games, which some people are suggesting with 14 teams and, certainly, there is merit to that, you avoid the five and four imbalance.
But now you’ve only got the flexibility of scheduling two non-conference games and if you want to play seven home games both of them have to be at home. When you do that, you really put us in a position where we really can’t go on the road to play a big BCS opponent because they aren’t going to schedule you on a one-and-done. They’re going to want to play a home-and-home.
So the consequences of going to 10, when overlaid with the fact that you have to play seven home games, really puts Gene and me in a position where we won’t be traveling to play non-conference away games. I, personally, am concerned about that. Part of what our fans and college football fans want to see are these great intersectional rivalries that can develop or just good matchups.
27 March 2013: Michigan announces the addition of Cincinnati to the 2017 non-conference schedule. The Bearcats will visit Ann Arbor on 9 September.
19 April 2013: ACC releases its 2014 schedule that includes five games with Notre Dame. ND will host Louisville, North Carolina and Wake Forest. The Irish play on the road at Florida State and at Syracuse.
23 April 2013: Conference commissioners announce College Football Playoff will replace BCS starting in 2014.
28 April 2013: Big Ten announces new East-West Division realignment starting in 2014 and nine-game conference schedule to begin in 2016.
9 May 2013: Michigan announces a home-and-home series with Virginia Tech in 2020 (Ann Arbor) and 2021 (Blacksburg).
13 May 2013: Brady Hoke calls Notre Dame “chicken” for backing out of football series.
15 May 2013: Big Ten sets out policy to strengthen non-conference scheduling and to eliminate games against FCS opponents. David Brandon says, “”We want to get out of the business of scheduling games that feel like scrimmages to our fans.”
16 May 2013: Big Ten releases 8-game 2014 conference schedules.
3 June 2013: Big Ten releases 8-game 2015 conference schedules.
11 July 2013: Big Ten releases 9-game 2016 and 2017 conference schedules.
1 September 2013: ND head coach Brian Kelly says he didn’t consider Michigan “one of those historic, traditional Notre Dame rivalries.”
3 September 2013: ND head coach Brian Kelly calls the series against Michigan “a great and historic rivalry”.
4 September 2013: David Brandon indicates he is not talking to Notre Dame about renewing rivalry.
LikeLike
The Arkansas games in 2018/9 were in the works being scheduled prior to Notre Dame’s notice that it was withdrawing from the Michigan series. UM was able to get a two-year hiatus in the schedule games to play the Razorbacks. Why Arkansas? Because their athletic director Jeff Long was an administrator in the UM athletic department when Schembechler was there.
As far as the teams that have actually “replaced” ND on UM’s schedule, the one we can definitely point to is Brigham Young. BYU was added to the schedule in 2015 and and a couple of other games were shifted around that season after Notre Dame announced the end of the series.
Michigan originally had four games scheduled for 2016, including Notre Dame. When ND dropped the series and the Big Ten opted to go to a nine-game conference schedule, UM didn’t actually need to replace the Irish because that fourth non-conference scheduling slot was essentially replaced by an additional B1G game.
As I mentioned above, there are two scheduling slots for 2017 (the only game to date is Cincinnati). It will be telling about how Michigan gets for that season, with their being speculation UM might opt to play a neutral site season opener.
Virginia Tech did fill in the hole in the 2020/1 seasons–that was a swap out. After 2001, however, I imagine UM will start trying to get programs like Oklahoma or LSU or Miami on the schedule.
LikeLike
Great posts +1 to cutter.
LikeLike
To echo @FLP_NDRox: great posts.
After 2001, however, I imagine UM will start trying to get programs like Oklahoma or LSU or Miami on the schedule.
One of the pay boards already reported that Brandon had approached Oklahoma, and been turned down. I believe I read somewhere that Les Miles does not want to play Michigan in the regular season. (Of course, he won’t be at LSU forever, but right now I don’t think they’d agree to that game.)
The problem, as I noted upthread, is that there are a handful of kings, but more than a handful of teams that want to play them. Oklahoma et al are like the Kate Uptons of football: they’re going to get a lot of offers, and can afford to be very selective about which ones they accept.
LikeLike
I was in the Big House and heard fans celebrate when Drew Stanton got hurt. Happens everywhere.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/09/04/fox-to-make-major-push-for-b1g-rights/
Fox to make major push for B1G rights
“I think when the time comes, we will certainly be an active participant in next round of Big Ten rights talks,” said Mike Mulvihill, senior vice president for programming at Fox Sports. “Clearly we have a majority interest in the Big Ten Network. We have an ongoing relationship with the conference with the Big Ten championship game. I think the relationship between our management and Big Ten Conference management is exceptionally strong. I expect that we’ll be a very active participant in those discussions.”
LikeLike
Based on new deals for other conferences, those numbers expect to soar after 2016. But Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany told The Gazette two weeks ago he has no plans to start negotiations for the league’s next deal until fall of 2015.
Which means that if Delany can land teams for the next round of expansion (e.g., Kansas and Texas) by fall 2015, they could be added to negotiations, adding to the Big Ten’s potential value, and they could become part of the conference either in 2017 (which would alter the already-announced football schedule) or 2018.
LikeLike
With most of the other big sports locked up for the foreseeable future, I would be shocked if FOX didn’t go all in to get the Big Ten. ESPN is so heavily invested in the SEC etc. etc. etc. FOX may very well outbid them. One way or the other ESPN or FOX is going to be making a statement with the Big Ten contract. ESPN by denying Fox and proving they are still the only game in town, or FOX by claiming their first ESPN scalp. It all spells a very lucrative, perhaps even exorbitant contract for the B1G.
LikeLike
The next Big Contract will be the NBA, and I could see Comcast/NBC becoming a player for that Contract, and forcing ESPN/TNT to overbid to keep it. Remember, what they bid for NASCAR rights? If NBC wins the ESPN part, I could see ESPN paying dearly for the B10, if not I see Fox getting it. I do not see Texas & Kansas moving just because of a rights fees increase. Why? Bevo (the bull(y)) is not exactly a team player, and I think they love having control just where they are (very similar to Notre Dame & North Carolina). Another issue is their baseball program. If however, the B10 offered Oklahoma along with Texas (ignoring the Academic issue), UT might jump, if it made huge economic sense (this way they could keep OU as a Conference Game), and can schedule Texas teams such as Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU (and perhaps A&M) as Non-Conference Games. It will be very interesting to see what happens.
LikeLike
I doubt Big Ten presidents would waive the AAU requirement just to satisfy Texas’ desire to have Oklahoma tag along. If a Kansas/Texas tandem doesn’t satisfy UT’s needs, the Big Ten simply will wait until the various GOR agreements expire and then make plans.
LikeLike
I think OU brings enough to the conference to waive the AAU anyway especially with Texas as cover.
The Big 12 has a great contract so I don’t see financial reasons for Texas, OU, or Kansas as a reason to leave.
LikeLike
That’s the biggest unknown in re-alignment: just how firm is that AAU “requirement.” We already know that they were willing to waive it for Notre Dame, so it’s clearly not absolute. And they took Nebraska, knowing that it might not be in the AAU much longer.
The league evaluated Oklahoma. Evaluating doesn’t mean inviting, but no smart business wastes much time on options that are categorically impossible. So there probably are scenarios where Oklahoma could get in, and I don’t think anyone on this board really knows what they are.
There’s also the question of geographic contiguity, and how much that matters. If they want Texas, they’d need to take both Kansas and Oklahoma along with it, to remain contiguous. (This assumes all three could shake their in-state partners, which is far from assured.)
It’s a good bet that where money is on the table, people are going to grab it. Imagine UT/OU, UT/NE, OU/NE, and all three against Wisconsin, as annual football games, plus periodic UT/OU games against MI/OSU/PSU. Now imagine KU vs. Indiana, Ohio State, and Michigan, as annual or twice-annual basketball games.
Academically, Texas isn’t just an AAU school; even by AAU standards, it’s extremely strong. Texas plus Oklahoma probably raises the league IQ, even though Oklahoma isn’t AAU.
LikeLike
I’m going to assume you’re simply being a contrarian. Delany and the Presidents would form a conga line down to Austin if TX/OK wanted to make it 16.
LikeLike
Marc, to my mind, if OK/Texas was a package deal, I think they could pull it off. Academic snobs would, of course, hold their nose at Oklahoma … but it would be awfully easy for them to weight that on one side and Texas on the other and decide that on balance getting Texas in that deal is worth the accompanying stink.
LikeLike
I’m going to assume you’re simply being a contrarian. Delany and the Presidents would form a conga line down to Austin if TX/OK wanted to make it 16.
Or he is simply looking at the all available evidence and reaching the obvious conclusion; the Big Ten is unwilling to add any non-AAU schools besides Notre Dame.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame wanted to join the B1G, they would be in the conference. It really is that simple. That the school is a small, private, non-AAU, conservative, religious school in a market (and state) already dominated by the conference is of no import or relevance.
As for Oklahoma, I have to imagine the conference analyzed and studied Okla as a potential target for something more than gripping reading material on a long flight. While the school is not AAU, from all reports it is making great strides academically. Also, don’t underestimate OU President David Boren. He is an extremely well-respected, highly-regarded former governor and senator who has significant clout both in Washington and academia. If he is fully engaged in getting OU into the B1G, in my opinion, that will drastically increase the odds of admission.
LikeLike
Boren is a politician. He was excited to be joining the PAC, in part because of the supposed commitment from them to help OU move closer to AAU. How’d that turn out?
Believe what you like but I’ll start paying some attention after they are invited into the AAU. You’ll still have the OkSU and TT problems they can’t leave unless the B12 disolves…which won’t happen unless they leave…but they can’t leave unless…
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated after Week #1 :
Big 5 schools 46 of 62 = 74.91% of population : 46 of 125 = 36.80% of total
B1G = 10 of 12 => 83.33% remain undefeated
PAC = 09 of 12 => 75.00% remain undefeated
SEC = 10 of 14 => 71.43% remain undefeated
ACC = 10 of 14 => 71.43% remain undefeated
B 12 = 07 of 10 => 70.00% remain undefeated
Non Big 5 schools 27 of 63 = 42.86% of population : 27 of 125 = 21.60% of total
CUSA = 07 of 14 => 50.00% remain undefeated
AAC = 05 of 10 => 50.00% remain undefeated
IND = 03 of 06 => 50.00% remain undefeated
SunB = 04 of 08 => 50.00% remain undefeated
MAC = 05 of 13 => 38.46% remain undefeated
MWC = 03 of 12 => 25.00% remain undefeated
.
…
.
Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold )
ACC Atlantic : Florida State, Boston College, Clemson, Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest
ACC Costal : Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), Virginia
B1G Legends : Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
B1G Leaders : Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
B 12 : Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia, Kansas
PAC North : Oregon, Washington, Stanford
PAC South : Arizona, Colorado, UCLA, Southern Cal, Utah, Arizona State
SEC East : Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee
SEC West : Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Louisiana State, Texas A&M
AAC : Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Central Florida, Memphis
CUSA East : East Carolina, Marshall, Middle Tennessee
CUSA West : North Texas, Tulane, UT – San Antonio, UT – El Paso
IND : Army, Notre Dame, Navy
MAC East : Bowling Green, Kent State
MAC West : Ball State, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois
MWC West : Fresno State, San Jose State / MWC Mountain : Air Force
Sun Belt : Arkansas State, Texas State, Troy, Western Kentucky
.
…
.
Undefeated pairings for week #2
FBS vs FCS
AAC vs FCS : Louisville @ Eastern Kentucky
ACC vs FCS : Richmond @ NC State
B 12 vs FCS : South Dakota @ Kansas
B1G vs FCS : Tennessee Tech @ Wisconsin
CUSA vs FCS : Gardner Webb @ Marshall
MWC vs FCS : Cal Poly @ Fresno State
PAC vs FCS : Weber State @ Utah
PAC vs FCS : Central Arkansas @ Colorado
SEC vs FCS : Samford @ Arkansas
SEC vs FCS : Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M
FBS vs FBS
AAC vs B1G : Cincinnati @ Illinois
AAC vs ACC : Duke @ Memphis
ACC vs SEC : Florida @ Miami (FL)
ACC vs PAC : Oregon @ Virginia
B 12 vs CUSA : Oklahoma State @ UT – San Antonio
B1G vs MAC : Eastern Michigan @ Penn State
B1G vs IND : Navy @ Indiana
B1G vs IND : Notre Dame @ Michigan
IND vs MAC : Army @ Ball State
MWC vs PAC : San Jose State @ Stanford
SEC vs SunB : Western Kentucky @ Tennessee
SEC vs SunB : Arkansas State @ Auburn
FBS conference vs FBS conference
ACC vs ACC : Wake Forest @ Boston College
B 12 vs B 12 : West Virginia @ Oklahoma
MAC vs MAC : Bowling Green @ Kent State
LikeLike
Results of week #1
AP – Boise State and Oregon State dropped out
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 South Carolina, #7 Texas A&M, #9 LSU, #11 Georgia, #12 Florida
(5) PAC : #2 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #20 Washington, #25 Southern Cal
(5) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #17 Michigan, #19 Northwestern, #21 Wisconsin, #22 Nebraska
(5) B12 : #13 Oklahoma State, #15 Texas, #16 Oklahoma, #23 Baylor, #24 TCU
(2) ACC : #4 Clemson, #10 Florida State
(1) AAC : #8 Louisville
(1) IND : #14 Notre Dame
USA – Boise State and Oregon State dropped out
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 South Carolina, #7 Texas A&M, #9 Florida, #11 LSU, #12 Georgia
(5) B1G : #2 Ohio State, #17 Michigan, #19 Nebraska, #20 Northwestern, #21 Wisconsin
(5) PAC : #3 Oregon, #4 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #22 Southern Cal, #23 Washington
(4) B12 : #14 Oklahoma State, #15 Oklahoma, #16 Texas, #24 TCU
(3) ACC : #5 Clemson, #10 Florida State, #24 Miami (FL)
(1) AAC : #8 Louisville
(1) IND : #13 Notre Dame
.
…
.
ACC : B5 = 2-4 : NB5 = 4-0 : FCS = 4-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = (10) teams
ACC (1-1) : B1G (0-1) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (1-2) : AAC (DNP) : IND (1-0)
CUSA (3-0) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (4-0)
B 12 : B5 = 1-1 : NB5 = 3-0 : FCS = 2-2 : OFF = ONE :: U = (7) teams
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (1-1) : AAC (1-0) : IND (1-0)
CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (1-0) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (2-2)
B1G : B5 = 2-0 : NB5 = 6-2 : FCS = 2-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = (10) teams
ACC (1-0) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (1-0) : SEC (DNP) : AAC (0-1) : IND ()
CUSA (DNP) : MAC (4-1) : MWC (2-0) : SunB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (2-0)
PAC : B5 = 0-2 : NB5 = 5-0 : FCS = 2-1 : OFF = TWO :: U = (9) teams
ACC (DNP) : B1G (0-1) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (0-1) : AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP)
CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (5-0) : SunB (DNP) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (2-1)
SEC : B5 = 5-3 : NB5 = 3-1 : FCS = 2-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = (10) teams
ACC (2-1) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (1-1) : PAC (1-0) : SEC (1-1) : AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP)
CUSA (1-0) : MAC (1-0) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (1-1) : WAC (DNP) : FCS (2-0)
ACC () : B1G () : B12 () : PAC () : SEC () : AAC () : IND ()
CUSA () : MAC () : MWC () : SunB () : WAC () : FCS ()
.
Best schedulers = SEC and ACC : Lots of B5 games and nobody was OFF
Worst schedulers = B 12 and PAC : Few B5 games and 3 teams OFF
.
Observations :
The B1G has 10 undefeated teams – the good
Penn State can not play for a MNC – the bad
Some bad games out of the gate and too much MAC – the ugly
The B12 upside
– Oklahoma State played the SEC on a neutral site and won
– TCU played a Top 25 team in LSU and were competitive in loss
– Texas Tech played @ SMU in the new AAC and won
The B12 downside
– Kansas did not play
– 4 teams opened with FCS schools and 2 of them lost at home
– Texas and Oklahoma opened against bad FBS teams
LikeLike
What’s with the B1G sign on a brick building situated east of 294 near the new Fashion Outlets of Chicago in Rosemont?
LikeLike
New B1G headquarters? I recall reading they were building new digs near their old ones.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten is building their new headquarters in Rosemont. It’s going to be close to the new mall with a conference museum and Fogo de Chao restaurant on the ground floor (which, if you’ve ever been to one, is a monument to meat).
LikeLike
In other words, go very hungry. And you don’t always need to have your card on green (if you go you will understand). Patience is rewarded.
LikeLike
For more info: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120716/CRED03/120719847/big-ten-to-build-new-hq-in-rosemont
LikeLike
U$C finally controls the Collesum (and the LA Memorial Sports Arena).
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/college-football/story/_/id/9638471/usc-takes-control-los-angeles-memorial-coliseum
LikeLike
What would the university do with the Sports Arena now that its basketball teams no longer play there? Could it raze the building without city interference for another athletic/academic structure?
LikeLike
“The university also takes over control of the Sports Arena and has already looked into tearing down the 54-year-old facility and developing a 22,000-seat soccer stadium that could house a Major League Soccer team.”
Seattle Sounders often sell out Century Link and they want a 22,000 seat LA soccer facility?
LikeLike
Great ESPN article on the historic beginning of the UM/ND game. After a cancellation on Michigan’s schedule they ventured down to South Bend, spent an hour teaching them the rules, then played the game. A week later Notre Dame hired their first official coach (one of Michigan’s lineman). Hopefully Kelly read it.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9640836/the-historic-notre-dame-michigan-rivalry-never-really-gone
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/09/will_nebraska_challenge_ohio_s.html
I thought this poll might interest any Husker fans here, as well as other B10 fans. A Cleveland paper’s website polled readers about NE’s future in the B10:
a. Form a Big 3 with OSU and MI
b. Perform like PSU and WI
c. Perform like MSU and IA
d. Become a lower tier team
Results so far:
a. 12%
b. 71%
c. 15%
d. 2%
Obviously this is skewed by its assumptions and by the audience (mostly OSU fans). I thought it was an interesting insight into how some outsiders view NE, though. I’ll note that the suggested tiers (1. OSU and MI, 2. PSU and WI, 3. MSU and IA, 4. Other) are based on the B10 records of the teams since PSU joined in 1993. Past history is no guarantee of future results, of course, but that was his basis for choosing those tiers.
It leads me to ask everyone here:
How do you see these next 20 years going in the B10? In 2033, what will people say the tiers of the B10 are based on past success? Feel free to answer based on 1993-2033, 2011-2033 and/or 2014-2033. Assume no further expansion just so everyone works with the same set of teams.
LikeLike
I don’t think it will change at the top:
1) Ohio St., Nebraska, Michigan, Penn St.
2) Michigan St., Wisconsin, Illinois
3) Iowa, Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue
4) Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland
LikeLike
I think Iowa will continue their slide. Purdue will recede. Rutgers and Illinois will improve. Michigan St. will continue their upward movement. The rest pretty much stay the same. If I have a favorite B10 team, it would be IU. That’s kind of like being a Kentucky football fan in the SEC-you’re pretty much neutral since you’re mostly irrelevant.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think it will change at the top:
1) Ohio St., Nebraska, Michigan, Penn St.
2) Michigan St., Wisconsin, Illinois
3) Iowa, Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue
4) Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland”
Interesting picks. IL will finally find a solid coach again, huh? I suppose they’re due.
My rough guess:
1. OSU, MI, NE, WI
2. PSU, NW
3. MSU, RU, PU
4. UMD, IN, IA, IL, MN
Explanations:
1. The West is weaker, so WI moves up to the top group. Nobody else in that divisions has shown the ability to step up, and someone has to win those division games. I think either Pelini fixes NE or they find a coach who will. Still, he’s winning 9 games every year.
2. Between the sanctions and having OSU and MI in the division, PSU slips a notch over this period. Once they’re back to full strength (2018 or so), they should be on par with the top teams but odds are someone suffers from 3 kings being grouped together.
3. MSU slips due to the harder schedule and RU does well once they join. PU gets the easier division plus a locked IN game, so I picked them to be the next best team in the West.
4. Someone has to lose in the east, and I picked IN and UMD. I have IA slipping because Ferentz is a pretty good coach and he couldn’t sustain top level success at IA. I’m guessing IA struggles to find the right replacement for him, so they have a few down years before finding “the guy.”
I expect the bottom teams to be better than they have been in a while, though. Just because your record isn’t good doesn’t mean your team is bad. I also expect a wide range of success amongst the tier 4 teams.
LikeLike
I thoroughly disagree with Rutgers, Iowa and Penn State. First on Rutgers: Michigan, Nebraska & Wisconsin on the Road, and Ohio State & Penn State @ Home (good luck). As far as Iowa is concerned, once they finally decide to replace Ferentz (and a loss @ Iowa State coupled with another losing record may do that), they should be able to get a decent Coach to take that job, and things will turn around quickly in Iowa City. As far as Penn State is concerned (assuming Bill O’Brien remains), things are not that bad. While it is true, we play Ohio State and Michigan this year and next (as well as Central Florida (UCF), Indiana and Illinois), it must be pointed out that after this year, Nebraska & Wisconsin are leaving our Schedule (in fact, neither will be back, until 2017 (Nebraska)) . I am looking at our 2016 schedule (first year off probation), and we have a real chance to win the B10 and maybe the National Championship. Why? Home: Kent State, Temple, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio State, Iowa & Michigan State, Away: Pitt, Michigan (the key game on that schedule), Purdue, Indiana & Rutgers. The key game BOTH in 2013 & 2014 will be UCF. If we can win them, an 8 win Season is likely this year and perhaps even 10 next.
LikeLike
The problem with Penn State is nobody knows how good the program can really be in the Big Ten. Joe Paterno was 66 years old, turning 67 that December, Penn State’s first season in Big Ten play. The program started to decline not too long after in the mid to late 90’s as Paterno himself admitted he didn’t really recruit as much as he use too. Now after being finally rid of Paterno, who at the end cared only about keeping his job so he wouldnt die right after like Bear Bryant (something he mentioned a few times), the program was hit is debilitating sanctions. The resources are their (location, money, alumni, recruiting grounds in the east without much completion) to be a top 10 program annually but who knows how it will play out.
LikeLike
USC and Alabama have been on probation a lot. Until Spurrier, Florida could never win a title they didn’t have to vacate. Auburn is pretty much the same way (although the NCAA gave them a pass on Cam Newton). Ohio St. went on probation and went unbeaten. I don’t see any reason Penn St. can’t come back.
LikeLike
1) Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska
2) Penn State, Wisconsin, wild card
3) Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, Maryland
4) Minnesota, Indiana, Rutgers
Kings tend to remain kings, so the top tier is obvious. Nebraska has the additional advantage of playing in the presumed weaker division.
I am a mild Penn State skeptic, not because they won’t recover from the sanctions (they will), but because even in Paterno’s heydey, they benefited somewhat from playing a weaker schedule, an advantage they no longer have. Wisconsin is in tier 2, because someone’s gotta win the West in Nebraska’s off years, and they seem to have a replicable template for doing so.
I suspect there’ll be another wild card in the west that wins the division maybe one year out of every five or six, but I don’t see a clear favorite for who that’ll be. Gun to head, I’d say Northwestern.
Michigan State and Maryland are going to struggle based purely on schedule, but every once in a while they’ll surprise some people. I’m not a Maryland expert, but Sparty has a long history of reverting to the mean, which for them is mediocrity, tempered by playing the spoiler occasionally.
Minnesota, Indiana, and Rutgers have been doormats for decades, and the burden is on them to prove they can be anything but doormats going forward.
LikeLike
Maryland football finalizes schedules through 2019, including home-and-home with Syracuse
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/09/05/maryland-football-finalizes-schedules-through-2019-including-home-and-home-with-syracuse/
LikeLike
That’s very interesting. The article has the home/away Big Ten schedule from Maryland even though it doesn’t have the dates in 2018/2019. Did the conference release that or release a scheduling formula?
Non-divisional teams for Maryland
2018: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois
2019: Purdue, Nebraska, Minnesota
LikeLike
No, that’s news to me. I guess 6 of the games are a given each year, but the crossovers provide new info.
UMD crossovers:
2014 –
2015 –
2016 – @NE, MN, PU
2017 – @WI, @MN, NW
2018 – @IA, MN, IL
2019 – NE, @MN, @PU
2019 is the mirror of 2016. Will that continue for 2020 and 2021?
NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, PU – 1/3
MN – 4/4
Will it be 6 years of MN, then 6 years of NW (or IL) and then 6 years of IL (or NW)?
LikeLike
That’s the scheduling setup that I had predicted.
LikeLike
I knew someone predicted it, but wasn’t sure who and didn’t want to guess incorrectly.
Is it just me, or is it a little strange that the B10 still refuses to tell us how that system will work? Once they’re committed to it, why not explain it to everybody?
LikeLike
I wonder if the paper is missing something and hope it is. I don’t get the logic in having one team they play 4 years in a row. That greatly diminishes the chances for full cross division play.
LikeLike
Interesting how many B12 games the Terps have on their future schedules.
LikeLike
MD-WV have played 32 times since 1980 (more than MI-ND since 1978) and the only other XII school on the schedule is one home & home against Texas with the MD game at FexEx.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9642325/transfer-rules-change-next-season-ncaa-says
Some positive change from the NCAA is in the works. It looks like they may soon change the transfer rules so a player can dictate where he goes rather than schools having to give permission.
LikeLike
One simple way to deal with it. Make the President rather than the coach responsible for refusing a request and make the President send a letter explaining why. That would pretty much end any denials. A bunch of coaches are total sleezeballs. Presidents may not be much different, but they care about their reputation.
LikeLike
I believe that schools should be able to keep a player from going to a team on their schedule. That way no player is expected to give up secrets from their previous school.
Other than that, I see no need for restrictions.
LikeLike
This is going to dramatically increase the pool of players to be recruited…
The B5 are the Bigs, and the other conferences are the developmental leagues.
LikeLike
The B5 aren’t going to recruit from the rest. Players transfer for playing time. That’s why 40% of the basketball players and probably the same % of QBs. At Texas I would guess closer to 75%. Gilbert is starting for SMU. Wood is starting for Colorado. Others have left as well. The Ole Miss QB from a few years back, Snead, lost out to Colt McCoy.
LikeLike
That’s under the old rules. Sometimes players don’t pan out. Are you suggesting UT couldn’t have used an upgrade at a few positions over the last few years? This would offer the opportunity for coaches to revisit erroneous recruiting decisions.
LikeLike
The B5 Schools are not always MLB (see Penn State & Northwestern Hoops compared to say Butler or Gonzaga), while the others are Minor Leagues. Lets look at Hoops, on a Conference Basis. Top to bottom the “New Big East” is certainly better than the PAC, and perhaps better than the BIG XII. As for the “Right” to Transfer without penalty, that “Right” is a wrong. What about the athlete who forgets the word “Student” in Student-Athlete? they can basically go from an AAU School to say West Virginia or Florida State just to play sports. That is not right or fair. In order to make this right AND fair, the athlete should have to maintain a minimum of a 2.0 GPA at the Old School before being allowed to transfer (this of course, should be the minimum standard, Schools should (and will) have different Academic Requirements).
LikeLike
This is going to dramatically increase the pool of players to be recruited…
I don’t think so. The proposal (not yet adopted, mind you) is to eliminate the coach’s ability to prevent a transfer. If adopted, the transferring athlete would still be required to sit out a year, absent the very limited hardship conditions that are only rarely satisfied.
The one-year waiting period, more than anything, is what deters transfers. Allow them to play immediately, and the era of true college sports free-agency would begin. I think they’re going to be very reluctant to permit that. All they’re doing, is taking control of the transfer decision away from the coach.
There’s also the APR issue: right now, the team takes a hit when a player transfers. If you make transferring a lot easier, then is it still fair to penalize the original school?
Anything is possible, coming from an agency that specializes in hypocrisy, but the NCAA surely knows that most of these transfers are for playing time. If you allow transfers at all, you’ve got to acknowledge that in most cases the original school has done nothing wrong, and shouldn’t be penalized when players leave. All that has happened, is that in the course of normal competition, the athlete did not realize his sports objectives, and decides to seek them elsewhere. If you have 85 players on scholarship, not all can play.
On the other hand, the NCAA does want to penalize schools whose players fail to make adequate academic progress, so they have to figure out how to do that without imposing too big of a hit on “innocent” transfers.
The B5 are the Bigs, and the other conferences are the developmental leagues.
The B5 are bigs only in football. And even in football, there are B5 programs (like Duke) that are competitively below the better mid-majors.
LikeLike
Are Butler and Gonzaga going to be able to compete with B5 full cost of attendance/plus stipend? It isn’t going to be the bottom of the B5 only that will have this available. Coach Cal will wet himself with excitement if this happens.
LikeLike
Marc:
“I don’t think so. The proposal (not yet adopted, mind you) is to eliminate the coach’s ability to prevent a transfer. If adopted, the transferring athlete would still be required to sit out a year, absent the very limited hardship conditions that are only rarely satisfied.”
There is no legal way to prevent a transfer anywhere. The only NCAA control is over eligibility, and sitting a year (whether RS or not) satisfies all their requirements.
Even when an NLOI has been signed, but before the student has attended a class, one year sanction applies. During that year he is unable to receive athletic aid. Often coaches/AD’s will grant releases when the student has in fact already transferred and there is no hope of retaining him.
LikeLike
I should have added that granting a release doesn’t make him immediately eligible but it allows for the transfer to receive aid.
LikeLike
There is no legal way to prevent a transfer anywhere. The only NCAA control is over eligibility, and sitting a year (whether RS or not) satisfies all their requirements.
It’s a bit like saying that there is no legal way to prevent an athlete from getting paid for his services, or no legal way to prevent an athlete from accepting free tattoos. That’s all true, along with 1,000 other things, but once you do it, you’re no longer an NCAA-eligible athlete.
The only question worth discussing is what you can do, or ought to be able to do, while remaining NCAA eligible. Everyone already knows that once you leave the NCAA’s envelope, you’re free to come and go as you please.
LikeLike
You don’t lose eligibility when transferring unless you’ve used your RS year. That is a team and athlete decision. There is (or has been) a rule that waives the year you must sit out when transferring if you have graduated and “need” to enroll elsewhere for post graduate classes (Russell Wilson immediately eligible at Wiscy).
I don’t believe a change in the NCAA rules would effect the B1G’s own rules regarding in conference transfers. If this happens how long until someone cries he wants to immediately be at OSU rather than IU and the NCAA rules allow it, but not the B1G’s? Isn’t protecting members from themselves a roll of the conference, and more broadly the NCAA?
LikeLike
And most football players use their redshirt year their freshman year. So effectively you are taking a year of eligibility away by refusing to approve the transfer.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Agreed.
But it is the school/athlete choosing to do that, RSing as a fr is not the NCAA requiring it. Plus the NCAA straight up allows one who RS as fr and graduates in three or four to transfer with immediate eligibility.
Are there any restrictions you would find acceptable? Or is it college version of permenantly yearly free agency?
LikeLike
I could see something like an in-conference restriction unless there was a hardship. Those are the people who would be most likely to “recruit.” I’m on the schools’ side on professionalism, but I believe the players should have the rights to go where it best fits them. Many schools and coaches are not fair to players. Look at what Les Miles did to that player who had already moved into the dorm. I’ve got zero sympathy for the coaches on this. They already have all the power.
LikeLike
Isn’t that Miles problem an over signing issue, not a transfer deal?
LikeLike
Why should the school have any say? The players aren’t slaves and they aren’t under contract, so there should be no grounds for the school to have any say. If the NCAA doesn’t change policy, the courts will. It’s a shame it has taken so long for this basic conversation to happen.
LikeLike
If they are going to be committed to four year scholarships I’d think it fair they have some leverage in discouraging penalty less transfers.
LikeLike
I doubt we ever see four year scholarships – the coaches don’t want them.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Why should the school have any say?”
Because some coaches are miserable human beings that would recruit someone solely to steal a playbook from a rival. Since these are student-athletes, their focus should be on academics and not school-hopping to screw over a former coach. Besides, the player can always transfer and not play. These rules only deal with how a player can be eligible right away.
“The players aren’t slaves and they aren’t under contract,”
Actually, they mostly are under contract. That’s why they have to get permission from the school right now. The issue at hand would be changing the contract.
“If the NCAA doesn’t change policy, the courts will.”
No they won’t, because the rules only apply to sports eligibility. Players are welcome to transfer as students. They can even transfer and lose a year of eligibility.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I doubt we ever see four year scholarships – the coaches don’t want them.”
You mean the ones the NCAA authorized in 2011 and overcame an override attempt in 2012 and that schools have started giving out already? Those four-year scholarships?
LikeLike
I believe that schools should be able to keep a player from going to a team on their schedule. That way no player is expected to give up secrets from their previous school.
I’m not convinced that’s a big issue. Pro athletes change teams mid-season all the time, and you don’t hear of many cases where the secrets they know make a competitive difference. College athletes only transfer in the off-season. By the time they’d be practicing with their new team, anything proprietary that they know would be six months outdated.
Besides, the player can always transfer and not play. These rules only deal with how a player can be eligible right away.
I believe that is incorrect. There are two rules applicable here. One, you need your coach’s permission to transfer. Two, unless a hardship exists, you must sit out a year.
Even with the coach’s permission, you’re going to sit out a year unless one of the allowable hardship conditions is satisfied, and this is very rare. Without the coach’s permission, you are not going to transfer at all.
Of course, you could become a just-plain student, and not transfer as an athlete. These rules govern people who transfer and receive an athletic scholarship at the new institution. If you choose not to play sports any more, then you’re just like a chemistry or history student: you can go anywhere that accepts you, whenever you want.
“I doubt we ever see four year scholarships – the coaches don’t want them.”
You mean the ones the NCAA authorized in 2011 and overcame an override attempt in 2012 and that schools have started giving out already? Those four-year scholarships?
Not all schools are giving them; and many of those that do are selective about who gets them; but yes, they do exist.
LikeLike
“I believe that is incorrect. There are two rules applicable here. One, you need your coach’s permission to transfer. Two, unless a hardship exists, you must sit out a year.”
No, Brian is correct. Indentured servitude ended long ago.
Players are free now to transfer to FCS and be immediately eligible. D1 to D1 is restricted, and move ups are too. It is specifically to discourage the power schools from raiding competitors or the lesser schools.
If 40% of basketball players are already transferring I don’t see a problem that needs fixing. Unless we are striving to have commitments mean nothing and recruiting continue until eligibility is exhausted.
LikeLike
No, Brian is correct. Indentured servitude ended long ago.
Players are free now to transfer to FCS and be immediately eligible. D1 to D1 is restricted, and move ups are too. It is specifically to discourage the power schools from raiding competitors or the lesser schools.
Brian didn’t qualify it that way, so I believe he was incorrect. You are right that players can transfer down without the same restriction, but the transfers under discussion are not that kind.
If 40% of basketball players are already transferring I don’t see a problem that needs fixing.
Is that a bad thing? Whether the number is 4% or 40%, is it right that the coach can prevent you from transferring, or restrict the set of schools you can transfer to?
Brian raised the issue of players transferring to schools on their current team’s future schedule. Even assuming that’s a problem, the current rule does not limit it to that. Coaches can prevent or limit transfers for no reason at all.
Unless we are striving to have commitments mean nothing…
The current commitment system is mainly one-sided, with most of the power being in the school’s hands. This is unsurprising, bearing in mind who wrote the rules.
The current rules permit four-year scholarships, but many programs still don’t give them, or give them only selectively. If the school’s commitment is for only one year, then why should the athlete’s be any more than that?
Even granting your assumption, if they are going to allow transfers at all (as they clearly do), then what should the rules be?
…and recruiting continue until eligibility is exhausted.
Under current rules, coaches can’t recruit a player who is already at another school, until the player obtains his release from the coach. That wouldn’t change. The only thing that would change is the coach’s ability to restrict the set of schools the player can transfer to.
LikeLike
No. The coach can only restrict what D1 schools may give the transfer athletic aid immediately. They cannot stop a transfer if the student is willing to pay for a year of school himself, or when he is eligible following it.
LikeLike
The coach can only restrict what D1 schools may give the transfer athletic aid immediately. They cannot stop a transfer if the student is willing to pay for a year of school himself, or when he is eligible following it.
But the only issue worth talking about is what you can do, while remaining eligible for a scholarship. To point out that no one is forced to be a scholarship athlete is an empty statement. No one cares what you are allowed to do outside of NCAA jurisdiction, as the whole discussion here is about NCAA athletics.
LikeLike
Absolutely incorrect. Many have transferred against a coaches wishes and footed the bill themselves (or found creative financing, general aid, etc). As I said it is not unusual for a release to be granted once the kid is actually gone. The point isn’t to deny someone else but rather to retain those they value, recruited, and invested in (and have a contract with).
LikeLike
Just because you aren’t on scollie doesn’t mean you aren’t just as much under NCAA jurisdiction.
Pointing out a student is in fact free to transfer, at a cost, is precisely the point. They signed an agreement and its not unreasonable to fave a cost associated with breaking it.
LikeLike
@cc
There is almost no recruiting on these transfers. The players aren’t getting what they want at the existing school. There obviously is a risk it could happen. But ultimately you have jerks as coaches who don’t want to help a player who isn’t contributing at their existing school. In some cases they are trying to drive them away but don’t want anyone else to benefit.
There’s very little reciprocity on the loyalty you seem to demand of the players. Coaches change. Promises are broken. Some coaches try to push players out.
LikeLike
I agree many get pushed out, usually because of discipline problems and occasionally because they have a better alternative. Every case I’ve seen it involved giving the student their release. Many times the coaches have actually helped get the kid into another program. By granting a release there is significant $ savings and/or a freed up scholarship for a grey shirt or walkon to use immediately.
LikeLike
@cc
There are many coaches that are that way. That’s Mack Brown’s approach. Mettenberger got kicked off Georgia for discipline issues and he was expected at the time to beat out Aaron Murray. Mark Richt isn’t going to do anything to hurt those players. He’s now playing at LSU.
But the fact is that some coaches abuse the power. They shouldn’t have that right.
LikeLike
“There’s very little reciprocity on the loyalty you seem to demand of the players.”
What more is expected of the school (that is who they sign with, not the coach) than to honor the scholarship they offered? Do they have to provide playing time, starting spot, choice of position?
Maybe I’m wrong but if a player is removed from scollarship or dismissed I believe he is then free to transfer and get aid immediately. Still subject to 1year D1 to D1 non competition rule though. That might be something to look at…but playing devils advocate: intentionally get booted to be able to transfer and play immediately?
LikeLike
They often sign for a particular coach. The head coach often leaves or gets fired. The position coaches usually leave. And the schools don’t honor the scholarship or try to push the players out.
What benefit do the players get from the restriction? If they aren’t getting what they need, they should be free to go without penalty. What value is there on this restriction other than the limited value of making recruiting players under scholarship less “profitable” (which is already a violation). And if they have that rule for that purpose, doesn’t that indicate that some of the coaches can’t be trusted?
LikeLike
So an NOLI serves no purpose? You’re advocating complete free agency. A kid can leave now, and they do. They just know a release will be necessary for immediate scholarship from a D1 (but not required to transfer).
If a kid can change their mind any time with no consequence then the school should be able to also. Only the most unscrupulous don’t renew the scholarships currently without just cause (rule violations, academics responsibilities, legal issues, etc). Why limit to 25/yr? Lets recruit as many as possible and assign schollies to the top 85 after they have arrived. Why limit to 85? That’s not in the players interest.
Or should we guarantee a fixed number of scholarships in exchange for assurance of a longer term commitment?
LikeLike
There are a lot of unscrupulous coaches who run people off. And for the players its their whole career. For the school its one player out of 85 who they probably aren’t using anyway or they wouldn’t want to transfer.
LikeLike
Yes, there are some that will try to run a kid off to free up a scholarship. There are almost none that try to pull a scollie without cause.
You don’t think a good QB with a mediocre team, or an very good backup at a good school wouldn’t hear through the grape vine that U$C or UT wouldn’t turn a transfer away that was able to contribute immediately if open transfer was the rule?
LikeLike
To be clear, I’m not suggesting the coaches necessarily would be actively involved. It would increase the incentive for and effectiveness of “inappropriate” booster involvement. Some schools/conferences have enough problems with that now.
LikeLike
You don’t think a good QB with a mediocre team, or an very good backup at a good school wouldn’t hear through the grape vine that U$C or UT wouldn’t turn a transfer away that was able to contribute immediately if open transfer was the rule?
You’re arguing a strawman. The “sitting out one year” rule is still going to be a huge deterrent. All we are talking about is whether, once the athlete is transferring anyway, the coach can limit which schools he is allowed to consider.
I suspect that the reason this rule is under discussion is because some coaches have used it unscrupulously. If every coach behaved honorably, perhaps it wouldn’t be an issue.
LikeLike
Marc:
I hope you’re right, but part of the argument was that transferring would cost that year hurting those who have used their RS. Not sure if its allowed in FB but I’ve seen releases in wrestling that allowed for immediate D1 to D1 competition.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, I’m hearing that the Mizzou/Illinois football series will be renewed. The current disagreement is between MU wanting a 3 game deal, 1 in Columbia, 1 in St. Louis, and 1 in Champaign-Urbana, and Illinois wanting a 4 game deal with 2 games in St. Louis. Seems odd to me that Missouri would not agree to this. Hopefully Illinois gets their way and we get a 4 year deal that is renewed for 4 more years right afterwards.
LikeLike
Andy, your second part is a bit vague?
3 game = 1 home, 1 neutral, 1 away
4 game = 1 home, 2 neutral, 1 away
or
4 game = 2 @ Illinois and 2 St Louis / neutral
LikeLike
4 game = 1 home, 2 neutral, 1 away
LikeLike
Seems like a no brainer then for Illinois. Ties up OOC games with regional appeal.
LikeLike
@Andy – I’d be all for it. The main thing for Illinois is how to balance this series out to ensure that the school has 7 home games in Champaign every year (which, for better or for worse, is an athletic department mandate). It would definitely be strange if Mizzou didn’t agree to that setup. I hope it gets done since it’s probably the best reasonably possible non-conference series for both schools (assuming that KU won’t talk to Mizzou and Illinois isn’t ever going to get to schedule Notre Dame).
LikeLike
I think Mizzou is wanting home games now too as they are expanding their stadium at the moment.
I think the biggest thing with Mizzou is maybe they don’t want to commit too far in the future because they’re hoping to get Kansas to agree to restart that series. But I think as long as Kansas won’t play us (and that might last a long time) Illinois is our best option. And if you ask me, Illinois is just as good of an option overall anyway.
LikeLike
“I think that the Big East will expand,” Greg Christopher said. “From ten to 12. I don’t think that it’s [set] in stone, but it dos appear that things are headed that way.”
“The timing is the issue,” Christopher continued. “I don’t know that it’s next year, but I would say that it’s in the next five years. The four schools, the only thing that I can tell you, being someone that’s new walking in the door, is what’s been in the media. I don’t think anyone who follows this doesn’t already know: Richmond, Dayton, St. Louis, and VCU. “
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/05/xavier-athletic-director-i-think-that-the-big-east-will-expand-video/
Btw, for those who care, the Big East official site finally went online. I had no idea when it happened but I just checked while reading the above story.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/23529111/sports-illustrated-to-allege-series-of-violations-at-oklahoma-st
SI is going to accuse OkSU of violations, including an assistant paying players.
OrSU better watch out, SI seems to be going in alphabetical order.
LikeLike
Hoke’s challenge bothered me more than Gardner’s panic toss, just like that pathetic 12 yard punt bothered me more than the ND touchdown that resulted. Overall, thrilled with Gardner’s poise, patience and duel threat ability. Look out OSU.
LikeLike
In Sports Illustrated‘s recap of the Michigan–ND game, they confirm my suspicion of why ND canceled the rivalry:
This was as I suspected: of the games Notre Dame could plausibly postpone (they weren’t going to drop Navy, USC, or Stanford, and no one should have expected them to), the Michigan deal had the most flexibility.
What I hadn’t known, was that it was Michigan who requested that flexibility. The deal pre-dates Brandon, so you can’t blame him. Whoever suggested allowing either side to cancel on three years’ notice was a numskull. Given the normal scheduling interval for “king vs. king” games, it should have been five or seven years, not three.
LikeLike
Marc-
The contract with Purdue runs through 2021. Michigan State has games with Notre Dame on their future schedules through 2024, but with breaks in 2014/5 (to play Oregon) and 2020/1 (to play Miami-FL). Northwestern has two games scheduled with Notre Dame in 2014 and 2018. Here’s ND’s B1G opponents from 2014 through 2024:
2014 – Michigan, at Purdue, Northwestern
2015 – Purdue
2016 – at Purdue, Michigan State
2017 – Purdue, at Michigan State
2018 – at Purdue, Michigan State, at Northwestern
2019 – Purdue, at Michigan State
2020 – at Purdue
2021 – Purdue
2022 – Michigan State
2023 – at Michigan State
2024 – Michigan State
From everything I’ve read, Swarbrick asked for an out-and-out postponement of a series that was supposed to run through the 2031 season. But did he really need to do that?
Looking at the schedule above, it’s clear that he didn’t have to cancel the entire series. At the minimum, for example, he could have asked Michigan for a hiatus through 2024 if his long-term intent is to only play one Big Ten team per year.
If that wasn’t the case and he felt he had room to play two B1G teams each season, then Michigan could have rolled right back onto the schedule after the planned 2018/9 hiatus that UM asked for to play a home-and-home with Arkansas (whose AD Jeff Long used to be in the athletic department at Michigan).
Notre Dame scheduled a four-game series with Texas that was announced in August 2010 for the 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020 seasons. The first three games were scheduled season openers. ND’s 2015/6 seasons would have opened the year with back-to-back games with UT and UM (kind of like Georgia opening this year at Clemson, then hosting South Carolina). I rather expect that was as much motivation for Swarbrick to move Michigan off the 2015/6 and 2020 schedules as any stipulation in the contract.
Keep in mind that Michigan State isn’t on the 2015 schedule, so there was a slot to keep UM on the schedule for one more year. But Swarbrick didn’t do that. Instead, he was able to get Temple to move its 2014 game to 2015 in July 2013 and the Owls became the 12th team on Notre Dame’s schedule. While the date hasn’t been confirmed yet, I won’t be too shocked to see Temple put into the second week of the season where Michigan was originally scheduled (as I doubt he’ll want to play at Clemson, at Virginia or at at Stanford right after the Texas game).
Brandon has said that he and Swarbrick aren’t having any discussions and I rather suspect their relationship isn’t congenial. Seeiing that the Notre Dame team left Michigan Stadium to the “Chicken Dance” song, I rather suspect it’ll be awhile before UM and ND play one another in the regular season.
LikeLike
@cutter: It seems most of the Michigan faithful are trying to find evil intent in Swarbrick’s actions. Assuming the SI story is accurate (and I’ve seen no reason to doubt it), Swarbrick canceled the UM series simply because it was the one with the easiest “out,” which coincidentally Michigan had asked for.
You make a superficially persuasive case for keeping the 2015 game, but Swarbrick said at the time that he didn’t know what his ACC schedule was going to look like, and he had only 10 days to give notice to Brandon. As it turned out, he needed to move one of his contracted 2014 games (Temple) to 2015, and that left ND with no further flexibility.
Looking at the schedule above, it’s clear that he didn’t have to cancel the entire series. At the minimum, for example, he could have asked Michigan for a hiatus through 2024 if his long-term intent is to only play one Big Ten team per year.
I am pretty sure that Swarbrick, will re-up with Purdue, which is their longest-standing annual Big Ten rival. (Also, as Purdue is one of the league’s least sexy teams, they’d really be screwed if ND decided to stop playing them, as they’d struggle to get opponents of that stature to come to West Lafayette. It’s the only game Purdue plays that is always nationally televised.) I think Swarbrick’s flexibility returns after 2024.
Reading between the lines, I agree that Brandon and Swarbrick may not have the most cordial of relationships right now.
LikeLike
Of course, with the B1G going to nine games in 2016 Michigan’s hands will be tied and I think there’s been reports they were looking to get out in time for the ’16 game in South Bend. I want to say that when the Michigan game re-upped around the time when the B1G was looking to go to sixteen, but I didn’t have time to look this morning. I would imagine that UM put in that easy out clause to give them flexibility in case of a 9 or 10 game conference slate in the future. Either way, I think next year’s game will be an exceptionally hard ticket.
LikeLike
Of course, with the B1G going to nine games in 2016 Michigan’s hands will be tied and I think there’s been reports they were looking to get out in time for the ’16 game in South Bend.
That could very well be the case, but it pre-dates Brandon. Under his predecessor, Michigan had dumbed down its non-conference schedule (other than ND), and it could be they were looking to go even farther in that direction.
Brandon now wants a premier non-conference game every year, and those are really hard to schedule. Michigan asked for the 2018-19 hiatus to schedule another top-tier opponent, and Arkansas was the best he could do. The Razorbacks aren’t chopped liver, but they’re not ND. There aren’t enough kings to go around.
LikeLike
To FLP_NDRox;
The comment from Brandon that Notre Dame fans seem to fixate on was from April 2011:
“I have to have seven home games a year. If you think about a nine-game Big Ten schedule, there will be one year I have four home games and one year I have five. In the year that I have four, I have to play every one of my non-conference games at home, so I can’t be in a world where I have four Big Ten home games and I’m supposed to play Notre Dame (in South Bend). I can’t live in that world. Those are the kinds of issues I have to deal with.”
A lot of them on the NDNation board use that as some sort of proof that Michigan was ready to drop Notre Dame in 2016.
But read that statement again. First off, its directed at the Big Ten Conference office and the conference schedulers. Nebraska had joined the conference in June 2010 and there were discussions at that time about going to a nine-game conference schedule. Brandon wanted Delany, et. al. to know they needed to coordinate the rotation of the Michigan-Notre Dame games with the cycle of four- and five-Big Ten Conference games so he could have seven home dates per year.
When you go through Brandon’s comments since he’s been Athletic Director, he’s been consistent regarding his support for a nine-game conference schedule since Nebraska was added. He’s also been adamant about having seven home games per year because of college athletics business model that has football and men’s basketball paying the bills.
Brandon’s background is in marketing and given the way Michigan’s promoted the two Under the Lights games under his leadership, why in the world would he want to drop the Notre Dame game? The spent over a year planning the events for each of those contests and Brandon said he wanted to create a “Super Bowl type atmosphere” for the game. What better non-conference opponent to consistently do that than with the #1 brand in college football in Notre Dame? It’s a game that the general public and the prototypical college football fans sees as natural, historic, traditional, familiar and as a rivalry (so much so that Mark May and Skip Bayless even talked about watching games that didn’t exist).
On 28 December 2011, the Big Ten-Pac 12 scheduling agreement was announced and the plans for a nine-game conference schedule was put on the shelf Instead, the plan was to have eight conference games plus one Pac 12 per year for Big Ten programs. What was Brandon’s reaction to this de facto nine-game conference schedule? He indicated that Michigan could begin scheduling Pac 12 schools “whenever we can work out a scheduling agreement with them”. IRT ND series, he says, “In the near term, it will not change anything.”
Why only the near term? Because the scheduling agreement with the Pac 12 wasn’t supposed to go into effect until 2017. The Big Ten announced its schedules through 2016 on 21 May 2012. Five weeks later (27 June), Michigan announced its non-conference opponents for the 2014-6 seasons:
2014 – Appalachian State, at Notre Dame, Miami (Ohio), Utah
2015 – at Utah, Notre Dame, Oregon State, UNLV
2016 – at Notre Dame, Colorado (needs to more non-conference opponents)
Michigan also announced on that date it was going to take a two-year hiatus in 2018/9. Per the contract both sides agreed to, schools had to give a four-year head’s up when this was going to happen. In this case, UM let ND know at least six years ahead of time. On 6 November, we’ll learn that Michigan and Arkansas will play one another those two years (Arkansas AD Jeff Long used to be in UM athletic department and still has personal ties there).
On the hiatus, here’s what the Ann Arbor News reported:
As for Notre Dame, Brandon says Michigan will continue to operate under the same agreement it’s been under since he took over as Michigan’s athletic director.
Once the two-year hiatus ends, Michigan and Notre Dame still fully intend to maintain a football rivalry.
“The plan always was to do the hiatus for ’18 and ’19 and then resume the rivalry,” Brandon said. “That’s our plan.”
Michigan and Notre Dame took two-year breaks in annual scheduling in 1983-84, 1995-96 and 2000-01.
Brandon says he has no issue with continuing to take periodic breaks from the Notre Dame series down the road, even if he might miss seeing the Fighting Irish on the schedule.
“I think some people will miss the rivalry, and I will, too, because it’s such a great game,” he said. “But on the other hand, we’ve done this before. And this gives us an opportunity to look at some other scheduling flexibilities that we wouldn’t otherwise be able to look at.
“I’m fine with holding to the spirit of the agreement that was struck before I arrived and we’ll try to take those two years and make them special for our fans, and do something unique.”
***
So here we are, roughly three months before Notre Dame joins the ACC and pulls out of the series and Brandon is reaffirming not only the opportunity to play ND through 2016, but his intention to continue playing Notre Dame after the 2018/19 break.
The Big Ten-Pac 12 agreement never happens though–it’s cancelled on 14 July 2012. So the idea of a de facto nine game conference schedule with eight Big Ten team and one Pac 12 teams goes by the wayside.
In September 2012, Notre Dame joins the ACC, becomes a football semi-independent by agreeing to playing five ACC teams per year and cancels the Michigan series.
Two months after that, Maryland and Rutgers join the Big Ten and the conference revisits the nine-game conference schedule issue again. Brandon continues to support a nine-game conference schedule. From an interview with the Eleven Warriors blog on 4 February 2013:
“The consequences are that in a world where we go from eight to nine conference games, we would still have the ability to schedule three non-conference games. You could schedule two at home and schedule a home-and-home and make that work. If we were to go to 10 conference games, which some people are suggesting with 14 teams and, certainly, there is merit to that, you avoid the five and four imbalance.”
So here’s Brandon saying that yes, you can have a nine-game conference schedule and make it work by scheduling two home non-conference games and one home-and-home non-conference series.
The irony about this is that if the UM-ND series had remained in place, Brandon would have gotten what he talked about in April 2011. The Big Ten announced its nine-game conference schedules that would start in 2016 on 11 July 2013. The B1G had Michigan playing five home conference games in the even numbered years (when UM would have been playing ND in South Bend) and four conference games in the odd numbered years (when UM would have been hosting ND). Brandon could have gotten his seven home games a year by getting two opponents who would “pay for play”.
As far as Swarbrick’s actions are concerned, there are a couple of things that have me scratching my head. The first is why he didn’t request a break in the UM-ND series when he put Texas on the schedule in 2010. We were still in the BCS era and having UT and UM as the first two opponents of the 2015/6 years wasn’t a strategically smart scheduling strategy. There was a mechanism in place to have such a hiatus (it’d been used in the past and UM used it for the 2018/9 season), so it was certainly doable and there was precedent from the 1995/6 and 2000/1 seasons.
The other is simply this–why did he cancel the series outright? Brandon said very plainly that he expected the series to continue after the 2020/1, so Michigan certainly seemed willing. Swarbrick talks about Texas “replacing” Michigan, but that four-game series ends in 2020. It appears to me that Swarbrick’s vision for Notre Dame is to play one or two B1G teams per year going forward (Michigan State and/or Purdue) because that’s all the “Midwest presence” he wants and to use one of the other two or three scheduling slots available for a major home-and-home series with a major cross-sectional opponent.
That’s not what I’d call “evil intent”. It’s more of how he plans to execute his strategic vision in coordination with his new arrangement with the ACC. That said, I agree with you that the relationship between Brandon and Swarbrick is essentially non-existent regarding football scheduling and Brandon has out and out said (on 4 September) that he’s having no discussions with ND on renewing the series.
Brandon, for a lack of another word, is “rebranding” the Under the Lights games. Now that the Notre Dame series is gone, he’s talked openly about having night games with conference opponents (but not MSU or OSU) early in the year. I rather suspect that if he’s able to bring a top flight non-conference opponent to Ann Arbor for the 2017 season, he’d be inclined to make that a night game as well. We’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/09/not_quite_105000_early-season.html
A look at scheduling and ticket sales issues at OSU.
The 1st 2 games haven’t sold as well as Gene Smith would like, pulling 103,980 and 104,984 in attendance (capacity is 102,239 officially but a full house tops 105,000). One reason is that the opponents have returned more tickets than usual. Shockingly, fans of MAC teams in Ohio are more likely to attend than fans of Buffalo or SDSU (another good reason to keep MAC games in state). Those teams get 2500-4000 tickets and can return them up to 2 weeks before the game, leaving OSU little time to sell them. Another reason is that the OSU student body didn’t buy their full allotment of season tickets.
The FAMU game in 2 weeks should be the worst game in a while. I’ll be surprised if attendance tops 102,000. Smith said he wanted Grambling, but they wouldn’t be any better as far as the fans are concerned so I don’t know what he was thinking. Instead he got FAMU because of their band. Then FAMU had their band scandal so they aren’t even coming to the game. Only Smith would think fans would buy tickets because of the opponents’ band, especially for one so different from what TBDBITL does.
Next year, OSU adds 2500 more seats. Hopefully the increased SOS will help sell them.
The plan is for one major opponent considered a top 10 program (Smith said he asks Notre Dame every year “and they say no,”) another program among the best 30 or 40 in the country and one opponent like a MAC team.
You can see this plan in OSU’s future schedules. I hope he sticks to the 6 MAC schools in OH for that last slot every year.
Another thing that may help is the tiered pricing. The top 1-2 home games cost more than the rest starting this year (WI is $110, the rest $79). The max price allowed is $175 IIRC, and if that’s used then only that game can be premium priced. If 2 games are premium, they are capped at $150 and $125 (again, IIRC).
Smith said Ohio State is considering the idea of other tiers. For instance, the idea whether next year’s home game with Kent State should cost the same as a regular Big Ten game, like Indiana. Could that mean the Kent State price would go down?
Dropping the price for the MAC game makes sense to me. Have 3-4 tiers:
1. MI = $175 (1 game)
2. Other = $79 (5 games)
3. MAC = $59 (1 game)
or
1. PSU = $125
2. WI = $100
3. Other = $79 (4 games)
4. MAC = $59
I’d personally price RU and UMD lower than the other B10 games ($69) but OSU is too greedy for that.
And to repeat that note from above, Smith keeps calling ND and they say no. I’m thrilled with that because OSU has no history with ND and they’re not in any new recruiting grounds (same reasons ND keeps saying no, I assume). Smith went there so he overvalues them.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s that or the fact that there are very few “Top 10” teams not in the B1G or the PAC and willing to play tough games in September. As for why the Irish say no, I would assume the reasons you cited and the fact that the last time we went to Columbus our band got tear gassed. Still there’s some history, 5 games in c. 70 years including the ’35 Game of the Century.
Either way it’s sad that the student season tix weren’t sold out.
LikeLike
…there are very few “Top 10″ teams not in the B1G or the PAC and willing to play tough games in September.
Untrue. Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and LSU (to name four) seem regularly to be scheduling a premier non-conference game every year.
Smith went there [ND] so he overvalues them.
I think he accurately values them. An OSU-ND series would be huge.
As for why the Irish say no, I would assume the reasons you cited and the fact that the last time we went to Columbus our band got tear gassed.
I doubt that ND’s last trip to Columbus weighs on Swarbrick’s mind. He’s just not looking for any more midwest exposure.
LikeLike
Yeah, those three (UT, OU, Bama) are it. I don’t know if LSU would qualify as a “perennial top 10” but that’s the only schools that came to my mind today. And I think they only play one a piece. One of the biggest problems of these expanded conferences is that there are a lot fewer good OOC games available. I don’t know how many big non-rivalry OOC games there’ll be in another generation if this keeps up.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“Yeah, those three (UT, OU, Bama) are it. I don’t know if LSU would qualify as a “perennial top 10″ but that’s the only schools that came to my mind today.”
I assume we’re talking brands and not success anyway. Right now, LSU is a top 10 brand with their recent success.
I’d add ND/OSU to that short list. Both traditionally have another elite program OOC. ND is using UT to replace some MI games, plus they have OU and others. And OSU also generally has 1 good OOC game. MI used to be on that list (ND) and is trying to get back on it. USC has ND, but has also played OSU, NE and some SEC schools and has UT coming up.
OSU, MI, ND, USC, AL, LSU, UT, OU – that’s most of the top brands
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think he accurately values them. An OSU-ND series would be huge.”
We had a series in the 90s. It was big, but no bigger than OSU/UT or OSU/USC. ND and OSU lack the history to make it anything bigger than that. It’s not as big as MI/ND and never will be.
I doubt there’s any other school he asks every year about a series, so that’s why I say he overvalues them. Frankly, I think getting AL would be a bigger series. UF and LSU might be bigger, too. The SEC hate is stronger than the ND hate for many OSU fans now.
LikeLike
Having been a Buckeye living in Knoxville for 6 years, its hard for me to generate unalloyed SEC hate, but OTOH generating Bama and Gater hate is easier than ever.
LikeLike
We had a series in the 90s. It was big, but no bigger than OSU/UT or OSU/USC. ND and OSU lack the history to make it anything bigger than that. It’s not as big as MI/ND and never will be.
I agree, it’s no bigger than UT or USC, but it’s as big, and Gene Smith can’t get UT or USC every year. He’s gotta ask other people too.
I doubt there’s any other school he asks every year about a series, so that’s why I say he overvalues them.
I suspect he asks them every year for four reasons: 1) OSU hasn’t played them lately; 2) They aren’t in a league, so they have more games to fill; 3) They aren’t averse to playing in the midwest; 4) They haven’t said yes yet.
Frankly, I think getting AL would be a bigger series. UF and LSU might be bigger, too. The SEC hate is stronger than the ND hate for many OSU fans now.
I agree that AL, UF, and LSU would be bigger, but I believe UF hasn’t played a regular-season game outside the south in decades, and there are a lot of suitors trying to get on AL’s and LSU’s dance cards.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I agree, it’s no bigger than UT or USC, but it’s as big, and Gene Smith can’t get UT or USC every year. He’s gotta ask other people too.”
I didn’t say he shouldn’t. He also has asked OU, UGA, TN, …
“I suspect he asks them every year for four reasons: 1) OSU hasn’t played them lately; 2) They aren’t in a league, so they have more games to fill; 3) They aren’t averse to playing in the midwest; 4) They haven’t said yes yet.”
1. We went 60+ years without playing them before that series in the 90s and everyone was OK with it.
2. They might as well be in a conference for all the locked games they have.
3. Actually, the last thing they seem to want is even more midwest games.
4. So take a hint. He just looks desperate repeatedly getting denied. Do you think he’d keep asking any other school every single year when they kept saying no?
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“Either way it’s sad that the student season tix weren’t sold out.”
Approximate 2012 numbers (I couldn’t find 2013 numbers):
Student season ticket allotment: 28,700
Student season tickets sold: 26,600
Tickets were $32 per game in 2012 and are $34 this year.
Issues to consider:
1. OSU just switched to semesters last year, so there may be an adjustment period on both sides.
2. OSU was bowl ineligible last year.
3. Both last year and this year there was no marquee OOC game. The Game is at MI this year, too, which always hurts sales.
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated after Week #2 :
Big 5 schools 38 of 62 = 61.29% of population : 38 of 125 = 30.40% of total
B1G = 09 of 12 => 75.00% remain undefeated
PAC = 08 of 12 => 66.67% remain undefeated
ACC = 08 of 14 => 57.14% remain undefeated
SEC = 08 of 14 => 57.14% remain undefeated
B 12 = 05 of 10 => 50.00% remain undefeated
Non Big 5 schools 12 of 63 = 19.05% of population : 12 of 125 = 09.60% of total
AAC = 03 of 10 => 30.00% remain undefeated
SunB = 02 of 08 => 25.00% remain undefeated
MAC = 03 of 13 => 23.08% remain undefeated
IND = 01 of 06 => 16.67% remain undefeated
CUSA = 02 of 14 => 14.29% remain undefeated
MWC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% remain undefeated
.
…
.
Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold )
ACC Atlantic : 2-0 Boston College / Clemson / Maryland / NC State and 1-0 Florida State
ACC Costal : 2-0 Miami (FL) / Duke and 1-0 Georgia Tech
B1G Legends : 2-0 Michigan / Michigan State / Minnesota / Nebraska / Northwestern
B1G Leaders : 2-0 Illinois / Ohio State / Penn State / Wisconsin
B 12 : 2-0 Baylor / Oklahoma / Oklahoma State / Texas Tech and 1-0 Kansas
PAC North : 2-0 Oregon and 1-0 Washington / Stanford
PAC South : 2-0 Colorado / Utah / Arizona and 1-0 UCLA / Arizona State
SEC East : 2-0 Tennessee / Missouri
SEC West : 2-0 Mississippi/Arkansas/Auburn/Louisiana State/Texas A&M and 1-0 Alabama
AAC : 2-0 Louisville / Houston / Central Florida
CUSA East : 2-0 East Carolina / Marshall :::: CUSA West : –0–
IND : 1-0 Navy
MAC East : 2-0 Bowling Green :::: MAC West : 2-0 Ball State and 1-0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 2-0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : –0–
Sun Belt : 2-0 Texas State / Troy
.
…
.
Undefeated pairings for week #2
FBS vs FCS
B1G vs FCS : Western Illinois @ Minnesota
IND vs FCS : Delaware @ Navy
FBS vs FBS
AAC vs B1G : Central Florida @ Penn State
B1G vs PAC : UCLA @ Nebraska
B1G vs MAC : Youngstown State @ Michigan State
B1G vs PAC : Washington @ Illinois
B1G vs PAC : Wisconsin @ Arizona State
MWC vs PAC : Fresno State @ Colorado
PAC vs SEC : Tennessee @ Oregon
FBS conference vs FBS conference
ACC vs ACC : Georgia Tech @ Duke
SEC vs SEC : Alabama @ Texas A&M
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after 1st run with SoS rank – B1G shows game results :
B1G
009 013 014 Ohio State – 128 / 157 : beat Buffalo @ home 40-20
017 021 020 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 : beat Umass @ home 45-0
019 019 012 Michigan – 129 / 81 : beat C Michigan @ home 59-9
021 029 029 Nebraska – 116 / 152 : beat Wyoming @ home 37-34
030 035 044 Michigan State – 124 / 164 : beat W Michigan @ home 26-13
033 033 038 Penn State – 74 / 142 : beat Syracuse @ home 23-17
041 036 035 Northwestern – 44 / 71 : beat Cal @ Cal 44-30
054 054 060 Iowa – 80 / 137 : lost N Illinois @ home 27-30
066 066 065 Minnesota – 141 / 169 : beat UNLV @ home 51-23
071 068 069 Indiana – 143 / 134 : beat Indiana State @ home 73-35
074 074 101 Purdue – 23 / 91 : lost @ Cincinnati 7-42
099 103 072 Illinois – 142 / 113 : beat S Illinois @ home 42-34
SEC
001 001 001 Alabama – 34 / 22
003 006 007 Texas A&M – 95 / 119
005 005 004 Georgia – 7 / 6 :::::::: Top 10 SoS
006 004 005 Louisiana State – 15 / 65
010 009 009 South Carolina – 72 / 16
012 012 015 Florida – 98 / 39
027 020 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118
034 034 043 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171
035 039 056 Mississippi State – 10 /163
038 046 040 Missouri – 170 / 174
039 053 028 Tennessee – 198 / 204
044 045 036 Auburn – 114 / 112
047 041 049 Arkansas – 105 / 150
075 083 080 Kentucky – 96 / 160
Big 12
004 002 006 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78
008 008 008 Oklahoma – 112 / 108
013 016 024 Texas – 158 / 94
014 015 022 Texas Christian – 17 / 74
024 028 034 Kansas State – 82 / 100
026 023 010 Baylor – 133 / 167
037 032 033 Texas Tech – 53 / 128
042 052 052 West Virginia – 149 / 53
057 063 063 Iowa State – 108 / 105
082 070 081 Kansas – 212
PAC
002 007 002 Oregon – 188 / 136
007 003 003 Stanford – 93
020 018 016 UCLA – 103 / 110
022 017 018 Arizona State – 201
023 024 037 Southern California – 84 / 96
025 037 042 Oregon State – 109 / 148
040 026 021 Washington – 55 / 40
049 044 026 Arizona – 140 / 143
058 055 045 Utah – 83 / 138
059 059 074 California – 68 / 124
094 085 066 Washington State – 31 / 9 :::::::: Top 10 SoS
103 102 091 Colorado – 119 / 153
ACC
016 011 017 Clemson – 27 / 117
018 014 011 Florida State – 41 / 25
028 030 023 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99
029 025 027 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63
043 040 046 North Carolina – 5 / 46
046 048 032 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215
050 042 054 North Carolina State – 106 / 147
056 058 057 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21
063 062 053 Maryland – 147 / 193
067 064 068 Syracuse – 42 / 18
068 061 064 Virginia – 70 / 19
070 093 094 Wake Forest – 205 / 185
086 095 071 Duke – 199 / 195
091 090 083 Boston College – 127 / 156
AAC
031 027 019 Louisville – 111 / 159
036 031 051 Cincinnati – 104 / 83
048 043 047 Rutgers – 35 / 158
052 057 039 Central Florida – 162 / 172
061 091 102 South Florida – 138
064 077 061 Houston – 194 / 184
069 072 085 Southern Methodist – 67 / 90
072 088 084 Connecticut – 125
093 084 100 Temple – 6 / 24
126 116 127 Memphis – 103
MWC
016 022 025 Boise State – 18 / 72
051 050 041 Utah State – 39 / 28
055 051 055 Fresno State – 77 / 106
062 086 104 San Diego State – 137 / 49
073 075 093 Air Force – 166/ 151
077 071 062 San Jose State – 150 / 56
080 073 078 Nevada – 12 / 82
105 092 079 Wyoming – 21 / 98
121 113 125 Hawaii – 58 / 27
128 126 140 UNLV – 49 / 37
130 130 120 Colorado State – 97 / 60
155 170 151 New Mexico – 172 / 146
IND
011 010 013 Notre Dame – 113 / 42
032 038 030 Brigham Young – 45 / 32
065 060 059 Navy – 35
108 128 139 Army – 211 / 190
158 164 180 Idaho – 88 / 61
165 150 170 New Mexico State – 11 / 33
MAC
053 047 048 Northern Illinois – 38 / 26
076 067 076 Toledo – 8 / 4 :::::::: Top 10 SoS
083 081 092 Ohio – 19 / 52
087 069 058 Bowling Green – 86 / 88
090 087 077 Ball State – 136 / 175
102 110 108 Kent State – 171 / 154
107 099 131 Western Michigan – 25 / 120
114 109 118 Central Michigan – 13 / 51
127 107 112 Buffalo – 9 / 2 :::::::: Top 10 SoS
132 136 160 Miami (OH) – 66 / 44
151 162 165 Eastern Michigan – 201 / 132
161 155 156 Akron – 40 / 77
164 153 175 Massachusetts – 14 / 62
CUSA
045 056 067 Tulsa – 51 / 87
079 078 105 Louisiana Tech – 29 / 139
081 065 070 Rice – 2 / 1 :::::::: Rice has toughest schedule after week #2
084 089 086 East Carolina – 145 / 188
097 094 071 Marshall – 146 / 219
106 125 130 Southern Mississippi – 151 / 73
111 118 111 Middle Tennessee – 183 / 121
115 108 128 Texas – El Paso – 194
124 122 115 Alabama – Birmingham – 89 / 17
131 120 113 North Texas – 168 / 144
136 137 154 Florida International – 47 / 34
140 133 146 Florida Atlantic – 22 / 20
147 148 150 Tulane – 190 / 218
181 171 144 Texas – San Antonio – 122 / 57
Sun Belt
078 076 089 Louisiana – Lafayette – 28 / 14
089 082 107 Louisiana – Monroe – 4 / 129
095 101 096 Arkansas State – 191 / 130
110 098 098 Western Kentucky – 85 / 29
120 121 114 Troy – 139 / 227
157 144 136 Texas State – 91 / 199
174 177 163 South Alabama – 156 / 161
200 201 208 Georgia State – 155 / 182
Top 10 SoS
Rice 01
Buffalo 02
Tennessee Tech 03
Toledo 04
Northern Arizona 05
Georgia 06
Elon 07
North Dakota State 08
Washington State 09
Austin Peay 10
LikeLike
AP Poll update:
SEC (7 = 50%) – 1, 6, 8, 9, 13, 18, 25 (ARV – 1)
B10 (5 = 42%) – 4, 11, 17, 20, 23 (ARV – 3)
B12 (4 = 40%) – 12, 14, 22, 24 (ARV – 1)
P12 (4 = 33%) – 2, 5, 16, 19 (ARV – 2)
ACC (3 = 21%) – 3, 10, 15 (ARV – 2)
LikeLike
This is the problem with the SEC starting with so many highly ranked squads before anyone can judge the actual quality of the teams. 3 teams with losses are the highest ranked teams with losses. It’s like those losses don’t even matter despite the fact that two of the losses were non-conference. All 3 of those teams could conceivably (well not Florida, they’re really overrated this year) get back to the very top of the rankings ahead of undefeated teams…
LikeLike
I forgot to add at the end: and the bigger problem is that they’re virtually guaranteed of being the highest ranked 1 loss squads given how much it bumps SOS.
LikeLike
interesting to compare AP and coaches poll:
Clemson beat ranked SEC #3 AP, #5 Coaches
Miami beat ranked SEC #15 AP, #18 Tie Coaches
UGA #9 AP, #10 coaches
S. Carolina #13 AP, #14 coaches
Florida #18 AP, #20 coaches
Writers are clearly enamored with SEC.
LikeLike
Doesn’t really impact SOS for the BCS because its the computers that determine that.
LikeLike
I wonder how soon the CBS/ESPIN talking heads begin their annual ‘one loss SEC is better than an undefeated anyone else’ bullshit! Here is looking at you Gary Danielson.
LikeLike
They did that during the BCS championship post game drivel…
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the polling system is circular. Early in the season, teams get ranked based on reputation, rather than results. This makes it easier for them to stay in the rankings, which gives them a reputation for being ranked, and therefore a spot in next year’s pre-season poll.
LikeLike
bullet,
I see that Manny Diaz is out and Greg Robinson will take over. How concerned are you, considering his “success” at MI as DC?
LikeLike
I’m not bullet, but…
Greg Robinson has a good track record as a DC. Not at Michigan, obviously, but there’s a lot more to his career than that. He deserves another shot.
Robinson was hamstrung at Michigan by several factors. He probably should have resigned when Rodriguez forced him to run the 3-3-5, a system Rodriguez had run (with Casteel) at WV, but that Robinson himself had never run. That was never going to work. There’s no point in hiring a veteran DC, and then not letting him do the job the way he knows best.
Also, all of the defensive assistants at Michigan, other than Robinson, were Rodriguez cronies. Robinson wasn’t allowed to bring in any of his own guys.
Of course, UT’s options are rather limited right now. When you fire your DC after the second game, most of the people you’d want are employed elsewhere, and won’t interview mid-season. Robinson was probably the best name out there.
LikeLike
Who else can UT get to replace _iaz on a moments notice 2 weeks into the season, in a lame duck situation? Robinson is a no-brainer for this.
Relieved to know that Mack Brown will ‘retire’ at the end of the season (whether he wants to or not.) The only possible way he hangs on is if he either:
1. Beats OU
or
2. Wins 10 games and the OU loss is close
I’d be nervous if I were a fan of Lousville, Baylor, TCU, Vanderbilt, and maybe Boise, Washington, and Miami.
LikeLike
“Relieved to know that Mack Brown will ‘retire’ at the end of the season (whether he wants to or not.)”
You know this?
LikeLike
Mack isn’t likely to leave yet. Dodds probably retires summer of 2014 and Mack retires 1 or 2 years after and the new AD gets a say in hiring the new coach.
LikeLike
http://www.twitpic.com/dcgixv
FWIW, his buyout isn’t very big. It’s below $3M right now.
LikeLike
12-Team Playoffs Now,
“Who else can UT get to replace _iaz on a moments notice 2 weeks into the season, in a lame duck situation? Robinson is a no-brainer for this.”
They could have promoted from within the staff rather than bring in the consultant. There are probably some other solid D minds out there available but I’m no expert on the unemployed coaching ranks.
UT could consider offering Pat Narduzzi a DC + assistant HC slot as coach in waiting while Mack gets a couple more years. MSU bumped his pay up to $500k this year, but UT could offer him $1M+ and MSU wouldn’t match it.
My concern would be that Robinson has been out of coaching since 2010 when he got fired. If he’s so good, why was he unemployed?
Anyway, best of luck to UT on the transition. They can’t really get worse.
LikeLike
Robinson was D coordinator during the worst three years in the history of UM football. Some qualification! I have no clue who is out there either, but I suspect they could have done much better. We’ll see.
LikeLike
He did pretty well in his earlier stint as Defensive coordinator at UT even if he stunk as head coach at Syracuse. Diaz never adjusted. What happened with BYU happened ALL last year. Teams just ran freely up the middle for the whole game. And Texas should be better on defense this year. Everyone has had a year to adjust to his system and Jordan Hicks, the best LB, was out with an injury last year. We’ve got great athletes on defense. They just don’t look prepared. They don’t tackle well. They take bad angles. They are out of position. They sometimes even look confused as to what position they are supposed to be playing.
Its hard to do much worse, so I don’t think anyone is concerned that Diaz is out.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/9650530/wrestling-gets-reinstated-2020-olympics
Wrestling is back in the Olympics.
LikeLike
…what passes for wrestling with the constantly changing rules, weight classes, etc…
LikeLike
And it’s back as a provisional (2020 and 2024), not as a core sport.
LikeLike
Results of week #1
AP – Texas and Southern Cal dropped out
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 TAMU, #8 LSU, #9 UGA, #13 S Carolina, #18 UF, #25 Mississippi
(5) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #11 Michigan, #17 Northwestern, #20 Wisconsin, #23 Nebraska
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #16 UCLA, #19 Washington
(4) B12 : #12 Oklahoma State, #14 Oklahoma, #22 Baylor, #24 TCU
(3) ACC : #3 Clemson, #10 Florida State, #15 Miami
(1) AAC : #7 Louisville
(1) IND : #21 Notre Dame
USA – Texas and Southern Cal dropped out
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 TAMU, #8 LSU, #10 UGA, #14 S Carolina, #20 UF, #25 Mississippi
(5) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #12 Michigan, #15 Nebraska, #16 Northwestern, #18 Wisconsin
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #4 Stanford, #17 UCLA, #23 Washington
(4) B12 : #11 Oklahoma State, #13 Oklahoma, #22 Baylor, #24 TCU
(3) ACC : #5 Clemson, #9 Florida State, #18 Miami (FL)
(1) AAC : #7 Louisville
(1) IND : #21 Notre Dame
.
…
.
ACC : B5 = 2-3 : NB5 = 2-0 : FCS = 4-0 : OFF = THREE :: U = (8) teams
ACC (1-1) : B1G (0-1) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (0-1) : SEC (1-0) :::::::: FCS (4-0)
AAC (1-0) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (1-0) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
B 12 : B5 = 1-1 : NB5 = 3-1 : FCS = 3-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = (5) teams
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (1-1) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (3-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (0-1) : CUSA (1-0) : MAC (1-0) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (1-0)
B1G : B5 = 1-0 : NB5 = 7-1 : FCS = 3-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = (9) teams
ACC (1-0) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (3-0)
AAC (2-0) : IND (2-1) : CUSA (1-0) : MAC (1-0) : MWC (1-0) : SunB (DNP)
PAC : B5 = 2-1 : NB5 = 3-0 : FCS = 4-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = (8) teams
ACC (1-0) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (1-1) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (4-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (3-0) : SunB ()
SEC : B5 = 1-2 : NB5 = 5-0 : FCS = 5-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = (8) teams
ACC (0-1) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (1-1) :::::::: FCS (5-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (1-0) : MAC (2-0) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (2-0)
ACC () : B1G () : B12 () : PAC () : SEC () :::::::: FCS ()
AAC () : IND () : CUSA () : MAC () : MWC () : SunB ()
.
Best schedulers = ACC : 5 B5 games but 3 OFF but they were not great
Worst schedulers = Everybody else, just not many good games
.
Observations :
The B1G has 9 undefeated teams – the good
Indiana went down to Navy – the bad
Purdue got the win but it sure was not pretty – the ugly
The B12 upside
– Oklahoma and West Virginia played a conference game
– Texas played BYU non conference
The B12 downside
– Iowa State did not play
– not much else to look at around the conference
LikeLike
B12 downside
The Texas defense didn’t play BYU. Just kind of watched.
LikeLike
I don’t think Texas or Oklahoma are bad but just been getting more love in the past 2 years than warranted and believing it. Which is what I have been saying on here since realignment. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call and the folks in Austin stop believing the press clippings and get back to winning on the field.
LikeLike
Agree, Big XII needs a healthy Oklahoma & Texas competing nationally and ranked in the top 10-12. A third team would be nice but those two programs needs to be successful to drive the ratings, exposure, etc.
LikeLike
Breaking Bad nearly jumped the shark with tonight’s episode. So many implausible actions by so many characters.
LikeLike
Oh well, I guess its all downhill from here, then.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Interesting that you say that.
*BREAKING BAD SPOILER ALERT*
I didn’t really find anyone acting out of character outside of maybe Huell (as I would have thought that he’d be more savvy dealing with law enforcement considering how long he’s been with Better Call Saul). I did believe that Landry from Friday Night Lights and his Neo-Nazi uncles were going to end up arriving in the last scene the whole time, but that seemed to be in character since it’s been established that they’re not careful or meticulous at all (unlike Gus, Mike or how Walt normally is). The biggest stretch of the series was really back in Season 3 with the plane crash.
*END SPOILER ALERT*
LikeLike
(SPOILER!)
Both the plane crash and the WW book on the toilet strained credulity. Last night’s trifecta to me was worse.
-Huell never would have caved like that.
-White would have been far more cautious about leading them to the money, and once he realized Pinkman wasn’t there, he never would have stopped, much less lingered.
-Unless I’m missing something, Hank’s arrest of Walt seemed pre-mature.
-The neo-nazis had Hank and his partner dead to rights, unloaded on them with a dozen automatic weapons and yet they’re able to waddle over to their cars for cover without a scratch? That was laugh out loud funny. Straight out of a Hopalong Casssidy.
Great show, I just wish they wouldn’t make ‘genius’ Walt stupid for convenience sake.
LikeLike
Agreed with most of your points especially the automatic weapons thing. However, disagree with your Walt point. The most important thing to Walt now is his money; it is the only justification he has left. It is totally plausible that any threat to it would make him frazzled.
LikeLike
The Pinkman call to Walt (concerning the rental Van’s tracking device) was pretty convincing, so I can see how a frantic Walt might drive out there, I just think he would have smelled a set-up once he arrived, and led them somewhere else.
Read an interesting article (which actually seemed pretty accurate) that Todd, throughout the season, mimics or assumes the personality traits of whomever is in the leadership role at any given moment. Whether it be Walt (the fastidious ‘cooker) Uncle Jack (reckless white trash) Mike (the fixer) even Marie, when she becomes his boss (his feminine tone in speaking to her on the phone and leading her out of the bunker). It’s just a theory, but interesting.
LikeLike
Big Ten hockey, three months and counting….
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/09/08/week-2-college-football-misery-index-texas-usc-south-carolina-michigan-state/2782251/
Misery Index, Week 2:
1. UT
2. USC
3. UF
4. UConn
5. MSU
6. UGA
7. ND
8. PU
9. OkSU
10. AL
LikeLike
Night games to continue at the Big House in 2014. (Most people think Penn State on 10-11-14.)
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130909/SPORTS0201/309090090#ixzz2eQWBzMVB
LikeLike
Looks like he was laying out the next three seasons in his comments. PSU next year (really there are no other options), with Northwestern on homecoming in 2015, and Wisconsin the following year. The only year Michigan really has multiple choices is 2016, but I have to think it’ll go to Wisconsin given the two haven’t played each other in some time.
LikeLike
And it won’t be MSU or OSU ever, so fans can move past that.
LikeLike
Night games pose extra safety concerns. http://college-football.si.com/2013/09/10/michigan-wolverines-night-games-ohio-state-notre-dame/
Brandon quoted:
“I know how many people get arrested, I know how many people get ejected from the stadium, I know how many people get carted off to the hospital. I know what it is on a typical game and I know what it is on a Michigan State game. And if you took a Michigan State game and moved it to 8 o’clock, you could take what we experience now and maybe double or triple it and I don’t want to do that,” Brandon said. “To me that’s not fun. That’s not what college football should be about.”
Then statistics for the ND/MI game last Sat. night:
“Seventy-two people were ejected from Michigan Stadium on Saturday, and 11 people were arrested. Another 133 people had to be treated by emergency medical personnel and of those 133 people, 21 were taken to the hospital according to University of Michigan Police.”
115,109 people were there.
LikeLike
I’m with him on this. Putting people at risk for the benefit of TV is just dumb.
Besides, The Game should never be played at night anyway. Tradition, dammit!
LikeLike
Not sure why Michigan (Brandon) wants to limit night games at the Big House to 1 per year. Seems stupid. OSU vs. Michigan at night would be great. Just police the game better. At minimum that game should not be in the 12pm EST slot. It should at least be at 3:30PM slot every year. NIght games are the best way to market the program plus it is so much easier to get National recruits to games especially when they play on Friday nights.
OSU doesn’t make that big a deal about night games. They’ll do more than 1 per year. Wisconsin doesn’t have any night games at CR this year for whatever reason.
LikeLike
Not sure why Michigan (Brandon) wants to limit night games at the Big House to 1 per year. Seems stupid. OSU vs. Michigan at night would be great. Just police the game better.
League-wide, the Big Ten doesn’t schedule night games in November, for a variety of reasons. As long as that game is played in November, it won’t be played at night, even if fan rowdiness could be held in check.
The reality is: fan safety is a consequential issue, and police coverage isn’t free.
At minimum that game should not be in the 12pm EST slot. It should at least be at 3:30PM slot every year.
In recent years, that game generally has been played at 3:30pm.
Night games are the best way to market the program plus it is so much easier to get National recruits to games especially when they play on Friday nights.
Brandon believes that if you do it all the time, it isn’t special any more. It’s one thing if you have a marquee opponent like ND, bring College Gameday to Ann Arbor, and get the ESPN #1 broadcast team. If you’re playing Indiana on the Big Ten Network? Not so much.
Hoke has been recruiting well: the shortage of night games doesn’t seem to be standing in his way. Beyond that, Michigan has a lot of fans that drive long distances to the games. It’s not fair to ask them to drive home in the middle of the night, so they can watch Michigan clobber Central Michigan.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“League-wide, the Big Ten doesn’t schedule night games in November, for a variety of reasons.”
That was a rule, but it isn’t anymore. The TV partners chose not to pick any November games but they could have.
“As long as that game is played in November, it won’t be played at night, even if fan rowdiness could be held in check.”
Realistically, I think both ADs are adamant about not playing it at night regardless of the month.
“The reality is: fan safety is a consequential issue, and police coverage isn’t free.”
How dare someone put the people actually at the game above the TV viewers?
“In recent years, that game generally has been played at 3:30pm.”
Only in 2006, that I can recall.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Not sure why Michigan (Brandon) wants to limit night games at the Big House to 1 per year.”
They cost more, put people at risk and cause him logistical problems.
“OSU vs. Michigan at night would be great.”
No, it would be an abomination and probably end with riots all too often.
“At minimum that game should not be in the 12pm EST slot. It should at least be at 3:30PM slot every year.”
No. It should always be a daylight game, and that means 12:00. A 3:30 kick is played half with the lights on.
“NIght games are the best way to market the program plus it is so much easier to get National recruits to games especially when they play on Friday nights.”
Yeah, The Game really struggles for TV ratings and getting recruits there.
“OSU doesn’t make that big a deal about night games. They’ll do more than 1 per year.”
Gene Smith wants 2 at home and 1 on the road. Lately OSU has been stuck with the reverse of that, and he hates it because the players get back so late after the game.
“Wisconsin doesn’t have any night games at CR this year for whatever reason.”
TV chooses kickoff times, not the schools. Schools can decline a night game, but they can’t force one.
LikeLike
Would any of you like to see more Big Ten games against the ACC during the regular season?
Most of the interest I have read about seems to focus on Notre Dame; Pac-12 teams, presumably because of the historical Rose Bowl ties, opportunities for exposure in the western U.S., and recruiting access; SEC teams, whom we should know by now are almost completely unwilling to schedule home-and-homes in B1G territory; and just two Big 12 teams (OU and Texas).
I think everyone interested in aggressive scheduling wants to schedule SEC teams. Those games provide a great measuring stick, even if, as is the case for most leagues who face SEC teams, they also come with a heavy dose of humble pie. The ACC has been able to get SEC games most easily of the Power 5 leagues because of built-in in-state rivalries and because of proximity (Clemson-Georgia, UNC-South Carolina, Chick-fil-a Kickoff games in shared conference territory of Atlanta, etc.) Other Power 5 leagues who want to schedule someone besides LSU, Alabama, and the Mississippi schools are hard-pressed to find willing suitors.
From the Big Ten’s perspective, I think it would make a lot of sense to have some games against the ACC, including not just the northeastern additions but, more importantly, the southern schools. With high school football in Big Ten states not as strong compared to other parts of the country as it once was, it seems like the southeast would be one of the first regions the Big Ten would turn to. Great football players come out of the southeast every year, and, to the Big Ten’s advantage, it ought to be much, much easier to convince a recruit from the Carolinas or Virginia to go to a Big Ten East school, well within a day’s driving distance, than it would be to convince a California kid to come all the way to the Midwest.
With a presence in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, the ACC offers great access to the southeast. ACC teams are much, much more likely to have mutual interest in home-and-homes than their SEC counterparts. Meanwhile, the Big Ten also would like games in Texas, but A&M is like other SEC teams in its unwillingness to venture outside immediate surroundings for non-conference games. Texas is willing to play in locations nationwide, but UT is just about the only program in Texas that Big Ten teams would be interested in having a home-and-home series with. The B1G also has to compete with schools from all conferences to get a game against Texas on the schedule. Much of the same can be said about OU.
Programs like Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech, I suspect, would be very open to playing Big Ten teams. Clemson tends to stay closer to home, but even they might have a hard time turning down the chance to play some of the Big Ten powers.
Clemson-Michigan, Florida State-Ohio State, Miami-Nebraska, Virginia Tech-Wisconsin, North Carolina-Michigan State… those would be fun, right? What do you think?
LikeLike
Several of the ACC teams you mentioned seldom schedule non-conference games outside of the South. Look up what Clemson and FSU have done in the last 10 years, or have scheduled in the next 10. They don’t schedule those kinds of games, at least not regularly.
Virginia Tech schedules more aggressively, but they’re only one team, and they can’t be everywhere. In the next decade, they have home & homes scheduled with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State, plus a road trip to South Bend as part of the ACC agreement.
Miami is similar, although not as aggressive: they’ve scheduled home & homes with Nebraska, Toledo, Rutgers, and Michigan State, plus a road trip to Notre Dame.
A lot of the ACC is not really that strong in football. In terms of competitive strength, North Carolina is like a good mid-major.
With high school football in Big Ten states not as strong compared to other parts of the country as it once was, it seems like the southeast would be one of the first regions the Big Ten would turn to.
People exaggerate the importance of one-off games. Ohio State isn’t going to recruit the state of North Carolina a lot better, just because they have one game scheduled there in 2018.
LikeLike
“Look up what Clemson and FSU have done in the last 10 years, or have scheduled in the next 10. They don’t schedule those kinds of games, at least not regularly.”
Clemson played at Temple in 2006. Otherwise, sure, they almost never plays non-ACC games outside of the South. But they do play South Carolina every year, had a 3 game away-home-neutral series with Auburn in 2010-12, and is halfway through a home-and-home series with nearby Georgia. Not going outside the South does not mean they don’t schedule “aggressively,” at least in some years.
Florida State played at Syracuse (well before SU was scheduled to join the ACC) in 2004, at Colorado in 2007, at BYU in 2009, and at Oklahoma in 2010. They also had a neutral site game in 2006 vs. Alabama. They were supposed to play at West Virginia in 2013, but that got cancelled, leaving FSU with three cupcakes for non-conference instead of two. Next year they’re scheduled to play in Arlington against Oklahoma State. They’re also scheduled to play at Boise State in 2019 or 2020. Technically you could argue that Arlington and Oklahoma are in the South, but they’re as far or farther than a huge portion of Big Ten territory; it’s not like Clemson traveling 90 miles next year to Athens. Oh, and they’ll also be playing at Notre Dame once every six years, on average, for the foreseeable future.
I see no reason to think Florida State would unwilling to go up Big Ten territory, as long as it’s not in a year they play at Florida or at Notre Dame
How many times have Wisconsin, Ohio State, or Michigan played outside the Midwest in the past 10 years? I bet the numbers aren’t that different from Florida State’s are for the South.
“Virginia Tech schedules more aggressively, but they’re only one team, and they can’t be everywhere. In the next decade, they have home & homes scheduled with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State, plus a road trip to South Bend as part of the ACC agreement.”
Virginia Tech, much like Ohio State compared to Michigan, who annually plays Notre Dame, HAS to schedule more aggressively compared to many of its league counterparts just to make up for their lack of a built-in, difficult non-conference rival on the schedule every season. They played LSU twice and against Alabama twice in the last six years. Good for them. That alone doesn’t mean they should be credited as having a more difficult non-conference schedule. Heck, Florida State plays Florida every freaking year, and still usually has a second AQ team on the schedule.
I also think Miami deserves a little more credit than you’re giving them. They’ve played Florida, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Kansas State, and Ohio State in home-and-homes in the last six or seven years. None of those road games were within 1,000 miles of Miami.
LikeLike
I see no reason to think Florida State would unwilling to go up Big Ten territory, as long as it’s not in a year they play at Florida or at Notre Dame.
I see a huge reason: just look at how often they’ve done it. In scheduling, unlike financial services, past results are an indication of future performance. Obviously, FSU could change its scheduling practices. But the key point is: it would be a change.
LikeLike
Again, Florida State has played, in the past ten years, at Colorado, at BYU, at Syracuse (pre-ACC), at BYU, and at Oklahoma; was scheduled to play at West Virginia in ’13 (but was cancelled); and is scheduled in the next seven years to play way out in Arlington, Texas against Ok. State, at Notre Dame, and at Boise State.
I interpret Florida State’s scheduling practices as a team that’s willing to play an annual home-and-home series against one attractive program in Florida and at least one neutral site game or one home-and-home series with schools ranging from the Rockies to the south central U.S. to the Midwest to the Northeast. My sense is that there is not a lack of willingness to play Big Ten teams. Rather, it is more likely that Big Ten schools have had their own scheduling policies that have conflicted with Florida State’s.
I’ll give you that if Florida, Georgia, or Clemson suddenly scheduled a home-and-home series with a school from the Big Ten, that would be a change in their scheduling policies. Those programs hardly venture outside their own borders for non-conference games, and when they do, it’s almost always within a few hundred miles. I guess Georgia has had a couple of exceptions against Arizona State and Oklahoma State, but those games were very out of the ordinary.
But it just makes no sense to me that FSU wouldn’t be willing to go to Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, or wherever else when it’s been willing to go so many other places.
LikeLike
I interpret Florida State’s scheduling practices as a team that’s willing to play an annual home-and-home series against one attractive program in Florida and at least one neutral site game or one home-and-home series with schools ranging from the Rockies to the south central U.S. to the Midwest to the Northeast.
FSU has not traveled (lately) to the midwest. That seems to be a region they don’t visit.
My sense is that there is not a lack of willingness to play Big Ten teams. Rather, it is more likely that Big Ten schools have had their own scheduling policies that have conflicted with Florida State’s.
And where does that ‘sense’ come from? This sounds like wishful guessing. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, only that there’s no basis for suggesting that FSU is eager to play these games, and that the Big Ten is standing in the way.
But it just makes no sense to me that FSU wouldn’t be willing to go to Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, or wherever else when it’s been willing to go so many other places.
I can certainly think of reasons; for instance, the fact that it’s awfully hard to win in Columbus, Ann Arbor, Madison, or Lincoln, and FSU doesn’t pull in many recruits from those areas. It looks to me like FSU is willing to go on the road, but is generally avoiding “king vs. king” games outside of the South and Southwest, and even there, only occasionally. (They are playing Notre Dame next year, but it’s part of their ACC commitment.)
ADs rarely say who turned them down. But we do know that Notre Dame keeps turning down Ohio State, and the Rivals pay site reported that Oklahoma turned down Michigan. Penn State went to Alabama, so I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t go to Tallahassee, if they had a willing opponent. So there’s three Big Ten programs, at least, that are known to be looking for high-profile games. I would be surprised if they have not been in contact with FSU.
LikeLike
As a Penn State fan, I can tell you we play (and have played) ACC Teams (Syracuse 2013 & UVA 2012 come to mind). I certainly do not mind playing Pitt, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, the “U” or FSU (The Paterno/Bowden game was a classic), but the others do not really excite me (I wonder what would be more one sided: Duke @ Beaver Stadium or the Nitts @ Cameron Indoor?).
LikeLike
Adding to Brian’s comments; most all the ‘attractive’ opponents in the ACC already have in-state rivalries with an SEC program; e.g. FSU/Florida, Clemson/SC, GT/Georgia… The ‘other’ ACC programs aren’t that attractive save for Miami & VT; both of whom have a lot of B10 on their future schedules…
Maryland probably will want to play some of their former rivals; NC, Virginia, etc… PSU plays games against Pitt, Syracuse & VT almost every season going forward…
Iowa, Minnesota & Indiana are probably wise to play their mostly cupcake scheduling; those guys need all the OOC cupcakes they can to get bowl eligibility…
Purdue & MSU have rivalries with ND… MSU is willing to take on Miami & Boise State too while Purdue is wise to play one tough OOC rivalry with ND though they have some games with Missouri on its future schedules…
Illini might resume their rivalry with Missouri, probably will be their lone ‘tough’ game OOC most years…
Michigan is looking to replace ND on future schedules and thus far have added schools like BYU, Utah, VT, Colorado, Arkansas & Cincy in the short-term but are aiming for higher profile programs…
Wisconsin loves to schedule their cupcakes but lately are looking to improve their OOC schedule as they’ve put Alabama, LSU & VT on future schedules… Northwestern has put Stanford on their schedule and they appear to be attempting to create a rivalry with them…
Nebraska has a H&H coming up with Oklahoma and Tennessee coming up, they try to schedule one ‘tough’ OOC match-up a season…
Overall, I think the B10 prefers Pac 12 opponents to ‘available’ ACC schools other than VT/Miami. Historically they’ve preferred to play programs like UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah & Oregon State.
LikeLike
Adding to Brian’s comments; most all the ‘attractive’ opponents in the ACC already have in-state rivalries with an SEC program; e.g. FSU/Florida, Clemson/SC, GT/Georgia… The ‘other’ ACC programs aren’t that attractive save for Miami & VT; both of whom have a lot of B10 on their future schedules
The ACC plays eight conference games, with no plans for nine, so the main issue is their willingness to “schedule up.” FSU, Clemson and GT certainly could play P5 home & home outside of their in-state SEC rival, aside from the years they play Notre Dame. They do schedule such games occasionally, though not with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Would any of you like to see more Big Ten games against the ACC during the regular season?”
Not me. We play some already, plus there aren’t many intriguing schools in the ACC.
BC – yawn
SU – yawn
Pitt – only PSU
UL – yawn
UVA – yawn
VT – already has OSU, MI, PSU and WI coming up
UNC – yawn
NCSU – yawn (OSU played them back when they were good)
Duke – yawn
WF – yawn
Clemson – prefers not to leave the south, plus it’s not a place I want to visit
GT – plays UGA every year, so unlikely to happen
FSU – plays UF every year, so unlikely to happen
Miami – has NE, RU and MSU coming up and just played OSU
I can see a few specific schools of interest for certain teams (NW playing elite academic schools, MI/UVA public Ivy match, etc), but not much that is intriguing overall and likely. There would be some recruiting reasons, I guess, but I don’t like to play games for those reasons.
“Most of the interest I have read about seems to focus on Notre Dame; Pac-12 teams, presumably because of the historical Rose Bowl ties, opportunities for exposure in the western U.S.,”
Yes, teams the B10 has history with and places where the B10 has a lot of alumni. Most of the ACC doesn’t fit either category, especially once UMD joins.
“SEC teams, whom we should know by now are almost completely unwilling to schedule home-and-homes in B1G territory; ”
Yep, but the forbidden fruit is always the most desirable.
“and just two Big 12 teams (OU and Texas).”
Kings are always interesting. TCU has MN and OSU on future schedules. OSU played TT a decade ago or so.
“From the Big Ten’s perspective, I think it would make a lot of sense to have some games against the ACC, including not just the northeastern additions but, more importantly, the southern schools.”
Games vs GT don’t help you recruit in GA much. The B10 will never do well in SC. We already play some in FL. VA in next to MD where will be fairly regularly. NC has 2 bad programs and 2 decent ones, but no exciting ones.
“With high school football in Big Ten states not as strong compared to other parts of the country as it once was,”
OH (and PA) disagree with you.
“With a presence in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, the ACC offers great access to the southeast.”
OSU already recruit all of those states right now. I can’t speak for the others. I don’t know that 1 game every 10 years in NC is going to change much.
“Programs like Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech, I suspect, would be very open to playing Big Ten teams.”
FSU and GT have in-state rivals they play annually plus ND every 3rd year. I doubt they’re looking for a lot of tough games on top of that, especially not GT. FSU did play OU recently.
Miami plays the B10 frequently.
LikeLike
Why do you list L’ville as a “yawn”? That’s a fairly prominent and successful program. I’d love to see them face off against any B1G team.
Also, Wake Forest should be “double yawn”.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Louisville plays Kentucky every year. But, the one team that would make sense for Louisville to play would be Ohio State. If a Home & Home Hoops Match-Up were included, it might work for the Buckeyes as well as U of L. I wonder what OSU fans here would think about a scenario where U of L comes to “The Horseshoe” and OSU comes To YUM/KFC, and the next year OSU comes to Papa John’s and U of L comes to Value City ?
LikeLike
David Brown,
“But, the one team that would make sense for Louisville to play would be Ohio State.”
It makes little sense for OSU, though.
“I wonder what OSU fans here would think about a scenario where U of L comes to “The Horseshoe” and OSU comes To YUM/KFC, and the next year OSU comes to Papa John’s and U of L comes to Value City ?”
I’d say, “No, thanks.”
OSU has nothing to gain and everything to lose from playing UL in football. Hoops isn’t important enough to overcome that. And as long as they’re a tier 3 school, I really have zero interest in playing them.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Why do you list L’ville as a “yawn”? That’s a fairly prominent and successful program.”
For a few years, yes, but they have no real history of success. They’re a stepping stone program for coaches, and then they stink until they get their next good one (Petrino then mediocre, then Strong). They’re also a crap school and that matters to many B10 schools and fans.
“Also, Wake Forest should be “double yawn”.”
I restricted myself to yawn or not yawn.
LikeLike
Clemson – prefers not to leave the south, plus it’s not a place I want to visit.
You might change your tune if you went to a game there. Clemson is sort of the ACC equivalent of Nebraska — avid, friendly fans (as long as you don’t wear garnet with black, as in South Carolina, or gold, as in Florida State). Nice little college town, too. Among most Maryland fans, Clemson — which the Terrapins have played annually since 1952 — is the one ACC football rivalry that genuinely will be missed.
LikeLike
vp19,
“You might change your tune if you went to a game there. Clemson is sort of the ACC equivalent of Nebraska — avid, friendly fans (as long as you don’t wear garnet with black, as in South Carolina, or gold, as in Florida State). Nice little college town, too. Among most Maryland fans, Clemson — which the Terrapins have played annually since 1952 — is the one ACC football rivalry that genuinely will be missed.”
I’ve been to the town, and it’s middle of nowhere SC. That’s why I don’t want to go there.
LikeLike
“plus there aren’t many intriguing schools in the ACC.
BC – yawn; SU – yawn; Pitt – only PSU; UL – yawn; UVA – yawn; VT – already has OSU, MI, PSU and WI coming up; UNC – yawn; NCSU – yawn (OSU played them back when they were good); Duke – yawn; WF – yawn; Clemson – prefers not to leave the south, plus it’s not a place I want to visit; GT – plays UGA every year, so unlikely to happen; FSU – plays UF every year, so unlikely to happen; Miami – has NE, RU and MSU coming up and just played OSU”
Let’s see how many “intriguing” schools there are in the Big Ten
Nebraska – obviously intriguing
Minnesota – yawn
Iowa – yawn, especially if Louisville is a yawn
Wisconsin – intriguing
Northwestern – yawn on the scale of BC, another program that until recently won 8-9 games every year
Illinois – yawn
Purdue – yawn
Indiana – yawn
Michigan State – appealing, maybe on the scale of Georgia Tech
Michigan – obviously intriguing
Ohio State – obviously intriguing
Penn State – appealing, but interest is dampened by program-weakening sanctions
Rutgers – yawn
Maryland – hardly missed in football, except for maybe Virginia. Hoops is different. It’s hard to get excited about playing a school that is so dispassionate about football that it couldn’t sell out home games against Florida State or Clemson.
”Yes, teams the B10 has history with and places where the B10 has a lot of alumni. Most of the ACC doesn’t fit either category, especially once UMD joins.”
Aren’t there a lot of alumni in Florida, at least the retired versions? What about Atlanta? Within the Triangle (and probably in the Charlotte area), I know there are certainly a fair share of Big Ten alumni, especially OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Indiana, and Illinois.
”OH (and PA) disagree with you.”
I was very careful how I worded myself. I did not say that talent has fallen off the map in Big Ten states. Ohio and Pennsylvania high school football are still solid. Those states’ strong tradition for football will keep quality strong for decades to come. What I did say was that compared other parts of the country, it is not what it once was. It’s good, but it’s not improving. For instance, Georgia was once far behind Ohio in the numbers of players rated by recruiting magazines, but now Georgia is basically even. Meanwhile funding for high school football has suffered in a lot of Ohio and Pennsylvania towns, and that makes it hard for the quality of high school play to keep pace with the South.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“Let’s see how many “intriguing” schools there are in the Big Ten”
It’s irrelevant to the question you asked. You asked B10 fans if we’d like to see more B10 games against the ACC. The answer can only be yes if we think ACC teams are more interesting to us than the teams they would replace.
That said, I never claimed the B10 was loaded with exciting teams because I don’t think it is except to other B10 fans. We do have 4 kings to the ACC’s 2, though.
“BC, another program that until recently won 8-9 games every year”
Winning 8 games was unusual at BC until 1999. They did well under Tom O’Brien and then Jags, but it’s been all downhill recently (8, 7, 4, and 2 wins in the past 4 years respectively). They also didn’t join the ACC until 2005, so most of their 8 win seasons were in the BE. They’re a yawn because of their location (the northeast doesn’t care about CFB and the feelings are reciprocated by CFB fans), their BE history (1 co-championship), and their recent lack of success. BC with Matt Ryan wasn’t a yawn, but they aren’t that team any more.
I’d agree with the comparison to NW except that NW is riding high right now and BC isn’t.
“Aren’t there a lot of alumni in Florida, at least the retired versions?”
Didn’t I discuss Miami (plays the B10 a lot) and FSU (plays UF and not the B10)?
“What about Atlanta?”
A decent number, not a huge one. If GT plays a midwestern team, it wants ND. Playing UGA makes their schedule hard enough as far as they’re concerned. Besides, they run the option which is hard to prepare for and tends to lead to injured knees for the DL so I have no desire to play them.
“Within the Triangle (and probably in the Charlotte area), I know there are certainly a fair share of Big Ten alumni, especially OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Indiana, and Illinois.”
The farther south you go (until mid-FL), the fewer there are. With UMD now in the conference, that can accommodate many of the VA alumni (mostly near DC). NC isn’t a huge state for B10 alumni on a relative scale. They’ll just have to go to UMD or visit their alma mater, I guess.
“What I did say was that compared other parts of the country, it is not what it once was. It’s good, but it’s not improving.”
It can still be what it once was and not be better than other areas as they improve to match it. There is a ceiling to how good HS football can get in a state.
“For instance, Georgia was once far behind Ohio in the numbers of players rated by recruiting magazines, but now Georgia is basically even.”
That’s not quality, that’s quantity. GA has grown a lot. Nobody denies that.
“Meanwhile funding for high school football has suffered in a lot of Ohio and Pennsylvania towns, and that makes it hard for the quality of high school play to keep pace with the South.”
Funding has been bad in much of the the south, too. It’s not like all the schools in the south are oozing money.
LikeLike
After the difficulty that the Comcast Sports Houston and Fox Sports San Diego are having getting those Networks on the air (remember it is the Astros & Padres), some might THINK the Sports Bubble has burst. Well, guess again. The New York Yankees signed a 10 year Contract with WFAN for their Radio Rights (except for Drive time and perhaps Satellite Radio who listens to the Radio?), for between $15-20M per year (PLUS they have to Radio-Cast the incoming NYCFC (Manchester City/New York Yankees Owned Soccer Team (Does anyone think Manchester City was smart partnering up with the Yankees, after the Mets played hardball over the Citi Field Parking Lots? (I certainly do)). This happened AFTER the disastrous $200m 10 year WEEI Red Sox Contract, and as the signs are here that we are rebuilding (I am a HUGE Yankees fan) . If I am the Cubs, I can only imagine how much I will collect once the WGN portion of the local TV Contract ends?
LikeLike
@David Brown – The Cubs are going to get a large amount, although they can’t set up their own TV network until their Comcast SportsNet Chicago deal expires at the end of the decade (so that limits the number of suitors for those WGN games). There’s speculation that the Cubs will sign up with WGN with the termination date ending at the same time as the CSN Chicago deal, which would then bring all rights to games to the open market at the same time.
What’s interesting is that Chicago is one of the last major market holdouts of having a material number of local games on over-the-air TV. The Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks all still have a fairly large number of games on WGN, whereas many other markets have had complete or near-complete shifts to cable.
For the new Yankees/WFAN deal, I could see how the same logic that applies to TV sports rights also applies to radio, where local sporting events are one of the last types of content that get people to listen to the over-the-air radio live (as opposed to satellite radio, podcasts or music streaming services). AM radio has been having a tough time in general, but the top news and sports talk stations in the major markets (like WFAN in New York and WSCR in Chicago) are still doing pretty well. Plus, baseball has the advantage that there is usually 1 or 2 afternoon drive time games per week (and more in the case of a team like the Cubs that plays a lot more day games) where you have access to the largest possible radio audience (the combo of office workers and rush hour drivers). That’s why baseball still gets a pretty good premium for radio rights even compared to NFL and college football.
LikeLike
4 teams are eliminated so far-Houston, Miami, the Cubs and the White Sox. And they’re still worth a lot.
LikeLike
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/22487508-419/telander-frenzy-surrounding-northwestern-is-well-earned-and-well-deserved.html
LikeLike
When public colleges “do things the right way,” do columnists heap praise on them? Uh-uh.
LikeLike
You may be right, but don’t be too harsh, vp19. NU and Chicago are late comers to this level of revelry when it comes to college football.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Mailbag: Part I – I’m Not in the Realignment Business. I’m in the Empire Business. | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
One of the great mysteries of the college football blogosphere. Mr. SEC’s bizarre dearth of comments. Mr. SEC often has five or six new posts each day (six today), including a ‘headlines’ section with dozens of different links (36 today) all of which have garnered a whopping five comments. You would think with the SEC being so hot, and their fans having unequaled-anywhere-on-earth passion*. That he would get huge traffic and a comments galore. Nope.
He does a good job, I hope someone’s seeing it.
(*espn ministry of propaganda)
LikeLike
Mr SEC ticks some off by not being a homer. The site definitely has a pro-SEC bias, but is not a blind homer site. He has the Aggies calling him a Nazi for a not so positive commentary on Johnny Autograph. He’s ticked off a few other fan bases.
LikeLike
this thread is dead, but I’ll add 2 thoughts anyway:
1. unlike here, there is something wonky about his software for commenting. I’ve tried posting a few times without success. I am not inclined to bother again. here, the only problem I have ever had was with the “waiting for moderation” thing. That is solved by only one link per post. I made a giant point of telling everyone that, so it is a non-problem.
2. … how to say this politely: MrSEC interacts too much. He nearly always responds to some criticism and ends with “thank you for reading” or some such. It is off-putting. reeks of being thin-skinned and discourages user-generated interaction. Zero interaction is bad; but too much is also bad. Let the readers debate; allow them to make a virtual community; students play more in the sandbox when teacher isn’t watching; let loyal readers defend whatever controversial original post so the flame burns some reader, not the site owner. Then join in for a thought or two; moderate squabbles, etc. Traffic is built on user-created content.
that all being said, I enjoy his site.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Mailbag: Part I – I’m Not in the Realignment Business. I’m in the Empire Business. - Sports - You + Dallas
Pingback: B1G TV Deal Coming Out Like a Fox | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: The Return of Conference Realignment: Summer of Big 12 CYA Expansion | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
The question I have is whether there is a case for anticipatory breach. I tried to click on the link to read the contract but, it’s not working. Obviously, depending upon how it’s worded there might be a strong case. I also don’t know whether the Big 12 has agreed to share the proceeds of the current media rights deal with the four new teams coming in 2024. But if so, I would seriously consider bringing that suit without leaving the conference and then using that as leverage.
Of course, all of this may very well be mute if the Big 12 adds 4-6 teams from the PAC 12 in which case I would presume they would need to immediately negotiate a new media deal. In which case the GOR binding TX and OU would immediately dissolve.
And yes I’m a lawyer.
LikeLike
Pingback: Dissolution is Not a Solution to Break a Grant of Rights Agreement – FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT