For the past year, I’ve been pointing out that conference realignment really hinges on three primary schools: Texas, Notre Dame and North Carolina. The first two are fairly obvious to football-focused fans, but UNC is really the true lynchpin to the ACC. So, it was interesting to see the emails that were circulated within the UNC leadership ranks in the wake of Maryland’s defection to the Big Ten last year that The News & Observer procured. Here are some key excerpts and my thoughts:
Emails to and from Cunningham, the UNC athletic director, reflect the uncertainty that fans, boosters, administrators and Cunningham himself shared in the days after Maryland announced its decision to leave the ACC. Financial concerns drove the speculation surrounding conference realignment. According to Maryland, those concerns also drove it out of the ACC.
Hours after Maryland announced its move, Sports Illustrated posted a story on its website that detailed how much more money Maryland would make in the Big Ten. The first paragraph read: “The University of Maryland stands to make nearly $100 million more in conference revenue by 2020 with its switch from the ACC to the Big Ten. …”
Martina Ballen, the Chief Financial Officer of the UNC athletic department, emailed the link to Cunningham and UNC’s associate athletic directors. She included a short note: “Wow! Big $$$ if this is accurate.”
***
Other emails Cunningham received expressed shock that Maryland would leave, and they questioned whether the money in the Big Ten was that much greater than in the ACC. One came from Cappy Gagnon, a longtime Notre Dame athletic department employee who retired in 2011.
“I don’t get this one,” Gagnon wrote to Cunningham, who started his college athletic administration career at Notre Dame. “Maryland is going to be nobody in the Big Ten, with zero natural rivals and long travel. Is the money from the Big Ten Network that much greater than the ACC TV money?”
Cunningham’s response: “Yes. Likely $20 (million)/yr by 2017.”
This was one of the more surprising points in the sense that there seemed to be a genuine lack of knowledge among top level people of how much more of an advantage in TV money that the Big Ten had (and continues to have) over the ACC. That wasn’t something isolated to UNC – recall that University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh stated that he was “stunned” at the Big Ten’s financial projections and didn’t realize the extent of the financial disparities between conferences until going through realignment discussions. It would have been one thing if these were average sports fans just focused on on-the-field results, but it’s quite amazing that university leaders and athletic department officials didn’t seem to be as informed on college sports financial matters as, say, most of the people reading this blog or those that followed the reporting of mainstream media members like Brett McMurphy of ESPN.com, Andy Staples of SI.com and Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com. It’s an indication of the insularity of many universities and athletic departments and partially explains why the inertia in favor of the status quo is often stronger than many conference expansionistas would like to believe. What we’re seeing is that it takes a real external crisis for the vast majority of power conference schools to take notice of the information that’s out there and consider switching leagues. (Note that this thinking doesn’t apply to the “Group of Five” non-power conference schools, who are going to be continuously and unabashedly actively looking for greener pastures.)
Cunningham had no shortage of input. A steady stream of emails from alumni, fans and boosters began on Nov. 20.
The notes came from everywhere: from people who graduated from UNC in the 1960s, and those who graduated in the past few years. Former athletes wrote in. There were Rams Club members. And emails from fans who had no tie to the school other than their allegiance.
One came from an Army major who wrote of how he’d followed UNC athletics throughout deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. He expressed concern about a conference move and wrote, “I will always love Carolina, but my fervor towards our athletic programs would die a rapid death should we choose to enter the BIG TEN.”
The emails – many coming after UNC fans on the message boards at InsideCarolina.com organized a push to fill Cunningham’s inbox – shared roughly the same sentiment: Lead the Tar Heels out of the crumbling ACC, to a better place. The overwhelming majority of fans preferred moving to the SEC. Among the more than 150 pages of emails that Cunningham received in the 10 days after Maryland’s announcement, only one email favored joining the Big Ten.
This isn’t a shock that UNC fans preferred a move to the SEC over the Big Ten, as many purely sports-focused fans are generally ignorant or dismissive of the desire of university presidents to tie academic prestige to athletic conferences along with the TV dollars involved. As I’ve stated in previous posts, this plays to the ACC’s advantage in terms of retaining UNC: Tar Heel fans want a Southern-based athletic league, but university leaders care much more about being with their academic peers and maximizing revenue. So, the ACC provides the right balance of being Southern-focused (unlike the Big Ten) and having academic prestige (more so than the SEC).
And so it went, day after day. The most dire speculation was that Florida State and Clemson might also leave for the Big 12. The possibility came up in communication between Cunningham and Dean Jordan, an ACC consultant who specializes in TV rights contracts.
Jordan, who works for the Wasserman Media Group, worked closely with Swofford and helped convince Florida State and Virginia, among others, that the grant of rights agreement would help secure the ACC’s future. Jordan also discussed with ACC schools the possible benefits of developing a TV network devoted to ACC coverage.
Back then, in the days after Maryland’s announcement, Jordan was like everyone else, trying to figure out whether Florida State might actually leave. In an email to Cunningham on Nov. 21, Jordan wrote:
“FSU’s life won’t greatly change in the Big 12. The Big 12 TV deal is pro-rata for any new member and their TV distribution is only about $1 (million) more than the ACC. The Big 12 is going to take in $13 (million) more in BCS money – around $1 (million) per school.
“So for $2 to $3 (million) bucks, FSU is going to go through the trauma of switching leagues?”
The Wasserman consultant crystallized what I had always thought about the prospect of Florida State and Clemson going to the Big 12: it just didn’t make sense when you just took a step back and saw what was involved. The Big 12 might have had the advantage in pure on-the-field football performance over the past several years, but that league is a paper tiger in off-the-field conference realignment discussions compared to the ACC and other power conferences. Florida State might have used discussions (or the rumors of discussions) with the Big 12 as leverage to get an audience with the SEC and Big Ten, but the Seminoles were never seriously considering actually joining the Big 12.
Cunningham didn’t just receive emails from interested colleagues and panicking fans. On Nov. 25 – six days after Maryland announced its move – former University of Cincinnati NCAA faculty athletics representative Frederick Russ wrote Cunningham in hopes of bolstering support for Cincinnati.
Russ and Cunningham spent time together days before at the Maui Invitational in Hawaii.
“As I mentioned in Maui, I’ve been hearing all kinds of rumors about which schools the ACC might seek to add, and I wanted to let you know why I think adding the University of Cincinnati to the ACC would benefit the conference and both UNC and UC,” Russ wrote, before listing his reasons.
The ACC, though, already was finalizing its plan. Less than two weeks after Maryland announced that it would be leaving for the Big Ten, the ACC on Nov. 29, 2012 announced that it was replacing Maryland with Louisville. About five months after that, the conference had secured a grant of rights agreement, which effectively put an end – at least for the foreseeable future – to speculation and rumors that were never more prevalent than in the days that followed news of Maryland’s impending departure for the Big Ten.
Give Cincinnati credit for this: that school has been tireless in getting its message out for conference realignment purposes and taking nothing for granted. To be honest, I didn’t even really consider Cincinnati to be a viable ACC candidate in the immediate aftermath of the Maryland defection, but they managed to at least shoehorn themselves into the conversation when all was said and done (despite the fact that Louisville was ultimately chosen). Being aggressive in and of itself isn’t going to change a school’s position in conference realignment, but with the insularity among university and athletic department officials that I described above, taking every opportunity to highlight successes and future facilities plans (particularly in football) to the right people is critical. Louisville (Cincinnati’s competition) did just that over the past couple of years and went from being a marginal ACC candidate and possibly being left out of the power conference picture completely to grabbing the last spot in the ACC against formidable athletic (at least in basketball) and academic competition (UConn). Keep an eye out on Cincinnati when (not if) the Big 12 inevitably comes to the conclusion that it needs to expand.
All-in-all, the UNC emails highlighted the consternation that school officials and fans feel in times of conference realignment instability. As much as people like me are interested in the topic, I can certainly understand that no one in a leadership position likes dealing with periods of high stakes uncertainty. That being said, UNC is one of the few schools that is legitimately in control of its own destiny – both the Big Ten and SEC would take them in a heartbeat. The worst case scenario for the Tar Heels is that they are forced to join a league against their will that is wealthier and more powerful than the ACC itself. A fellow ACC school like Wake Forest, on the other hand, would feel quite a bit differently in the face of a conference collapse (just as Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State feared back in 2010 and 2011 with the Big 12 defections and UConn, Cincinnati and USF feel today in not being able to escape the then-Big East (now AAC). Schools will continue to place quite a bit of value on stability even if there is the possibility of larger dollars elsewhere.
(Image from Now I Know – It’s Gotta Be the Shorts)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
I guess I’ll renew my subscription.
LikeLike
take 2?
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
Spartans > Hoosiers
LikeLike
2TD’s for the win
Good game, see you come basketball season
LikeLike
“He said the SEC pays out around $20 (million per) team right now,” Frierson wrote. “Thinks it will approach $35 (million per team) when TV contract is renegotiated in a couple of years.”
When does the SEC renegotiate?
LikeLike
It’s in progress. SEC Network starts next year. The SEC should make anywhere from $30-40M per school starting out.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure that a potential SEC network would have anywhere near the financial strength of the Big Ten Network. The B1G has two things working for it that can’t be matched by the SEC; highly populous states with higher subscriber fees and huge nationwide alumni bases that tune in for third tier games.
LikeLike
The X-factor though is Texas. No one really knows what the SEC will get in Texas.
LikeLike
SEC states as a whole have a higher population than B1G states, but it splits 14 ways instead of 12. Florida and Texas have huge populations. Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee have B1G-level populations. Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina are a bit smaller but they add up.
LikeLike
Andy,
Quit making stuff up. B1G has exclusive control of the biggest states in the country. SEC has to split their only big states of TX and FL.
LikeLike
CA is in the B1G? 😉
LikeLike
Actually, even when you add the states of Maryland and New Jersey, the SEC’s 14 still has a larger footprint than the B1G’s 14. The B1G does have generally larger alumni bases, but the SEC has more national appeal as far as the quality of the football. Subscription rates outside of your footprint go for pennies on the dollar so there’s no huge advantage there either way. The B1G has better basketball so that leads to more viewers for longer periods out the year. The SEC has a good baseball and softball culture so it remains to be seen how that might play on a regional network. I don’t think the final numbers for either network will be too different.
LikeLike
AllTideUp,
“Actually, even when you add the states of Maryland and New Jersey, the SEC’s 14 still has a larger footprint than the B1G’s 14.”
If you give them all of the population in each state, sure, but not by much and the B10 doesn’t split as many states.
B10 – 85.0M
SEC – 92.2M (but split TX, FL, GA, SC and KY)
In addition, NE adds the people in several small surrounding states (ND, SD, etc) and PSU+UMD+RU adds a bunch in the north east (DE, parts of NY state, etc).
LikeLike
Brian,
It’s granted that the SEC “splits” states, but that’s a hairy concept. If you are referring to market penetration then I guarantee you the SEC Network will be in every market in FL, GA, SC, and KY. There may be other major programs in those states, but the SEC owns the flagship and most popular in each instance. In fact, I dare say the SEC doesn’t even split GA. GT has a miniscule fan base. It’s kind of like saying PSU splits PA with Pitt. There are more non-UGA SEC fans in GA than GT fans. Speaking of SEC fans in general, you have to account for all the alumni that leave their home state for jobs elsewhere. it’s not just people from up North that have ballooned FL’s population in the last generation.
The only question mark here is Texas. How far is A&M’s reach? There aren’t tons of SEC alumni stretching into Texas like there are in the traditional footprint. I would be surprised if the SECN isn’t on in the biggest markets, but full penetration is a question.
Also, you have to consider that even though there aren’t as many major college programs in the B1G footprint, there does exist a much more significant pro-sports culture. Not only are there a large number of passionate pro-sports fans, there are many more pro-sports teams across the board. That divides loyalties…viewership…and dollars.
LikeLike
Considering TX has 26M people and UT has slightly more fans than TAMU, I think mentioning that the SEC splits the state is relevant. If you only give the SEC 50% of TX, that’s a drop of 13M people and puts them behind the B10. You can also legitimately argue that FL is split, and I’m not sure Miami would pay the full rate for SECN (big cities are tough to crack anyway, plus lots of northerners and Miami fans).
LikeLike
GT has a miniscule fan base. It’s kind of like saying PSU splits PA with Pitt. There are more non-UGA SEC fans in GA than GT fans.
The issue of split states is hairy indeed. Nobody would argue Georgia has a decided edge over Georgia Tech at this point in time. When Georgia Tech was in the SEC they were the better team on the national level early on tho. The point being made is that unlike Michigan and Michigan State and the state of Michigan, Georgia – the state – is more fractured. If demographics are correct B1G alumni are moving south more than SEC alumni are moving north. In addition, Michigan – the state – is in the center of the B1G while Georgia is a border state to the ACC.
My gut feeling is if you add up all the ACC alumni in Georgia – the state – they far exceed Georgia Tech alumni so math may look like this :
GA = UGA + GT + non UGA SEC + non GT ACC + B1G/B12/PAC fans + non Big 5 fans
My only question is where each of those parts rank in the equation?
Now look at Michigan and Michigan State in the state of Michigan
MI = UM + MSU + OTR B1G fans + non B1G fans + non Big 5 fans
Even if you eliminate all the Michigan and Michigan State alumni I am willing to bet that the alumni from all the other 10 B1G (before adding Maryland and Rutgers) is the largest population (over ACC + B12 + PAC + SEC alumni) and still exceeds all the MAC fans in the state of Michigan combined into a single group.
LikeLike
Brian,
I said Texas was split and I also questioned whether or not the SECN would gain full penetration there. The question is not how many UT alumni are in the state, however. The question is, is there a sufficient enough population of A&M fans in conjunction with other interested parties that would request the SECN. If you reach a critical mass in a given market then the network goes on. True, UT alums probably aren’t going to be watching the SECN so that affects viewership and ad sales, but it doesn’t necessarily discourage market penetration.
I also know Florida is split, but again that doesn’t necessarily discourage market penetration. UF is a bigger force in their state than A&M is in theirs. Not to mention there are plenty of SEC alumni there outside of FSU or Miami fans(the Miami fan base is more like that of a mid-major anyway). My point is I would be shocked if the SECN is not on in every market there. Having a state split by multiple BCS programs is not as big an issue as people make it out to be. Iowa isn’t damaged by the presence of ISU…or PSU damaged by the presence of Pitt. Cable subscriptions are paid by everyone, not just the alumni in a state.
LikeLike
duffman,
Yes, there are more B1G alumni moving South. Ultimately that means more B1G alumni paying SECN subscription fees because there aren’t nearly enough of them to represent of critical mass of uninterested customers. Also, if a compelling SEC game is on the SECN(as has been reported to be the plan) then you might even find B1G alumni switching over to watch a game provided their team isn’t playing. The SEC doesn’t have the highest rated football games in the nation by accident. It’s not a detriment to the SECN as long as the number of B1G alumni or ACC alumni don’t outnumber SEC fans(alumni or not). Possibly the more interesting dynamic of the demographic shifts is that more and more children of B1G alumni living in the South will end up going to a state school which will actually increase the SEC alumni base in the future(ACC as well, just depending on where the kid grows up).
States like Georgia and Florida may be more fractured, but there are higher percentages of college football fans in the South as opposed to Northern and Midwestern states. That’s especially true when you look at states like MD and NJ.
And my only point in all this is to say, in the end, the numbers being pulled in by either network won’t be that different one way or the other.
LikeLike
No doubt that the SECN will be on every cable carrier in Texas. Already has a contract with AT&T Uverse, which serves most of Texas. If you look at the TV ratings of the Alabama-A&M game and the Old Miss – A&M game you will see in both games that the highest ratings were in the city of Austin. Yep, that is the UT home city. Pears’ that those old rivals who do not acknowledge each other any more still tune into the others games. UT-OU was on an over the air network but Old Miss – A&M was ESPN and both ratings were within a couple of points of each other and both were higher that PSU – Michigan.
LikeLike
Its Dallas / Ft. Worth that is the big enchilada ~ Texas A&M obviously gets in-conference carriage in East Texas, likely doesn’t in West Texas, but if they get in-conference carriage in East and Central Texas, that’s about 80% of the state, and if they get out of conference carriage in Central Texas, that’s more like getting 30%-40% of the state.
LikeLike
Should ,could would ,maybe.
LikeLike
Definitely interesting to see some of the stuff that UNC people were saying. Thanks for the analysis!
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
UNC envisions itself as an alpha dog, but isn’t serious about playing alpha dog football (admittedly, it probably was burned by Butch Davis). Being in the ACC enables it to delude itself into staying in a basketball-oriented cocoon (unlike Kentucky, Indiana and Kansas, which at least know they are outliers in football-oriented conferences). But a decade from, if the revenue gap between the ACC and the Big Ten or SEC grows to the point where it can no longer be ignored, the likes of Virginia and Georgia Tech may contemplate bidding adieu to the ACC and seeking greener pastures in the Big Ten (particularly if Virginia gradually sheds its southern veneer). Take those two out of the ACC, and Chapel Hill will face a quandary — especially since it would be impossible to find replacements on a similar level, and the ACC’s closest link to the affluent D.C. market would be Virginia Tech, some miles southwest of Roanoke.
LikeLike
vp19,
“But a decade from, if the revenue gap between the ACC and the Big Ten or SEC grows to the point where it can no longer be ignored, the likes of Virginia and Georgia Tech may contemplate bidding adieu to the ACC and seeking greener pastures in the Big Ten (particularly if Virginia gradually sheds its southern veneer).”
The quote below lends some credence to the idea that UVA was giving the B10 consideration.
Jordan, who works for the Wasserman Media Group, worked closely with Swofford and helped convince Florida State and Virginia, among others, that the grant of rights agreement would help secure the ACC’s future.
I find it hard to believe they would’ve left without UNC, but maybe they were more serious about it than I thought.
LikeLike
“Keep an eye out on Cincinnati when (not if) the Big 12 inevitably comes to the conclusion that it needs to expand.”
___________________
Cincinnati and Connecticut want to remain in the AAC for as little time as possible, and once Dodds is out as AD in Austin, the rest of the Big 12 no longer will be under his thumb. The conference probably would prefer Clemson/Florida State, but the two UCs would give the Big 12 some presence in the east alongside West Virginia.
LikeLike
I’m not sure we’ll ever see UConn in the Big 12- I think a better partner for UC would be Memphis…larger market, great bball program, closer to B12 country…
LikeLike
But does either school increase payouts? Because right now that’s the big issue for Big 12 expansion. They get the most per school at current because there’s just 10 of them. UConn and Cincinnati don’t really move the needle much and provide even larger outliers than WVU culturally and geographically. Plus, what would they use: a North/South alignment again? it would be more skewed than it ever was the first time around.
I actually think UConn becomes the biggest loser of the formerly “BCS conference” schools because they’re the only one whose stature has visibly dropped in the realignment aftermath. USF is neutral, while Cincinnati has improved and may actually be in better position to move than the Huskies. If the ACC ever chooses to add, the new market of Ohio is better than a crowded northeast corridor already occupied by Syracuse and Boston College (plus Pitt, to a degree). For the Big 12, Cincy is much closer to WVU and provides an easier bridge should they choose to grab a nearby candidate (like perhaps NIU?) as program No. 12.
Obviously, just conjecture, but the most likely programs for Big 12 expansion are (in order): Cincinnati, UCF, USF, UConn and NIU. BYU and Boise are out due to needing both in order to expand west and the fact that it would put the conference in a third time zone. With WVU, they have to remain east for the most part, which is where these other schools factor in. However, Boise and BYU are the only teams of those that will increase overall payouts enough that per-school payouts would be equal or greater than before.
LikeLike
I think Boise is losing some of its luster and is becoming the post-Tarkanian UNLV.
LikeLike
Won’t jump to that conclusion just yet. Still on track to finish with 10 wins as of right now. Not too shabby at all. I think a lot of it’s due to several MWC programs catching up (Fresno, SDSU, Utah State) which eliminates recruits they would’ve otherwise locked down years ago. If they moved to the Big 12, they’d regain that advantage fairly quickly.
LikeLike
I’d hesitate to say Boise is on track for 10 wins, especially if you mean just regular season. 2 losses already and the best team they’ve beaten is 1-6 Air Force (Zoomies under 6.5 wins! whoo hoo!). I’d say 8 or 9 regular season wins is the most likely scenario at this point, though the Utah St game is a pretty big swing game for them. Win it and 10 becomes difficult but achievable. Lose it and even 8 seems like a reach with BYU, Wyoming, CSU etc. still to come.
LikeLike
@Matthew Utah State’s not exactly a swing anymore with Keeton out, and Wyoming’s proven it’s still not “there” yet with loss to Texas State. BYU’s the last major test of the year and even then, the Cougars are just an average team. If they end the season with two losses — both to what could be top 15 teams — I don’t see that as a major step back. Just maybe not the heights we were used to them reaching four or five years ago.
LikeLike
Northern Illinois is not even on Conference USA’s radar, much less the Big 12.
LikeLike
Texas will sooner add to its schedule away-only games against Texas A&M than admit NIU to the Big XII.
LikeLike
But does either school increase payouts? Because right now that’s the big issue for Big 12 expansion. They get the most per school at current because there’s just 10 of them.
No, which means it’s game over. The one invariable rule of expansion is that no one expands to lose money. I don’t think the Big XII can go back to the networks for more money unless they add Florida State or a comparable program (I can’t think of another one).
Plus, what would they use: a North/South alignment again? it would be more skewed than it ever was the first time around.
If it were financially compelling, they’d find a way around the alignment problem. But you’re right, this is a major issue if the Big XII ever expands. Last time, they were a 3-king league, so no matter what they did it would be a 2-1 split. They preserved the Red River Rivalry as an annual game, and sacrificed Oklahoma-Nebraska. Without Nebraska, any plausible split creates ridiculously unbalanced divisions.
Obviously, just conjecture, but the most likely programs for Big 12 expansion are (in order): Cincinnati, UCF, USF, UConn and NIU.
How about none, none, none, none, and none.
LikeLike
Exactly. That’s why expansion is not happening in the current environment.
LikeLike
John – I doubt anybody outside of the ACC (FSU, Miami, Clemson, VA Tech) would increase the B-12’s payout. The B-12 schools are grossly overpaid as it currently stands. The networks saved the B-12 and overpaid for it in order to put the brakes on realignment.
I’ve long thought the best thing for the B-12 to do is expand with two football-only members. That way, a CCG may well come close to paying for the two football-only members’ share. I could see BYU and Boise, or Cincy and UConn, or UCF and USF accepting a football-only membership in the B-12. For the other sports, BYU is already in the WCC, Boise could go Big West, Cincy and UConn may be able to swing a Big East invite, and UCF & USF could go to any number of conferences.
LikeLike
• “If we end up in the (Big Ten) and NCSU goes to the SEC then we may as well pack it in when it comes to football.”
I found this comment particularly interesting. Although the long-term impacts of joining the SEC have yet to be seen, I think that A&M’s recent recruiting, fund-raising, on-field performance, and national exposure success will give any university and its supporters serious pause about allowing a major rival (especially an in-state rival) to join the SEC over itself.
LikeLike
The fundamental problem with Big 12 expansion is that none of the potential candidates are remotely good enough to avoid substantially bringing down the average. If the #1 long-term priority for the league is to avoid driving Texas and/or Oklahoma to walk (and it clearly should be), then adding more mouths to feed that will only dilute the brand and the per school TV money average can only hurt. Especially if the new mouths to feed also represent long-distance plane flights just to get there.
As it is, I think that Oklahoma and especially Texas made a mistake signing the current GoR extension (and I think that Texas has figured that one out as the rest of the league’s intransigence about LHN issues has basically torpedoed the network’s viability, and they got away with it because Texas was handcuffed). Even if the other 8 could force in members that UT/OU think are lesser, that would only provide more encouragement for those two to more seriously consider other long-term options.
LikeLike
“…as the rest of the league’s intransigence about LHN issues…”
That goes both ways. Had UT spearheaded a conference wide network it would have been difficult to imagine it not enjoying far greater distribution, and have been a conference unifying entity.
LikeLike
Except, of course, that Texas would have been providing most of the value while getting a fraction of the return. The rest of the league is not ENTITLED to live off the Longhorn trough in every single aspect of life. Even if they think and act like they are.
LikeLike
Example A of why the Big 12 will always be the least stable major conference, until it exists no more…
LikeLike
And a great fit for the B1G.
Are we really sure we want to invite that? Why would they want to share with Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, etc.
LikeLike
UNL and Texas A&M backed the Big XII’s unequal revenue sharing. Joe Paterno’s Grand Eastern Conference fell apart because PSU refused to allow any revenue sharing in football. USC and UCLA fought as hard as they could to keep unequal revenue sharing in the PAC.
LikeLike
Had UT spearheaded a conference wide network it would have been difficult to imagine it not enjoying far greater distribution, and have been a conference unifying entity.
Until UT, OU and Kansas realized that a conference network would make them a fraction of what they could make by selling their TV rights on their own…
LikeLike
Well, of course, only Texas and Nebraska had any interest in a network. A&M refused to explore a “Lone Star” network with Texas.
LikeLike
bullet – I seem to remember that Texas only offered the Aggies a 20% share of the proposed Lone Star Network.
LikeLike
Bullet, I expect you would not share for only twenty percent of the return either. Good for A&M.
LikeLike
To clarify what everyone is talking about, A&M administration claimed the reason the Aggies passed is that Texas insisting that UT be given 2/3 of the profits but that the two schools split the startup costs evenly. UT vehemently denied that.
Obviously, both sides have a reason to lie and (to date) neither has ever produced any paperwork to substantiate their claims.
LikeLike
The Texas story is the more logical one. According to Dodds, at the time, they weren’t sure that they might not have to pay to get the channel on (instead of being paid). Noone expected a lot of $. Bill Byrne and A&M weren’t interested.
When asked about it afterwards, Byrne’s reply was, “Noone offered me half of a network paying $15 million a year.” Totally true and also misleading.
LikeLike
“Until UT, OU and Kansas realized that a conference network would make them a fraction of what they could make by selling their TV rights on their own…”
What are you comparing to, a non existent network? Memory isn’t great but I seem to recall U of Az was buying out a brand new 10+M IMG contract, U O an 8M, etc. (and they are signing new IMG/Fox/learfield/etc local radio/media deals). That value will be recouped.
I’m sure OU and UT could/did command even more in the uneven tier 1 deals. But at what cost, conference unrest? Doesn’t the rise in the marketablity of a common tier3 channel (BTN) and the morphing of it into a jr tier1 network (P12N) put these ventures in a similar place as the tier1 that OU/UT saw necessary/benificial to share equally? It isn’t like this would put ISU and UT’s athletic departments budgets on an equal footing. It would only assist the lower levels in trailing by a little less, and perhaps help the overall conference depth a little bit.
LikeLike
What are you comparing to, a non existent network?
Due simply to population footprint and lack of content the longterm upside for a Big XII network would to distribute about half the revenue of the BTN and UT, OU and KU already make substantially more than that with their Tier III TV deals.
I’m sure OU and UT could/did command even more in the uneven tier 1 deals. But at what cost, conference unrest? Doesn’t the rise in the marketablity of a common tier3 channel (BTN) and the morphing of it into a jr tier1 network (P12N) put these ventures in a similar place as the tier1 that OU/UT saw necessary/benificial to share equally?
The thing you are missing is that the reason UT and OU were willing to accept equal revenue sharing for the Tier I and II rights was the fact they could make up the difference with their Tier III rights.
With the current revenue system UT, OU and KU are all able to stay competitive financially with the PAC and well ahead of the ACC while still being members of the Big XII; with a Big XII Network they wouldn’t.
To put it another way; the only reason the Big XII continues to exist is the LHN. If Texas were interested in being part of conference network they would join the PAC or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
“The thing you are missing is that the reason UT and OU were willing to accept equal revenue sharing for the Tier I and II rights was the fact they could make up the difference with their Tier III rights.”
Exactly. They see it as now marketable enough to enable a shift in continued uneven distribution.
“To put it another way; the only reason the Big XII continues to exist is the LHN.”
Perhaps. But a B12N would have been a defacto Longhorn network, and would have had the inventory to be viable. The LHN is so far existing on the largess of ESPN, and local providers. Not how it was billed. And when ESPN’s interest in the LHN conflicts with their interest in the SECN?
I’m not trying to be a hater. I just truly believe spreading the Longhorn brand over the whole conference would have provided long term B12 viability AND stability. I think you undervalue it’s worth. The LHN provides temporary viability.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to be a hater. I just truly believe spreading the Longhorn brand over the whole conference would have provided long term B12 viability AND stability. I think you undervalue it’s worth. The LHN provides temporary viability.
Why would it make the Big XII anymore viable in the longterm. The schools that would benefit would be the have-nots, but ISU, KSU, Baylor and TTU aren’t the schools that are at risk to depart.
But a B12N would have been a defacto Longhorn network, and would have had the inventory to be viable.
No it wouldn’t have. It would have carried all the other schools’ games and reported on them as well.
The LHN is so far existing on the largess of ESPN, and local providers. Not how it was billed.
So? Texas still gets its $11 million a year and the right to brag they are only school in the country whose athletic department has 24 hour day network devoted to it. A Big XII network would offer neither.
And when ESPN’s interest in the LHN conflicts with their interest in the SECN?
No worse then what would happen when UT’s interests conflicted with say Baylor.
…
My overall point remains this; the current model may not be as good for TTU, Baylor, ISU, TCU, K-State and perhaps OSU and WVU, but it is better for OU, UT and KU which means it is better for the conference’s longterm survival.
LikeLike
UT proposed a Texas network to A&M but there was no interest from A&M until several years later when UT signed the deal with ESPN.
LikeLike
I find your statement that the leaders of UNC were totally unaware very telling. Many, many people stae on blogs that they are done with newspapers. That they get all of the info of daily happenings on the web. I contend that reading a newspaper provides one an overall view of a days happenings. That the web provides one a very selective reading. Most everyone has their favorite web sites and read what pertains to them at the moment, financial, sports, politics, etc and the big picture is foresaken.
I am not surprised that 99% of the emails favored UNC’s move to the SEC. They are as Southern in attitude as they are in speech. Old timers definitly still hate the Yankees from the Civil War, crazy but true. And on this same thought, if the SEC money escalates to levels that some predict and ESPN won’t give the ACC their own very profitable network (likely) then the likely hood of UNC and UVA joining their academic brethren in the SEC goes way up.
AAU = Vanderbilt, Florida, A&M, Missouri with Alabama and Georgia increasing their academic staure every year.
The GOR for the Big Twelve may be holding back a new TV deal for the ten teams in the future. If the LHN continues to be not seen, the plug may be pulled and ESPN may settle a buy out, which would make UT an even better candidate for membership in the PAC or the B1G. If the B1G is successful in getting KU as a member and the PAC is successful in getting UT, TT, OU and OSU as members, what legal rights would the remaining five schools have in an organization that does not meet the minimum NCAA standards of a six team conference. How fast would Fox and ESPN pull the TV plug on their week viewings? Only UT and their next AD, maybe new President and coach, would have clues where UT’s direction might be. I just don’t see the B12 adding any new schools and I am betting they wish thay had added Louisville, Pitt and Cincinnati rather than WVU to start with.
Ironic that their stated additions of “much better programs” than the ones leaving don’t look so much better in today’s light.
LikeLike
Should have said academic and culteral brethryn.
LikeLike
“Old timers definitly still hate the Yankees from the Civil War, crazy but true.”
That attitude pretty much sums up why there is still a substantial amount of bitterness in the South. While I personally am absolutely not one of the “South’s Gonna Rise Again” people and hold absolutely no resentment toward “Yankees”, I also don’t think that people are crazy, backward, etc. for holding on to their cultural heritage. There is a huge cultural bias towards Southerners in many ways, some of which are fair and some of which aren’t. In the North, the impacts of the Civil War ended very shortly thereafter, whereas in the South, they are still being felt to this day. Southerners are very aware of how we are perceived nationally and tend to be very sensitive (sometimes overly so) about it.
LikeLike
Not so much in Texas but I sure did hear about that bitterness when I travel to visit kin and friends in South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. Probably because of so many battlegrounds and the ravages of war passed down.
LikeLike
Texas is different from the rest of the South because there is a unique Texan identity that comes first. Most Texans self-identify as Texan or American first and Southern or even Western third, whereas in most of the rest of the South people self-identify as Southern or American first and with their state a distant third. I also think that the long influx of oil wealth into Texas traditionally put the state on much better economic footing than other Southern states.
LikeLike
To my spouse’s grandmother in Georgia, Sherman was still a 4 letter word. But I think a lot has to do with the only politically correct prejudices are that against southerners and fundamentalists (of which there are a lot in the south). There’s a lot of looking down their nose by those in the north against the “backwards” southerners. The red/blue divide with Hollywood deep blue has exacerbated that.
LikeLike
To be fair, there’s also a lot looking down their nose by others in the south against the “backwards” southerners.
LikeLike
I like your observations, Jeffrey.
To throw in my two cents, I grew up in South Carolina in the 90’s when the debate over what to do with the Confederate flag at the State House was the dominant political conversation. I grew up there and had family who grew up there going back generations, but I never felt that flag represented me or my family. I sure as heck didn’t think that flag represented in any way the over 1 million citizens who were black in that state, let alone anyone whose families came from other countries since the Civil War. Because of that a number of other issues, I felt South Carolina, in particular, took its obsession with its heritage as a Southern state so insanely seriously that I almost want to distance myself sometimes from that state.
Later, I went to college in NC and lived here for a couple more years. Basically I felt this state was Southern but not in-your-face, obnoxious Southern. I’ve always liked North Carolina and, God willing, I’ll live here for decades to come.
Moving to Indiana was great. I’ll admit I don’t have the stones to tolerate Midwestern winters for longer than the five years I was up there (and that was Lafayette & Indianapolis, not Chicago or Minneapolis!), but I thought the Midwest was as welcoming a place to move to as any place I can imagine. People are way, way more friendly in the Midwest than people in the South realize they are. For instance, I loved going running & biking on Indy’s greenways. I always got waves and hello’s from others. Many Southerners think they’re the only ones who do that.
Raleigh, I felt, was a good place to transition back to the South. I would not have wanted to move from a fairly progressive city like Indy to South Carolina, and with Raleigh having such a mix of people, it was what I needed. To use the example about friendliness on the greenways, I’m not sure why this is, but people are NOT nearly as friendly on trails here as they were in Indiana (or in Chicago when I went on the lakefront trail). Overall, people are as friendly here as they are anywhere I’ve lived, but people just have a serious problem making eye-contact and smiling on the trails. It’s weird.
(BTW, going from a state where I grew up with a whole lot of “South’s gonna rise again” attitude to a city with the gigantic Soliders & Sailors Monument facing south to “defend the union” and back to a state with Civil War memorials has been forced me to have a little culture shock, or at least as much as one can have from moving within the States.)
LikeLike
Thanks Micheal in Raleigh:
My dad’s giant giant extended family was/is from Columbia; my mom grew up in Columbus. He came up in the late 50s to serve his residency at tOSU, they met, then a wedding, then babies, then the divorce (in the 60s mind you; much much less prevalent than today). As nearly always, Mom got custody.
Part of the divorce decree was that we kids would spend the summer in South Carolina with dad (and the new wife and new kids, etc. etc.)
Even for a youngster, there was culture shock. Every aunt, uncle, cousin we visited had all these paintings of Civil War generals and colonels and mementos and things related to the Civil War. The paintings/prints were the weirdest part to me. Why would you have some CW General or Jefferson Davis on your wall? The Civil War was ALIVE to them.
Coming from Ohio, the Civil War was ancient history and certainly wasn’t a topic of weekly conversation.
That was, of course, 40 years ago now.
My dad says the intensity has noticeably lessened in the last 40 years. That makes sense. Aunt Blossom, the matriarch of the family back then, was in her 80s in 1970 or so. So, she was born before 1900; her parents probably had direct visceral experiences of the Civil War. Her grandfather and grand-uncles probably fought in the war; etc.
When that generation passes, the actual memories die too. Now it is history in books, not history from someone’s memory.
Anyway, it was strange to me coming from Ohio even being that young.
On a positive note, flea markets in the South are much more interesting than in the North because of this. A fond memory was the first time I ran across Confederate money at a flea market with my dad. He was like “no big deal” (lots of that still floating around), but I was like “wow, cool man!” I never found Confederate money in flea markets up in Ohio. 🙂
As a complete aside, Columbus and Columbia have a whole bunch of things in common: state capital, big state university, medium-sized river running thru the middle, similar size and population (as of 1970s), etc. etc.
As another aside, Michael you mention the cold and snow. I offer my a few memories on Columbia, South Carolina. I see in my mind’s eye red soil and lots of giant pine trees and the yard covered in pine needles. Coming from the black fertile farm country of Franklin County, Ohio, I was like: “why is the ground red?” LOL And we had grass and maples and oaks and leaves to rake in the autumn, but never pine trees and needles.
By contrast, we all have the same crows. I heard the crows in the tops of the pine trees and I hear the same ‘caw caw caw’ up here. Weird how we remember sounds and smells.
Then we went to some vacation islands off the coast and I remember round prickly things in the sand that hurt like heck if you stepped on them. I admit to not liking the beach because of those things ! LOL
Well, I guess that was a fun trip down memory lane on this Football Saturday morning.
North, South, East or West, I think we can agree there is one group we can all look down upon: people from Appalachia.
LikeLike
I visited Charleston, SC around 1990 and sat through a short film downtown at the visitor center. It was total denial. Slavery was good for those people and they were well treated. Not an exact quote, but, that was the tone and it was kind of astounding to me. I think South Carolina (or at least Charleston) is at a whole ‘nother level than the rest of the South.
LikeLike
I found this post pretty offensive. As if there aren’t racist minorities. You seem to want to pin everything “backwards” on Southerners. Try spending some time in Detroit or Philly.
LikeLike
The Longhorn network is now on 7 of the top 10 cable providers. They still aren’t on the satellites (Dish and DirectTV-and they may get on Dish with the Disney/Dish negotiations) or Comcast. They really just need Comcast or one of the satellite providers to have pretty much complete coverage in Texas.
LikeLike
Pitt obviously preferred the ACC. They got the ACC invite before WVU got the XII invite. I think the ACC acted fast in part because Pitt said they could not wait and risk being marooned in the BE with a XII bid in the works. Might be some regrets about Louisville but not Cincinnati.
LikeLike
UNC’s leaders lack of awareness could be in part due to Swofford. One he’s been around a long time and they trust him. Two, the ACC seems to be uniquely secretive. I remember back when FSU and Clemson’s board were discussing leaving the ACC, the Clemson AD was saying he hadn’t seen the TV contract and was having a hard time getting to see it. Apparently it was only kept at the conference office.
Some talk about Dodds influencing realignment. I don’t think he did much more than advise President Powers on Texas moving and that Powers made all the calls. I do think Dodds had a lot of influence on what the Big 12 did. Well, Delaney, Swofford and Slive are all near retirement age, so the leadership of those 3 conferences will all change in the near future. That will have an impact on the thinking of those conferences.
LikeLike
Last attempt, cultural
LikeLike
The outpouring of support from UNC alumni for the SEC jives with this map of UNC alumni, taken from the UNC alumni page:
Click to access WhereWeLive%20Spring2012%20Clubs_SCREEN.pdf
States with the most UNC alumni:
1) NC (obviously)
Big Gap:
2) Virginia
3) Georgia
4) Florida
5) California
6) New York
7) South Carolina
8) Maryland
9) Texas
10) Pennsylvania
While presidents and athletic directors make decisions, alumni donations fund the school. Seeing this concentration of alumni in the southeast gives me pause to think that UNC’s Chancellor would risk losing alumni support (read: donation) to potentially join the B1G, especially when SEC money will be comparable or greater.
My takeaway: UNC will bail from the ACC only at the last possible moment before it bursts into flames, and not before. I’m not as certain as I was that academics will play as big as a role in the face of extreme alumni preference.
LikeLike
My thoughts too. Money from and happiness from grads still drives the bus.
LikeLike
Yes, and in UVa’s case, lots of money from NYC-area hedge fund types, like Paul Tudor Jones II, who gave money to have the new arena on campus named for his dad, John Paul Jones. His father lives in Memphis; he resides in Greenwich, CT.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, UVA has a heavier “Northern” influence with its alumni concentration in the Northeast and the fact that even its own home state population is increasingly coming from the NoVA suburbs of DC (which is turning more Northern culturally in the way that Maryland has already shifted). I’d be extremely surprised if they’d ever entertain going to the SEC – it’s really either the ACC or Big Ten for them. There’s at least more of a case of UNC choosing the SEC.
LikeLike
The attraction of the B1G to UVA is vastly overrated. Maryland went from being the fourth or fifth best public school (and the bottom half overall) in the ACC to being firmly in the top half of the B1G academically. Aside from athletics, I can see where it is a good move for them to be associated with Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State, Indiana, and Illinois rather than being compared unfavorably to UVA and UNC and lumped in with VT, NC State and FSU.
Virginia moving to the B1G would be lateral at best, they’d be one of the top schools in the B1G too. It would do nothing positive for their reputation and might even hurt it (Mr. Jefferson’s University transcends state boundaries, and only happens to be in Virginia because that’s where He lived – unlike most B1G schools which are truly universities “of” their states). Virginia is technically a public school, but financial ties to the Commonwealth are shaky, and UVA has a lot more in common as an institution with Duke or Wake Forest than it does with Michigan or Wisconsin, even leaving regional ties aside. The only B1G school UVA would consider a peer is Northwestern. I’m not saying these views are justified, just that it is UVA’s version of reality.
That being said, it’s clear from the emails that some administrators at UNC were worried that other schools were looking at leaving the ACC, including possibly UVA. I’d chalk that up to surprise at the secrecy around Maryland’s departure.
LikeLike
@opposum – The thought that Maryland would move because it thought that it would rank higher on the Big Ten academic pecking order compared to the ACC is laughable. The “4th or 5th best” public school in the ACC comment is disingenuous. I’m assuming you’re taking the latest US News rankings, where Maryland is tied with 2 other schools (Clemson and Pitt) for 3rd best public school in the ACC. Historically, Maryland has ranked higher than Clemson and Pitt in those rankings and it’s clear from the admissions stats that Maryland is tougher to gain admission to by comparison.
Also, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio State are all more highly ranked in US News than all 3 of Clemson, Pitt and Maryland, so Maryland’s relative standing among its fellow conference public schools went down in the Big Ten compared to the ACC. And this is in the US News undergrad rankings that is more biased toward the smaller class size private schools that largely populate the top part of the ACC as opposed to the public schools. In the graduate research world, there’s no contest – the Big Ten is ahead by a wide margin.
LikeLike
@opossum – Now, that’s not to say that Virginia wouldn’t want to move to the Big Ten because of its historical ties to the South. I could see a cultural barrier there (although I see that diminishing with the demographic changes in the state). I just find the notion that UVA wouldn’t be interested in the Big Ten because it’s not an academic fit to be bogus.
LikeLike
@opossum
The attraction of the B1G to UVA is vastly overrated. Maryland went from being the fourth or fifth best public school (and the bottom half overall) in the ACC to being firmly in the top half of the B1G academically. Aside from athletics, I can see where it is a good move for them to be associated with Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State, Indiana, and Illinois rather than being compared unfavorably to UVA and UNC and lumped in with VT, NC State and FSU.
Virginia moving to the B1G would be lateral at best, they’d be one of the top schools in the B1G too. It would do nothing positive for their reputation and might even hurt it
While UVA has strong undergrad ranks, according to both Times Higher Education (my choice for the best university rankings by far) and ARWU, UVA would be one of the lowest ranked schools in the Big Ten (Maryland by the way outranks the Cavs in both). The culprit is UVA’s (relatively) small research budget. (A desire to increase the schools researching ranks is why the school hired Michigan’s former VP to serve as president)
I agree that UVA has more in common with the ACC schools (which are generally undergrad focused), but if they are serious about improving their research standings a move to the Big Ten (and CIC) would be a major upgrade.
LikeLike
opossum,
“Maryland went from being the fourth or fifth best public school (and the bottom half overall) in the ACC to being firmly in the top half of the B1G academically.”
By what measure(s)?
ARWU: 29. UMD
B10 – 17. WI. 18. MI, 19. IL, 21. MN, 22. NW, 37. PSU, 38. PU, 39. RU, 41. OSU, 47. IN, 50. MSU, 53-67. IA
ACC – 23. Duke, 30. UNC, 39. Pitt, 53-67. GT, 53-67. UVA
UMD would be 6th in the B10 but 2nd in the ACC.
MUP: 42. UMD
B10 – 7. MI, 11. WI, 15. MN, 18. NW, 22. OSU, 25. IL, 29. PSU, 38. PU, 39. MSU, 50. IA
ACC – 6. Duke, 15. UNC, 22. Pitt, 39. GT, 39. UVA
UMD would be 10th in the B10 but 6th in the ACC.
THE Rankings: 97. UMD
B10 – 19. NW, 20. MI, 31. WI, 33. IL, 47. MN, 53. OSU, 61. PSU, 69. PU, 94. MSU, 99. RU
ACC – 23. Duke, 25. GT, 42. UNC, 76. Pitt
UMD would be 10th in the B10 but 5th in the ACC.
USN&WR: 62. UMD
B10 – 12. NW, 28. MI, 37. PSU, 41. IL, 41. WI, 52. OSU, 68. PU, 69. RU, 69. MN, 73. MSU, 73. IA, 75. IN
ACC – 7. Duke, 23. UVA, 23. WF, 30. UNC, 31. BC, 36. GT, 62. Clemson, 62. Syracuse, 62. Pitt, 69. VT
UMD would be 7th in the B10 and the ACC.
UMD isn’t bottom half in the ACC but it will be in the B10.
LikeLike
@FTT
I think you misunderstood me — if the ACC somehow vanished tomorrow, I think UVA would consider the B1G one of the best alternatives to the ACC among FBS conferences, but I don’t think they would see it as an academic upgrade by any means, unlike Maryland.
It’s not just dwindling regional ties keeping UVA from leaving a healthy ACC for the B1G. UVA as an institution has more in common with elite undergrad-focused private schools than it does with graduate STEM and Agriculture research-focused public schools like Maryland or Iowa. It has fewer state ties and greater autonomy than your average public school as well. And there is no friendlier home for elite private schools and their public equivalents in the FBS than the ACC.
As for Maryland’s place in the ACC pecking order, I count three public schools clearly head and shoulders above Maryland in the ACC (UNC, UVA and Georgia Tech), not to mention all the private schools. Your US News list has five of those ranked higher than Maryland (Duke, Wake, Notre Dame, Boston College and Miami). So by that list (which is based on criteria that are more important to most ACC schools than they are to most B1G schools) they are tied for ninth with Pitt, Clemson and Syracuse.
Maryland benefits from being associated with the public schools in the B1G because catching up to Penn State or Ohio State or Illinois in national academic esteem is attainable. Maryland would have never caught up to UVA and UNC in the ACC, much less the private schools. In contrast, UVA might suffer if it’s considered to be “just like Penn State, but in Virginia,” or “the Illinois of the mid-Atlantic.” The only school UVA would consider an equal in the B1G is Northwestern. Again, I am talking about UVA’s self-perception, not necessarily reality. It is impossible to over estimate their self esteem.
@frug
Yes, maintaining their status as an elite national undergrad university is much more important to UVA than getting an extra $100 million from NSF to research nanotechnology or whatever. Agree, disagree, call it short sighted, but it’s where they are coming from.
LikeLike
Maryland benefits from being associated with the public schools in the B1G because catching up to Penn State or Ohio State or Illinois in national academic esteem is attainable. Maryland would have never caught up to UVA and UNC in the ACC, much less the private schools
Based on what? Maryland is further behind Illinois in the Times Higher Education ratings (29 vs. 108) than they are behind UVA in the USNWR rankings (29 vs. 62).
LikeLike
Aha @opossum ~ when you said “academically”, you didn’t mean actual academic status, you meant some undergrad academic ranking.
@frug ~ yes, UVA’s research budget would tend to be lower than their academic status, since a number of their top flight grad school departments are in disciplines that don’t often generate the big bucks research grants.
LikeLike
In contrast, the states with the most UVa alumni:
1.Virginia – 79,377
2.New York – 10,364
3.Maryland – 9,835
4.California – 9,733
5.North Carolina – 8,874
http://uvamagazine.org/thelist/article/states_with_highest_populations_of_u.va._alumni#.UlhKEGzD_Gg
I couldn’t find a UMd list, but from the alumni association website, there is a definite northeast/mid-atlantic concentration of alumni clubs.
LikeLike
But many of the posters on here favor UVA and UNC going together, for old times sake.
LikeLike
Not for old times sake as much as both school’s great academic reputations, location in growing states, concentrations of alumni, culture, etc…
But I can easily foresee the schools ending up in different conferences should both leave the ACC. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if the SEC got, say, UNC and Va Tech, and the B1G one day got UVa and, say, Oklahoma or Kansas.
LikeLike
So why assume that UVA would be the school to compromise?
LikeLike
Virginia is changing as a state. Northern Virginia continues to grow substantially faster than the rest of the commonwealth, and thanks to D.C. and high tech, that’s where the money is.
LikeLike
Virginia and North Carolina have one of the nation’s oldest football rivalries — in fact, for several decades, as recently as 1957 (the fifth year of the ACC), they met in the traditional season finale. The rivalry has receded considerably on the UNC side, thanks to State, Duke and to a lesser extent Wake. It’s stronger from the UVa perspective, although the rise of Virginia Tech over the past half-century has diminished that, too. It’s entirely possible UVa-UNC could go the way of Nebraska-Kansas or A&M-Texas, especially as the commonwealth of Virginia develops more of a northern identity.
LikeLike
With 150 votes so far, the newspaper’s poll results:
Are you happy UNC stayed in the ACC?
Yes – 75 (50%)
No – 69 (46%)
Maybe – 6 (4%)
LikeLike
I’m truly surprised the margin is that narrow. Perhaps a lot of UNC football fans believe it can’t build a great program until it sheds the ACC stigma. (Sounds like the thoughts of folks from College Park.)
LikeLike
It’s 85-78 now.
LikeLike
and 99% of the “No”s are voting SEC.
LikeLike
And 0% of the poll includes presidents. 🙂
LikeLike
Yep, Wainscott gets it.
LikeLike
Hockey Valley!
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
For the past year, I’ve been pointing out that conference realignment really hinges on three primary schools: Texas, Notre Dame and North Carolina. The first two are fairly obvious to football-focused fans, but UNC is really the true lynchpin to the ACC.
1. As I have said before, FSU is every bit as important to the ACC’s future as UNC. Sure UNC is “political” leader of the conference but FSU is its most valuable asset (by far) and FSU’s departure would inflict just as much damage to the ACC as a UNC bolting. The ACC needs both of them to survive.
2. At this point Oklahoma is lynchpin also. Not even a school as powerful as Texas could rebuild the Big XII if the Sooners went elsewhere.
3. Not sure how much lynchpin ND has ever really been. Sure they are valuable, but the fact that they are independent limits how much of an effect they would have by switching conferences. While Notre Dame would certainly help whatever conference they joined the fact that their departure wouldn’t do a huge amount of damage to any other conference means they can never really have the sort of impact that UT, OU, UNC, FSU or even UVA, V-Tech, or Clemson would have if they switched leagues.
FSU’s life won’t greatly change in the Big 12. The Big 12 TV deal is pro-rata for any new member and their TV distribution is only about $1 (million) more than the ACC. The Big 12 is going to take in $13 (million) more in BCS money – around $1 (million) per school.
“So for $2 to $3 (million) bucks, FSU is going to go through the trauma of switching leagues?”
More delusion from the ACC.
1. The Big XII payout (that’s not just TV money) is already significantly higher than the ACC’s. Last year’s Big XII payout was $26 million. The ACC’s was $18.
2. Even if it is pro-rata (and who knows if that is true) for expansion the Big XII would get an additional bonus for adding a CCG. That would be worst at least a million bucks a school.
3. In the Big XII FSU would be allowed to keep its Tier III TV rights. Oklahoma makes about $7 million a year selling them, and I would assume FSU would be able to get a similar deal.
4. The part about the BCS money is a flat out lie. The Sugar Bowl deal will pay each Big XII schools $4 million a year (80/2/10), while the ACC’s Orange Bowl deal will pay each school less than $2 million a year (55/2/14).
LikeLike
Last year’s Big XII payout was $26 million. The ACC’s was $18.
Should read 20 not 26.
LikeLike
frug,
“1. As I have said before, FSU is every bit as important to the ACC’s future as UNC. Sure UNC is “political” leader of the conference but FSU is its most valuable asset (by far) and FSU’s departure would inflict just as much damage to the ACC as a UNC bolting. The ACC needs both of them to survive.”
FSU may have more financial value (it’d be the clear leader if the ACCN gets started), but UNC is the glue keeping other schools there. If UNC left, it’s almost guaranteed UVA and/or Duke and/or NCSU would also leave. FSU could conceivably leave by itself (they wouldn’t, but nobody else’s membership is as beholden to their presence as UNC’s).
“2. At this point Oklahoma is lynchpin also. Not even a school as powerful as Texas could rebuild the Big XII if the Sooners went elsewhere.”
OU is key, but UT is more important. More importantly, I don’t think OU goes anywhere without UT whereas UT could leave without OU (they probably wouldn’t, though).
“3. Not sure how much lynchpin ND has ever really been. Sure they are valuable, but the fact that they are independent limits how much of an effect they would have by switching conferences.”
Their importance is that they would start the dominoes falling everywhere. Other conferences would have to make moves to compete with someone adding ND fully. But you’re right, they don’t leave a hole that has to be filled.
“3. In the Big XII FSU would be allowed to keep its Tier III TV rights. Oklahoma makes about $7 million a year selling them, and I would assume FSU would be able to get a similar deal.”
It’s interesting how often TPTB forget about these tier 3 rights unless it suits their argument to mention them.
“4. The part about the BCS money is a flat out lie. The Sugar Bowl deal will pay each Big XII schools $4 million a year (80/2/10), while the ACC’s Orange Bowl deal will pay each school less than $2 million a year (55/2/14).”
I’d blame lazy math rather than calling it a lie. I think they saw $40M versus $27.5M and said the difference is $13M, or $1M per school. They forgot the size difference between the conferences.
LikeLike
@Brian – Correct. UNC leaving the ACC means that conference is truly dead. There would no doubt be a mass exodus if that were to happen. In contrast, the impact of FSU leaving the ACC is more like the cumulative effect of the Big 12 losing Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri – it may leave the league mortally wounded, but the presence of the centerpiece (Texas in the Big 12 and UNC to the ACC) would allow for it to live.
Let’s put it this way: UNC could still conceivably stay in the ACC if FSU leaves. There’s NFW that FSU stays in the ACC if UNC leaves.
LikeLike
@Brian – Correct. UNC leaving the ACC means that conference is truly dead. There would no doubt be a mass exodus if that were to happen. In contrast, the impact of FSU leaving the ACC is more like the cumulative effect of the Big 12 losing Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri – it may leave the league mortally wounded, but the presence of the centerpiece (Texas in the Big 12 and UNC to the ACC) would allow for it to live.
Let’s put it this way: UNC could still conceivably stay in the ACC if FSU leaves. There’s NFW that FSU stays in the ACC if UNC leaves.
I understand don’t get what is so hard about this. The fact is the ACC is desperate for cash. Period. No debate. That is why they expanded, it is why they lost Maryland and (most notably) it is why they abandoned 60 years of tradition to offer ND everything the Irish ever wanted for what amounted to 1 FB game a year despite having ruled out the possibility less than a year earlier.
If FSU left the ACC would no longer be financially viable as a power conference. They would take a massive to hit their TV deal and probably lose their Orange Bowl tie in. Schools that are already wavering (like V-Tech, UVA (who by the way is one of the most heavily subsidized AD’s in the country), Clemson, G-Tech and Miami) would jump as soon as they could and UNC is not going to stay in a mid-major.
You keep saying that UNC is the ACC what UT is to the Big XII but that is just not factually accurate. UNC does not have the absolute value that UT does nor does it have the marginal value to the ACC that UT does to the Big XII.
LikeLike
As long as Florida State can’t join the SEC, it has no realistic place to go. Big Ten presidents aren’t going to be coerced into taking a non-AAU institution that isn’t Notre Dame (a far more impeccable undergraduate institution than FSU), and the Big 12 is too unstable to draw interest.
LikeLike
@ Frug:
you say: “If FSU left the ACC would no longer be financially viable as a power conference. They would take a massive to hit their TV deal and probably lose their Orange Bowl tie in.”
I am not saying you are wrong. That sounds plausible.
But do you have any numbers? any links? anything to substantiate this?
What do you define as “massive hit” to the TV deal? Also, is there, in fact, a “massive hit” given the TV draw of ACC basketball? Keep in mind the pretty good deal that the [new] Big East received.
What do you define as a “power conference?” Again, I think I agree with you, but let’s get down to some specifics. Does the ACC become like the old Big East or the current AAC?
Assume FSU leaves. In your view, are there automatic dominoes like Miami or Clemson? Is your argument based on those “dominoes” falling? I ask because, if ONLY FSU leaves, then assume Cincy is the backfill, the ACC is not horrible horrible as a football conference.
ND, Clemson, Miami, Cincy, Louisville, GT, BC, Pitt, VT, WF, NCST, UNC, Duke, UVa, Syr,
LikeLike
vp19 said: “As long as Florida State can’t join the SEC, it has no realistic place to go.”
I tend to agree with this since I think the BXII is not realistic.
@ Frug: that is another reason to say that UNC is THE lynchpin of the ACC. UNC can go to the B1G or SEC whenever it wants. Practically speaking, FSU really can’t go anywhere unless UNC leaves first.
LikeLike
The ACC might survive the loss of FSU. Depends on the TV people. They couldn’t survive the loss of FSU and Miami or FSU and Virginia Tech. Those 3 are their dominant football programs in the BCS era. One wouldn’t be enough to carry them. They would look more like the MWC and AAC than the B1G/Pac/SEC/Big 12. Those 3 each have about 20% of the conferences AP Poll points since 1998. And the ACC is 5th even with them.
LikeLike
As long as Florida State can’t join the SEC, it has no realistic place to go. Big Ten presidents aren’t going to be coerced into taking a non-AAU institution that isn’t Notre Dame (a far more impeccable undergraduate institution than FSU), and the Big 12 is too unstable to draw interest.
I agree with that, but it doesn’t change the fact that the ACC’s survival is tied to FSU.
I am not saying you are wrong. That sounds plausible.
But do you have any numbers? any links? anything to substantiate this?
I don’t have links right now, though I do remember an SBNation blog running the numbers that showed the relative TV value of the ACC schools and FSU was number one by a decent margin. But I also don’t have any definite proof that UNC leaving would automatically cause any other ACC school to bolt either.
What do you define as “massive hit” to the TV deal?
Well theoretically any reduction would be a massive hit since in the history of realignment no one has ever willing taken a pay cut and any school with other options stayed in the ACC after a payout reduction it would result in a pay cut.
Also, is there, in fact, a “massive hit” given the TV draw of ACC basketball? Keep in mind the pretty good deal that the [new] Big East received.
Yes, ACC basketball is a good draw, but 80% of the ACC TV contract is football (that is what the conference itself stated when they added Notre Dame).
Also, the Big East’s “pretty good deal” is $4 million a year, or about 1/5th of what the ACC receives.
What do you define as a “power conference?” Again, I think I agree with you, but let’s get down to some specifics. Does the ACC become like the old Big East or the current AAC?
I think they lose their Orange Bowl tie in.
Assume FSU leaves. In your view, are there automatic dominoes like Miami or Clemson? Is your argument based on those “dominoes” falling? I ask because, if ONLY FSU leaves, then assume Cincy is the backfill, the ACC is not horrible horrible as a football conference.
Cincy couldn’t backfill for FSU. They aren’t strong enough financially or competitively (on the other hand, UConn BB could do a pretty good job replacing UNC…)
Am I assume dominoes? Yes. But other people assume those when they talk about UNC so I don’t see why that is an issue.
LikeLike
I think @vp19 and @BuckeyeBeau have the key point. FSU’s got nowhere to go, which is why they won’t be the ones who kill the ACC. Only North Carolina can do that.
LikeLike
I think @vp19 and @BuckeyeBeau have the key point. FSU’s got nowhere to go, which is why they won’t be the ones who kill the ACC. Only North Carolina can do that.
Actually, no. FSU does have a place to go; the Big XII. It’s just that FSU has (for the time being at least) reached the same conclusion that UNC has reached with regards to the Big 10 and SEC; they aren’t ready to switch conferences for purely financial reasons.
LikeLike
Vincent & frug – the SEC and ESPN have discussed that they envision the SECN being a national network. If that vision comes to fruition, then maybe in 10-12 years, the SEC could then take Florida State since state duplication wouldn’t matter.
Its hard to argue with FSU’s run in the 90s, but they really should have joined the SEC when they had the chance.
LikeLike
The reason why I agree with frug is that UNC “wants” the ACC to remain a player and for them to remain in it. FSU would entertain bolting if either the SEC or the BiG were truly interested in them, especially the SEC.
UNC is “wanted” by both those conferences, but it does not want either. FSU wants in on those conferences (again, moreso the SEC than the BiG), but at the moment neither want the Seminoles.
Both are equally important in terms of ACC survival, since if either go, the ACC’s days are numbered as a player in college athletics even if it remains in some configuration. UNC is more important in terms of individually being a power player to other conferences. But if UNC remained and FSU went, UNC by itself would not make the ACC a significant player in college athletics. It just wouldn’t.
That’s how I see it.
LikeLike
I completely agree that FSU leaving would cripple but not kill the ACC. I think any discussion of the core ACC schools (UVA, VT, NCSU, UNC, Wake, Duke, Clemson and Georgia Tech) splitting up into different conferences. If either of the two money conferences want in on the Virginia and the Carolinas, they’re going to have to take them all.
LikeLike
If either of the two money conferences want in on the Virginia and the Carolinas, they’re going to have to take them all.
This is not a prediction either way, but the prospect of Texas A&M splitting from Texas was once widely considered unthinkable…and look at where we are.
One must take with great caution any absolute statement about what schools would or wouldn’t do, if the money were better somewhere else.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepard
Let me put it this in B1G terms. If the ACC were potentially making significantly more money than the B1G, how likely would it be for the ACC to lure (or “grab”) one or two of Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Wisconsin? I’d say it would take extremely dire circumstances or some kind of cataclysmic change to cause any of them to join the ACC. Money would not be enough. It’s exactly the same with the core ACC schools.
TAMU was less than twenty years away from surviving the SEC and B8 raids of the Southwest Conference, losing most of their conference mates in the process, and had seen two schools leave and others including Texas threaten to leave en masse for conferences they had no interest in joining (B1G and PAC12). I don’t know the dynamic in Texas as well as I do in SEC/ACC country but I understand they had a little brother type dynamic with UT, and there was also bad blood over the Longhorn Network.
There is nothing similar going on in the ACC. NC State may be a little brother to UNC, and VT to UVA, but UNC and NC State share a board of trustees, so neither does anything in conference realignment without the other. VT and UVA would have political problems leaving the other behind. Plus they don’t want to.
In short, anyone thinking up scenarios where the B1G “raids” the ACC, just picture Ohio State or Purdue leaving the B1G for the ACC in 2001 (when the ACC made more money). I know you can never say never, but keep in mind both scenarios are exactly as plausible.
LikeLike
I don’t know. If half the Big Ten teams had joined the conference in the past 10 years, was trapped in a terrible TV deal that was result of nepotism by commissioner the conference refuses to fire, had just lost a founding member to the ACC, thrown aside its academic standards in order to placate a couple disgruntled members and completely sold out everything the conference said it has stood for from its inception by adding Notre Dame as a partial member after pledging not to do so for decades in a desperate cash grab, then, yeah, I could see some Big Ten members defecting.
LikeLike
What holds the ACC together is the SEC’ and B1G’ disinterest in the schools that will bolt: FSU GT. BC, Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse. VT has barely been in the ACC 10 years, hardly “core”. The emails mentioned VA and FSU had to be convinced to sign the Grant of Rights. Everyone knew FSU wanted to keep the barriers to an ACC exit low, but VA? So at least one core member wanted to keep its options open. I agree with the main point: It will take more than money for the North Carolina schools to leave the ACC.
Texas A&M wanted to join the SEC with Texas when the SWC went under. Texas preferred both join the PAC. The Baylor alumnus Governor preferred the B8 offer that formed the XII and included Baylor. Less than 20 years later the A&M alumnus Governor had no issues with A&M joining the SEC. A&M would have left when Nebraska did, but the politics were not right. The LHN had nothing to do with A&M leaving, it was just used to build the political and fan case to leave Texas. If the LHN did not exist, A&M would have found some other slight to whip up its fan base. As all the A&M leaders openly admit now, the decision to leave was made in 2010 when Nebraska and Colorado left. They just had to work the politics to make it happen and that took time and timing (no accident the announcement was right after the legislature session ended). Given enough time, the same could happen with any of the linked schools if one wanted to break away from the other.
LikeLike
I’d sooner see independence than Michigan join the ACC.
LikeLike
“2. At this point Oklahoma is lynchpin also. Not even a school as powerful as Texas could rebuild the Big XII if the Sooners went elsewhere.”
OU is key, but UT is more important. More importantly, I don’t think OU goes anywhere without UT whereas UT could leave without OU (they probably wouldn’t, though).
I do think they would prefer to stick together, but OU was willing to go to the PAC in 2011 without Texas. They also reached out to the Big Ten independently of the Longhorns. I agree Texas is more important but the at this point net effect either leaving is the same.
LikeLike
frug,
More importantly, I don’t think OU goes anywhere without UT whereas UT could leave without OU (they probably wouldn’t, though).
“I do think they would prefer to stick together, but OU was willing to go to the PAC in 2011 without Texas.”
And the P12 said no.
“They also reached out to the Big Ten independently of the Longhorns.”
And the B10 said no. I didn’t say it was by choice, but I don’t think OU goes anywhere without UT.
“I agree Texas is more important but the at this point net effect either leaving is the same.”
I’d agree, but I don’t currently see a plausible scenario where OU leaves and UT doesn’t while I can see the reverse.
LikeLike
I’d agree, but I don’t currently see a plausible scenario where OU leaves and UT doesn’t while I can see the reverse.
I can’t see the reverse though because as long as no one else is willing to take on the LHN Texas won’t leave unless the Big XII becomes unacceptable competitively which would only happen if OU left…
LikeLike
“And the P12 said no.”
The PAC said they were happily staying at 12. No assignment of credit or blame.
The Monday midnight eastern time announcement, and the failure of OU to take the expected steps once granted board permission to explore conference alternatives, suggests to me that OU was using the PAC as leverage right before the B12 meetings. The PAC found out and let UT (and everyone else) know the west was out of the expansion market, for the moment.
LikeLike
I think its pretty clear what the long term game plan is for the SEC.
UNC is the prize they want.
UNC’s fans are seeminlgy happy about joining the SEC.
UNC’s administrators aren’t ready yet.
What would hold them back? Two things: academics and basketball.
Neither can be fixed overnight.
The SEC only had 2 AAU schools. Now they had 4. They reached out and purposefully picked a second AAU member in Missouri.
Missouri also helps out in basketball. And they’ve been directing SEC member instittuions to try to improve their basketball programs.
Now there’s a 10-12 year delay for the SEC to work on these things.
Also another 10-12 years to work on the SEC Network and revenue.
Then when Grant of Rights is coming to a close, make a hard push for UNC, point out improved academics and basketball and huge revenue differentials between the SEC and ACC.
Also play up cultural fit.
Also offer rival Duke, which also helps with academics, basketball, and cultural fit.
Get UNC and Duke and suddenly the SEC is not only the dominant football power, but also basketball as well, and academics would be completely respectable.
We’ll find out in 10-15 years if the plan works.
I truly don’t think UNC will ever join the B1G. Virginia may very well do it though.
Maybe UNC + Duke to the SEC and UVA + VT for the B1G.
LikeLike
@Andy – I think what you’re saying is plausible. The one thing that I’d point out is that the “cultural advantage” that the SEC has in competing for UNC over the Big Ten is very clear now, but is one that’s going to dissipate over time with so many Northern transplants relocating to the state (just as it has already occurred in Maryland and continues to occur in Virginia) and their kids (with their different sensibilities, whether cultural or political) start becoming the bulk of new UNC grads. If the SEC can’t take advantage of that within the next 10 years, they may never be able to do it.
LikeLike
I doubt that NC is becoming more “northern.” Remember W? His Dad was from Connecticut. A lot of northerners are becoming southernized. I would be interested to see Michael’s thoughts on that since he lives there. As the nation is getting more mobile, the regional extremes are getting less, but they still exist.
LikeLike
I can offer my observations. Take it for what you feel it’s worth.
Cary, NC is comprised with a very solid majority of people who aren’t from North Carolina, and while no region represents a majority, the northeast seems to be where most people are originally from.
Raleigh is no longer exactly southern. It’s not northern, either, but southern accents are the exception, not the rule here.
Durham I would describe as a truly southern city, save for Duke and suburban housing developments which have developed just in the past 15 years. The core of Duke is southern.
The off-campus part of Chapel Hill is two things: diverse and (mostly) liberal. People from all over the world live in Chapel Hill. It’s an expensive place to live (compared to most parts of the state). It’s also very liberal given its location in the South. It’s not quite Madison or Berkeley, but it’s up there.
Charlotte–maybe it’s doesn’t feel as southern as many other parts of NC, and granted, BofA and Wells Fargo do draw a lot of people from the Northeast and Midwest, but it’s still a Southern City, in my book. I mean, Atlanta draws people from everywhere, too, but it’s very much southern, SEC territory, right. Charlotte is the crossroads of the ACC and SEC, with not a lot of attention on other leagues despite transplants.
Everywhere else in the state, which is quite a substantial portion of the population (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point, Fayetteville, Wilmington, Charlotte’s suburbs, Asheville, dozens of other, more rural counties) is decisively southern.
Furthermore, as much as Raleigh and Chapel Hill are not as “southern” as the areas around them… NC State and UNC are. UNC, for example, has a Confederate memorial prominently placed on their main campus. They are also the state schools, drawing students most often from families who themselves are from the south, if not NC. When they draw students whose families were from elsewhere, the students themselves still grew up in NC on, you know, ACC basketball and football. They grew up knowing the SEC as the dominant football league; why would they want to join the Big Ten.
Now, money can influence administrators to do a lot of things in spite of alumni & fan sentiment. But culturally, we are a long, long way off from the universities becoming anything other than southern. It’s not like it was in Maryland, which has the vast majority of its population based on two urban areas (Baltimore and suburban DC), both of which have been culturally much more like Philly or New York than anything in the South for many decades now. Nothing in North Carolina is like that, but there are cities in North Carolina that feels like Tennessee or Alabama or Georgia.
LikeLike
That’s about what I would have guessed. I had a sister live many years in Charlotte and Wilmington and it never felt “northern” to me at all. Also had a good friend in Cary. But I never lived in Carolina and didn’t spend extensive time there. Your description of Chapel Hill sounds a lot like Austin relative to the rest of Texas.
LikeLike
I have not ever been to Austin (would like to, though), but I kind of thought CH might have a similar contrast. Chapel Hill is a beautiful town and there’s something wrong with you if you don’t like their campus, even if you hate UNC. But it’s interesting how set apart it is from the rest of the state and even the rest of the Triangle. The border between CH and Durham is basically I-40, and you can just tell a difference between either side.
LikeLike
Frank, replace 10 years with 30 years and I might agree with you. It seems a long way from done at this point.
LikeLike
Andy,
The culture in North Carolina is much more likely to change faster than the academic prestige of the SEC. Academic reputation is built over decades and the SEC is a long way from improving the perception among high end administrators that is nothing but a jock conference. As far as snooty academics are concerned, it’s Florida, Vanderbilt, and a bunch of meatheads and bible thumping rednecks.
LikeLike
Florida, Vandy, A&M, and Mizzou have B1G-level academics. Georgia isn’t far off. Kentucky ranks very respectably on the research rankings. Alabama and Auburn place decently in USNews. Tennessee is on par with Nebraska, maybe better. The top half of the SEC is respectable. The bottom half not so much.
LikeLike
Andy,
By rankings you are correct, but if you think UNC administrators respect any other schools in the SEC besides Florida and Vanderbilt as peers, you are mistaken. US News rankings mean nothing to these people. Kentucky does do a lot of research but gets little respect academically. Look no further than Gee openly mocking them last November.
Academics is all about perception not real life. Michigan is a top school because and thus will attract the top guys. Just like the Ivy leagues. You are considered smart if you go to Harvard when in fact rich or legacy would be a better description. In a room full of UNC, Duke, Michigan, and Wisconsin grads, Georgia and Texas A&M grads are considered the illererate rednecks. Nobody is getting there postgrad at Alabama after an undergrad at UNC on purpose. Academics is not built on reality but on reputation and reputation matters to administrators. Boosters though and this money carry a lot of weight so that is why UNC could go SEC but the administrators will be holding their noses if they do.
LikeLike
Kentucky is an odd bird.
Historically is was poor and had no research. The last president was a MIT guy and he shifted the focus and their endowment has grown from just over 100 million to around 1 Billion in short time. They may be the one you look back at 20 years from now and would say they may have come the furthest over time. Time will tell but they have certainly built up their campus and research over the past decade to not be ignored.
Of course they could fall back but right now I think they are #4 in the SEC for research and could continue to improve their academic status when other schools above them fall. A generation from now kentucky may have the last laugh on Gordon Gee.
As for the ACC folding I could see UNC heading to the SEC paired with UVA. They seem much more tightly paired in the long view than UNC and Duke and I can not see UNC moving to the B1G without an all out revolt by their alumni and politicians – keep in mind politicians at the state level will be much more in tune with the sidewalk fans because there are lots of them and they vote. I still say if the ACC falls Duke is the most likely to be the ACC school that moves to the B1G. I actually see this as a positive because a second private school in the B1G would soften the landing of other private schools.
LikeLike
Yes, I doubt 6 invites to the ACC will be offered by either the B1G or SEC. The B1G may do the 4 ACC schools of NC, VA, Duke and GT. However, once the schools are in play the SEC will only make offers to the schools it wants, probably NC and VA. All of this will only happen near the expiration of the GoR if the ACC’ expected future payout will be $15M+ per year below the SEC and B1G (likely). If the SEC and/or B1G creates 2 or more top level defections, it is likely that the next level of schools will accept invites from the XII vs. taking the chance that the payout decreases further and they are stuck in an ACC that is one step above the American. If NC and VA leave, a few top ACC football schools that were turned down by the SEC and B1G will accept XII invites before being left out in the cold. Depending on who is left that could be any of FSU, VT, Clemson, Miami, NCSU, GT, or Pitt. It is unlikely that the XII payout difference will attract ACC schools the XII wants unless the ACC is first weakened by the SEC or B1G. So the XII stays at 10 unless either the B1G or SEC goes to 16 or more. There is no way that two of the Go5 schools are going to provide value while the XII has TX and OK. So CT, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, NI, Memphis, Rice, Buffalo, et. al. are not going to get invites. As far as the SEC inviting 4+ to make the ACC schools comfortable with the culture; that may be a requirement for the B1G but is not for the SEC. It is not like the SEC is going to invite Syracuse or Boston College. The SEC culture is well known and accepted in the states where the SEC would be making invites.
LikeLike
Florida, Vandy, A&M, and Mizzou have B1G-level academics. Georgia isn’t far off.
ARWU
30 North Carolina – B1G / SEC potential school
35 Vanderbilt
43 Florida
53 – 67 Georgia
53 – 67 Texas A&M
53 – 67 Virginia – B1G / SEC potential school
68 – 85 Tennessee
86 – 108 Louisiana State
86 – 108 Kentucky
86 – 108 Missouri
Perhaps you are a bit too enthusiastic about how high Missouri ranks when compared to Georgia. Missouri got their AAU over 100 years ago when it was easy to get in. Like Nebraska they have not been at the forefront of research and others have now passed them. 50 years ago Missouri may have done more research than a school like Kentucky but now this is no longer the case. Don’t get me wrong, Missouri is still a good school, but letting others pass you means it will be that more expensive when Missouri tries to catch up later on.
LikeLike
duffman,
“They seem much more tightly paired in the long view than UNC and Duke and I can not see UNC moving to the B1G without an all out revolt by their alumni and politicians”
The vast majority of the alumni want in the SEC. I’m pretty sure their emails were part of the ones referenced in the article, t-shirt fans weren’t the only ones emailing Cunningham. The only people at UNC that might prefer the B1G over the SEC would probably be the administration. The alumni, boosters, and t-shirt fans all prefer the SEC over the B1G (by a wide margin).
LikeLike
Duffman,
I worked at UK and had some affiliation with their medical research department. Lots of brilliant people there and they do a lot of great work. They have a bit of a complex about how they are viewed by others though, knowing they are wrongly looked down upon. If I was running the BIG, UK would be one of my propriety adds. It adds a top 2 basketball program in a new continuous state with good research and would cripple the SECs winter sports appeal.
LikeLike
Interesting to see who UNC sees as their peer group academically.
According to the linked website:
http://oira.unc.edu/institutional-effectiveness/institutional-performance-measures/peer-comparisons/unc-system-defined-peer-group/
Its academic peer group contains 6 current or future B1G schools.
LikeLike
It adds a top 2 basketball program in a new continuous state with good research and would cripple the SECs winter sports appeal.
They already have a solid club level hockey team.
LikeLike
Frank, it’s true that there are a lot of transplants here, and that those numbers will only increase, but North Carolina is still way, way off from having most of its population identify with northeastern/midwestern ideals than with southern ones.
First, whether children’s parents are from NC or elsewhere, the children themselves grow up where they’re expected to choose UNC, NCSU, or Duke. The ACC gets ingrained for kids early, no matter where they’re from.
Second, NC’s ACC teams are most often playing SEC teams in football, not B1G teams. SEC teams are much closer and easier to identift with from a geographic standpoint, let alone culturally. The B1G would habe to swell to 18 for it to have any kind of geographic friendliness.
Related to that last point is that the SEC is appraling not just because of geography or culture, but because the SEC is perceived to be the best league around. The Big Ten has had better football than the ACC (not this year, for once), but it still pales compared to the SEC. Demographics arent going to change people’s minds about that. Also, keep in mind thatva lot of the transplants are not Big Ten alumni. They’re from out west. They’re from some of Massachusetts’ elite private schools and SUNY schools which have no leanings towards any conference. They would not care whether UNC goes to one league or another.
Also keep in mind that in Maryland, the Big Ten has a ton of graduates in suburban DC and Baltimore. Maryland does’t have much population outside those two cosmopoitan metros, leaving the areas where most of that state’s metros having a much more northern feel. Combine that with the financial advantages of the B1G and Maryoand’s AD debt, and they were just low hanging fruit.
UNC is in a state that looks very different. NC won’t have any metros.as massive and dense as DC anytime soon. Even Baltimore, which is somewhat comparable in size to Charlotte, is not like any of NC’s cities. It’s right in the corridor from DC to Philly to NYC, with not much space in between. NC’s population of just short of 10 million requires you to add Charlotte and the Triangle, both of which still have a tonbof Southern character that does not disappear just because of transplants, as well as a several other MSA’s like Fayetteville, Wilmington, Asheville, Greensboro, Winston Sakem, High Point, and Gastonia. Those all have low numbers of transplants, and combined with the rural counties, it adds up to a lot of people who would have zero interest in the BigvTen. Adding a few million more people, only some of.whom are from the north, wont change the majority’s preference for a strongbACC or.the SEC over the B1G.
Forget about the Big Ten getting North Carolina to convert into an east coast/northeast type of state. The only way to get UNC into the Big Ten is by offering many many millions more thanbthe ACC’s next deal AND more than whatever the SEC will get. Will that work, though? Will the Big Ten dwarf the SEC?
LikeLike
Frank,
I think it is more than just a purely cultural thing. SEC football in the southern states just has a different excitement (for a lack of a better word) than football outside of the SEC. I live and work in Huntsville, AL which has a lot of Northern transplants due to the defense and aerospace industry in the city. From what I have witnessed, it doesn’t take long for the children of those transplants to become caught up in the SEC appeal. As a matter of a fact, I personally know a few first generation northern transplants that start getting into SEC football within a few years of being here. It’s what most people talk about around the “water cooler” at work during football season, and it starts to rub off on them.
LikeLike
@FTT
I don’t understand how you can go all around the internet to decry the idea that the “Rust Belt is shrinking so B1G teams will be fanless nonentities in short order making the BTN a failure” and still maintain the idea that enough Rust Belters will decide to move to Virginia and North Carolina in the next 10 years to completely change the culture in those states to the extent that their flagship universities joining a midwestern conference is an appealing proposition to anybody there. I don’t believe either, for the record. Those kind of things take lots more time.
Also, both schools are in states that have areas that are growing rich fast and others that are poking along. The growth areas (the Triangle and Charlotte in NC and Northern Virginia) are attracting migrants. Migrants who move to other parts of those states are quickly assimilated. Or they move back home.
UNC and UVA could fill their entire in-state freshman class quota with well qualified graduates of just a few high schools from those growth areas, but they don’t. They go statewide, and the culturally southern are overrepresented among students, alumni and boosters.
Because of that it would take a few more decades after North Carolina and Virginia become culturally midwestern or northeastern states for UNC and UVA to become midwestern or northeastern colleges.
I’m not holding my breath for that, because I live in Fairfax County, Va., and Vietnam has a greater cultural presence than Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin combined. I don’t think the SEC has anything to worry about, complete outsiders without prejudice don’t see much distinction between SEC and B1G schools. Tennessee or Ohio State? Who’s offering the better scholarship?
LikeLike
@FTT
I don’t understand how you can go all around the internet to decry the idea that the “Rust Belt is shrinking so B1G teams will be fanless nonentities in short order making the BTN a failure” and still maintain the idea that enough Rust Belters will decide to move to Virginia and North Carolina in the next 10 years to completely change the culture in those states to the extent that their flagship universities joining a midwestern conference is an appealing proposition to anybody there. I don’t believe either, for the record. Those kind of things take lots more time.
Also, both schools are in states that have areas that are growing rich fast and others that are poking along. The growth areas (the Triangle and Charlotte in NC and Northern Virginia) are attracting migrants. Migrants who move to other parts of those states are quickly assimilated. Or they move back home.
UNC and UVA could fill their entire in-state freshman class quota with well qualified graduates of just a few high schools from those growth areas, but they don’t. They go statewide, and the culturally southern are overrepresented among students, alumni and boosters.
Because of that it would take a few more decades after North Carolina and Virginia become culturally midwestern or northeastern states for UNC and UVA to become midwestern or northeastern colleges.
I’m not holding my breath for that, because I live in Fairfax County, Va., and Vietnam has a greater cultural presence than Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin combined. I don’t think the SEC has anything to worry about, complete outsiders without prejudice don’t see much distinction between SEC and B1G schools. Tennessee or Ohio State? Who’s offering the better scholarship?
Opossum, don’t forget that this is a Big Ten board and the Big Ten posters have Big Ten tunnel vision. As a southern lad, although not a Virginia person, I agree with you and support your statements. Does not stop me from enjoying this board. To support my tunnel vision statement, I well remember the unamimous statements from this board, including Frank, that said neither A&M nor Missouri would ever be members of the SEC. This is still the best realignment board around anywhere.
LikeLike
Definitely not unanimous unless I, and a few others, don’t count. Just saw too much momentum, combined with what at the time appeared to be the eminent demise of the Big 12.
LikeLike
UNC’s fans are seeminlgy happy about joining the SEC.
Bear in mind that, had the fans been polled, I don’t think Maryland’s supporters would have wanted the Big Ten either. I realize that UNC is quite a bit more culturally southern than MD. But if the administration at UNC actually thought that the Big Ten was much better than either the SEC or staying put, they’d move to the Big Ten and do what they needed to sell it to the fans.
I truly don’t think UNC will ever join the B1G. Virginia may very well do it though.
Well, once UNC leaves, it’ll be very school for itself. There’s no way UVA turns down a Big Ten invite if UNC+Duke go to the SEC, leaving Virginia behind. The only question is, if the SEC takes just two, whether Duke or UVA is the second school.
If you take Duke, you’re getting an academic powerhouse and a few extra blockbuster basketball games every year, but you’re duplicating a market and getting zero in football. In fact, it’s praising Duke to say they offer zero in football. They may even subtract value, because every game they play is a ratings and attendance stinker.
Maybe UNC + Duke to the SEC and UVA + VT for the B1G.
I don’t see the Big Ten taking more than one Virginia school. In the scenario you’re talking about, they’d take UVA and cast about for a better #16.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Just throwing crap against a wall, what about a swap of that scenario?
UVA and Duke to the Big Ten.
VT and UNC to the SEC.
I think Duke gets quite underrated in a lot of these discussions (and I’ll repeat this again – there’s no team in any sport pro or college that I hate more than Duke). I’ve seen the TV ratings data over the past decade and Duke is the *one* school where it can drive basketball ratings to football-type levels. Plus, they’re obviously impeccable in terms of academics. To me, they’re an easy call – if Duke wants to join the Big Ten (with or without UNC), then they’ll get an invite immediately. The university presidents wouldn’t think twice about that move any more than they’d think about Stanford if they wanted to join.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Marc Shepherd – Just throwing crap against a wall, what about a swap of that scenario?
UVA and Duke to the Big Ten.
VT and UNC to the SEC.”
As I noted below, that was Clay Travis’s opinion the day after UMD was added in the piece the article referenced.
“I think Duke gets quite underrated in a lot of these discussions (and I’ll repeat this again – there’s no team in any sport pro or college that I hate more than Duke). I’ve seen the TV ratings data over the past decade and Duke is the *one* school where it can drive basketball ratings to football-type levels. Plus, they’re obviously impeccable in terms of academics. To me, they’re an easy call – if Duke wants to join the Big Ten (with or without UNC), then they’ll get an invite immediately. The university presidents wouldn’t think twice about that move any more than they’d think about Stanford if they wanted to join.”
The big issues with Duke:
1. Can they get BTN on in NC at the full rate? I doubt it. Most of their best hoops games would go on the CBS deal (or its replacement), so also not a BTN boon.
2. No FB value at all.
3. Cultural fit of a small private school in the B10.
I’m just not sure Duke gets added without UNC.
LikeLike
UVA and Duke to the Big Ten.
Yeah, I think the Big Ten would take that deal.
LikeLike
Duke has a large fan base in NYC and a heavy alumni presence both from and transplanted to the Northeast. It could help in both Northern New Jersey and NYC as well as Carolina.
LikeLike
@FTT
I have heard that UNC and Duke have a standing invitation to the SEC, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they had one to the B1G as well. They haven’t taken either invite because they both like playing all sports against NC State, Wake Forest, UVA, Virginia Tech, Clemson and Georgia Tech. I don’t know what would change that. Money wouldn’t.
LikeLike
For political reasons, Slive may have to take NCSU over Duke if he covets UNC. State can’t be left standing alone, and the Big 12 won’t accept it as a leftover.
LikeLike
Are we absolutely sure of this? Just because “little brother” has to be taken care of in some states doesn’t mean that it’s true in all states. Moreover, given the presence of a presumably powerful in its own right private (Duke) I wonder just how much influence NCSt truly has.
It’s one thing to say “we’ll make life annoying for you if you leave us behind,” and it’s quite another to say “if you leave us behind we will cut your funding” (which is seemingly what happened in Texas during Big 12 formation). Just because “big brother” schools generally haven’t forced the issue doesn’t mean that there’s a veto power at work.
LikeLike
I think UNC and NCST share a board of governors, making it very unlikely NCST gets left out in a terrible ACC without UNC and UVA etc…
I kind of find it difficult to believe that the board would split them up at all actually. They know that UNC is the prize, so they can mandate NCST as a travel partner, and pretty much any conference would take them.
LikeLike
Nick In South Bend,
“I kind of find it difficult to believe that the board would split them up at all actually. They know that UNC is the prize, so they can mandate NCST as a travel partner, and pretty much any conference would take them.”
I disagree. The B10 is highly unlikely to take UNC and NCSU. The SEC might, but I think they’d really prefer two separate states.
LikeLike
If UNC & NCST are as tied to the hips as some are speculating, the it could ultimately come down to a point where their BOGs will have to decide whether or not they are willing to risk the athletic futures of one of the schools or of both schools. In the future when the revenue gaps becomes too big, if the SEC refuses to take UNC & NCST as a package deal, then what stand will the BOGs take? What if the SEC tells the BOGs that even if UNC goes to the B1G, they aren’t looking to take NCST? Whether that would be a bluff or not, would the BOGs risk UNC’s athletic future if they have no guarantee that NCST will get in the SEC? If it ever got to that point, that would be political suicide if you ask me.
LikeLike
Nice article, Frank.
These emails are very interesting. Always fun to see some actual thoughts and whatnot from those inside the power structures. From the get-go, you said “think like a President,” and here we get to see some of that thinking. Fascinating that the “thinking” is not quite paying attention to factors like how much $$ the B1G is going to get.
Gotta love the glacial pace of bureaucracies. The FOIA request was filed in February and now, in October, we see the results.
Also a bit fun to relieve some history. For me anyway, seems hard to believe it has only been a year. Seems like forever ago that Maryland and Rutgers were announced.
LikeLike
“relieve” should be “relive.” damn my 10 thumbs. 🙂
LikeLike
All of this assumes that the ACC is/will continue to be vulnerable, which may or may not be the case. The ACC has far and away the best demographic footprint of any conference, and also the one that is growing the fastest. Also, who knows what rule changes for safety will do to the popularity of football. In 10 to 20 years, basketball may have made enough serious inroads into the football’s ratings (though I extremely doubt that it will over take it) that the ACC’s status as the premier basketball conference may have much more monetary than it will today. In any case, as Frank has said basketball impacts the value of a conference network to a much greater extent than you would think because there are so many more basketball games available than football games. If the ACC network ever gets up and running that could prove a very serious factor as well. None of that even takes into consideration the possibility (however remote) that Texas decides to and can get a Notre Dame type in for all sports, partially in for football deal with the ACC, which would give the conference Texas, Notre Dame, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech football and UNC, Duke, Syracuse, and Louisville basketball, as well as a host of other very decent schools in one sport or the other like Georgia Tech and Pitt. I think that the ACC’s value will only continue to grow over time and strengthen the conference.
LikeLike
Jeffrey Juergens,
“All of this assumes that the ACC is/will continue to be vulnerable, which may or may not be the case.”
All of what? This post is mostly about the past.
“The ACC has far and away the best demographic footprint of any conference, and also the one that is growing the fastest.”
What are you basing that on?
Using Wikipedia’s population numbers:
If you use full values for split states, then the ACC has the largest footprint:
ACC – 76M (inflated by NY and split states)
B10 – 71M
P12 – 63M
SEC – 58M
B12 – 37M
However, we all know the ACC doesn’t have all of FL, GA, SC, KY or NY. Just giving them half of FL instead moves the B10 #1. If you give them half of each split state they drop to 57M. It drops to 46M if you split NY.
Growth rate:
B12 – 1.26%
P12 – 1.03%
SEC – 0.98%
ACC – 0.89%
B10 – 0.19%
TX is almost the fastest growing state right now and it is the second largest. There’s no way the ACC footprint is growing the fastest.
As far as fan interest, I think we’d agree it goes something like this:
Tier 1 – SEC, B10 (B10 is higher in hoops, SEC in FB)
Tier 2 – B12, ACC, P12
Right now, you can make a good argument for the B10 having the best footprint. For the future, the SEC is well positioned for growth. The ACC is very solid, but not “far and away the best.”
“Also, who knows what rule changes for safety will do to the popularity of football.”
Or any of a thousand other unpredictable things. History shows football steadily gaining in popularity, though, with basketball far behind. For all we know lacrosse will be the growth sport to take any losses from FB. There’s no reason to assume it’ll be hoops.
“In 10 to 20 years, basketball may have made enough serious inroads into the football’s ratings (though I extremely doubt that it will over take it) that the ACC’s status as the premier basketball conference may have much more monetary than it will today.”
You’re assuming, of course, that the ACC actually is the premier hoops conference in 10-20 years.
“If the ACC network ever gets up and running that could prove a very serious factor as well.”
That’s a big if for now. And while hoops adds value, they still need FB to drive subscriptions.
“None of that even takes into consideration the possibility (however remote) that Texas decides to and can get a Notre Dame type in for all sports, partially in for football deal with the ACC, which would give the conference Texas, Notre Dame, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech football and UNC, Duke, Syracuse, and Louisville basketball, as well as a host of other very decent schools in one sport or the other like Georgia Tech and Pitt.”
Nor does it take into account the remote possibilities of UT and ND ending up anywhere else. Your whole analysis blows up if UT and company join the P16 or if UT joins the B10 or SEC, as just one example.
LikeLike
It drops to 46M if you split NY.
The ACC’s mind-share in NY (due to Syracuse) is probably in single-digit percentages. New Yorkers’ sports loyalties are fragmented in so many different ways.
LikeLike
PA is another state where the ACC definitely does not have the whole state — they basically have no presence in the more densely populated eastern half of the state.
LikeLike
According to the those emails, the ACC will be down by 20 mil a year to the BIG by 2017. Thats a lot of growing to do in a decade before the GOR is up to catch up the BIG and SEC.
LikeLike
http://outkickthecoverage.com/the-sec-and-big-ten-will-have-16-members.php
For those who care, this is the Clay Travis piece referenced in the article.
Cliff’s Notes:
SEC and B10 will go to 16. Why? Because of the money available via TV. Why these specific targets? To expand the footprint for their networks. Who will each conference add? SEC – NCSU and VT, B10 – UVA and GT. He assumes UNC and Duke are a pair and that neither conference would take 2 teams in one state. If they would split, he says Duke to the B10 instead of GT and UNC to the SEC instead of NCSU. He is adamant that the SEC won’t double up in any current SEC state.
LikeLike
That’s stupid. Of course the SEC would take UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
And Slive would take a UNC/NCSU combo if left with no alternative. The SEC will pass on Duke if it means adding UNC (and State has a pretty capable hoops program, too).
LikeLike
Agreed,
LikeLike
Let’s think of it this way: if the Big Ten were able to add Berkeley, would that mean that they’d pass on Stanford because they’re in the same market? Heck no! No one is passing on the academics/athletics combo of Stanford even if they have the market already covered by Cal.
Same thing with Duke, who is actually even more compelling on the athletics front because they are the #1 king in basketball from a national perspective. Duke is an incredibly valuable school in the conference realignment game – both the Big Ten and SEC would take them immediately even if UNC was already coming along. This isn’t a Baylor or Wake Forest-type private school – Duke is an elite academic research and basketball powerhouse. For the Big Ten’s purposes, the academic research capabilities completely dwarf any reservations about Duke being a private school. I don’t think it’s even a close call. We’ve certainly had plenty of wacky conversations here about shoehorning AAU members into the Big Ten that bring a heck of lot less academic and athletic firepower than Duke.
I’m now going to take a shower after that show of support for the Dookies. Bleh.
LikeLike
Frank, what you’re saying about Duke is definitely true from a Big Ten perspective…but politics far more figures into a UNC-to-the-SEC move. NCSU and state politics isn’t a factor in a Big Ten expansion equation, but both certainly are where the SEC is concerned. Remember that both UNC and State are joined at the hip with the same ruling body, and would be more difficult to separate than Kansas and K-State or Oklahoma and Okie State. If it came down to UNC/NCSU to the SEC and UVa/Duke to the Big Ten, both conferences would be pleased, although Duke lacks the statewide appeal of its two Triangle brethren.
LikeLike
You bring up an interesting point about the shared board. If UNC has to look out for NC State, that could very well push UNC to the BIG. IF the SEC will only take one school from North Carolina, then I could see UNC going to the BIG to give NC State a nice landing spot in the SEC since NC State would never get an invite from the BIG.
As far as economics, it would make a ton of sense to put NC State in the SEC and UNC in the BIG. The football schedule alone would be a huge economic windfall for the local community. Imagine bring the fans of four or more of these teams, PSU,OSU, UM, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, to the triangle region every year. Why bring 2-3 when you can bring 4-6 giants traveling fan bases every year.
LikeLike
The SEC doesn’t want NCSU. They’d take them to get UNC but probably not otherwise. Also UNC apparently doesn’t want to join the B1G anyway.
LikeLike
I think you are overestimating the interest the Big Ten would have in Stanford (especially if they were getting Cal). Stanford is a great school and non-revenue powerhouse but they have spent a good portion of history battling Washington St. for the title of Least Valuable TV Rights in the PAC (just check the revenue distribution numbers). Yes, Stanford is dominant right now but history (both at Stanford and elsewhere) have shown it is nearly impossible for small private schools to stay at the top for long.
I think ultimately, Stanford would be another Northwestern and the Big Ten already has one of those to subsidize.
LikeLike
Mo money than anyone except Harvard…?
LikeLike
ccrider, exactly right.
LikeLike
Unless Stanford was willing to start cutting the conference an annual check to cover the difference I don’t see how the size of Stanford’s endowment is relevant.
LikeLike
They add far more value to the academic side than they might not add to the athletic side. The athletics are still a part of the school, not an independent endeavor.
LikeLike
They add far more value to the academic side than they might not add to the athletic side. The athletics are still a part of the school, not an independent endeavor.
Still don’t see how that would possibly make up for how little they would bring athletically. Conference distributions still dwarf the amount of money made/saved via the CIC.
And I should add the fact that they have horrible attendance, compared to the current Big Ten schools, in FB and MBB, means the Big Ten would also lose a fortune from gate revenue sharing on top of the TV money. (The Cardinal would have had the second worst FB attendance in the Big Ten and worst MBB by a decent margin).
LikeLike
Ok, you pass on Stanford. They win how many directors cups, have shown a change to be FB friendly, have most coaching positions endowed, Phil Knight got MBA there, almost unlimited resources, tremendous political power, it’s not beholding to transient state politics. What’s to like?
LikeLike
They win how many directors cups
Jim Delany is on record as criticizing the Directors’ Cup for causing schools to concentrate on the “wrong” sports. And the Big Ten has never really emphasized non-revenue sports when it comes to expansion. (Maryland just eliminated 7 and Rutgers has one of the Directors’ Cup ranks of any major conference school)
have shown a change to be FB friendly
They have had strong FB runs in the past but they have never lasted. Maybe they have turned the corner but it is more likely they will revert to established level of performance (the MBB team couldn’t sustain the level of performance they had under Montgomery and Johnson when people were calling them Duke West)
most coaching positions endowed
Ok.
Phil Knight got MBA there
Is he going to pay to the Big Ten they money they would lose on Stanford?
tremendous political power
Not sure how that helps the Big Ten
it’s not beholding to transient state politics
Nice, but given that the Big Ten has shown a preference for public schools not sure how much that helps Stanford’s case.
…
Ok, there’s a lot to like about Stanford… just not enough, especially if the Big Ten were to add Cal like in Frank’s scenario.
LikeLike
“And the Big Ten has never really emphasized non-revenue sports when it comes to expansion. (Maryland just eliminated 7…”
Perhaps not,. But happily every add has a wrestling team (as do UNC, Duke, UVA, VT) 🙂 )
Are you suggesting Maryland was chosen because of their reduced offerings? Sounds very UTish. I thought they moved in order to help alleviate that problem, and rumors some will come back in the future.
Is Delany now dictating how schools ren their AD’s?
” “tremendous political power”
Not sure how that helps the Big Ten”
So you’re with Andy on Mizzu instead of working the corridor of power with the last add?
“Big Ten has shown a preference for public schools not sure how much that helps Stanford’s case.”
Just noting that unlike the Longhorns there aren’t any siblings that could be politically required to be cared for.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting Maryland was chosen because of their reduced offerings?
No, I saying they added them in spite of it… because they don’t really care much about non-revenue sports (at least in the context of expansion)
Is Delany now dictating how schools ren their AD’s?
No, but he’s been with the Big Ten for quarter of a century virtually never voices an opinion that the conference members don’t share.
So you’re with Andy on Mizzu instead of working the corridor of power with the last add?
I’m not entirely sure what this is a reference to, but I do think that Missouri would be a better addition for the Big Ten than Stanford
Just noting that unlike the Longhorns there aren’t any siblings that could be politically required to be cared for.
Big Ten would want another school in California anyways so not that big of an advantage.
LikeLike
“Big Ten would want another school in California anyways so not that big of an advantage.”
UC Riverside? 😉
LikeLike
Riverside isn’t AAU, but they would want a team from the Southern part of the state.
LikeLike
Ok! The Anteaters it is!
LikeLike
They’d win the baseball and men’s volleyball titles every year.
LikeLike
I assume Frank was being hypothetical about Cal and Stanford. A coast-to-coast conference might work with football-only members, but the travel and logistics of doing that for all sports would be prohibitive.
LikeLike
I assume Frank was being hypothetical about Cal and Stanford. A coast-to-coast conference might work with football-only members, but the travel and logistics of doing that for all sports would be prohibitive.
Yeah, it’s amazing how many people didn’t realize that. He was just trying to name an in-state pair that’s somewhat comparable to UNC and Duke. (Obviously, Stanford is better at football than Duke; no analogy is perfect.)
All he’s saying is that if the Big Ten were expanding into CA (which it of course is not), it would take those two for the same reasons it would take UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
I know he was being hypothetical, but I’m noting that even in hypothetical scenario where the travel and logistics weren’t an issue, I still don’t think the Big Ten would have much interest in Stanford for all the reasons I listed.
LikeLike
And I don’t think there is more than three schools that the COP/C would run faster to welcome. And none as a partner to a number fifteen.
LikeLike
Hypotheticals:
Which would the B10 choose if they could only take 1:
1. Cal or Stanford?
2. USC or UCLA?
3. USC/Stanford, UCLA/Cal, USC/Cal, UCLA/Stanford, USC/UCLA or Cal/Stanford?
1. I think they take Cal (larger fan base, state school more similar to other B10 schools) but it’s very close.
2. USC easily. Very strong academics plus a FB king and dominant in the LA market.
3. USC/Cal by a nose.
LikeLike
Duke is not going to want to leave Wake Forest behind. Where do you see Wake Forest going?
LikeLike
The AAC. Duke may not want to leave Wake behind but if the ACC starts to collapse WF will be relegated.
LikeLike
Duke is not going to want to leave Wake Forest behind. Where do you see Wake Forest going?
Duke doesn’t have enough negotiating power to force anyone to take Wake Forest. In the scenario where UNC and Duke leave the ACC, all of the remaining schools will band together (i.e., those who don’t leave, whatever the total turns out to be).
A denuded “ACC” is still a far more valuable property than “The American,” so the remaining schools will continue to call themselves the ACC. They’ll decide how big they want to be, and invite whatever number of AAC schools needed to reach that number.
LikeLike
Duke and Wake could propose to form the core of a “magnolia league” with Tulane, Rice and SMU. That would certainly tempt UNC-CH, Georgia Tech, UVA and Miami to join. Vanderbilt could even leave the SEC for that combination, if the “magnolia league” as a southern counterpart to the ivy league becomes a thing they would not want to be left out of. Get William & Mary and Emory up to division I-A level and it’s almost preferable to the current ACC, definately more preferable for any of those schools than the Big Ten or the SEC.
LikeLike
Keep in mind the piece is from last November. Many mindsets have changed since then.
LikeLike
Seems to me the logic still holds sway. But because of the GOR, may not come to fruition until GOR expires or the Big Ten and SEC money becomes too large to ignore.
LikeLike
Just for shits and giggles I would have liked to read the 1 email in support of the BIG
LikeLike
I was thinking the same thing.
LikeLike
The 2016 LSU/Wisconsin game at Lambeau Field is official.
http://theadvocate.com/home/7295542-125/its-official-lsu-vs-wisconsin
LikeLike
Very surprised that the UNC admin would not be aware of the growing financial discrepancies between conferences. It makes me very worried that our admin also underestimates it. Do they know at Rice that we get tens of millions of dollars less than the big boys, even before a single ticket or t-shirt is sold? Do they realize that we bring in close to a hundred million dollars PER YEAR less than the Texas’s of the world? When they figure it out will they just say, “Damn, we can’t close that gap” and just pull the plug?
LikeLike
It is really sad to an old SWC fan who remembers Dicky Moegle, King Hill and the glory days. If new realignment comes about, perhaps the Ivy League will come calling. Not just for Rice but maybe ask other possible left outs like Wake, Tulane and George Washington.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a very good point. It seems like quite a few of the administrators at schools outside of the $100m+ athletic revenue range are not aware of the differences in financial firepower among a lot of these places.
LikeLike
Knowing what we know now through those emails, I find it even more laughable the idea that the ACC could be strong enough to snatch a school from one of the other P5 conferences. Basically, the ACC was the winner in the ultimate battle to be the one major conference to represent the East Coast, and just barely. They still have to contend with the fact that the SEC/B1G have/will have flagships to their South and North, respectively. If they could do a ND-type deal with Texas, for example, then they would be OK for the long term. Ultimately, the demos would help solidify that conference.
I also think that if they would have taken West Virginia that Maryland would find a bit too difficult to leave just because of the money they would have generated with WV/UMD games and the Backyard Brawl becoming a conference game. Louisville would have been #16. They could still pick up WVU as part of a partial deal with Texas, then add Cincy to solidify their presence in the Ohio Valley with UL, UC and WVU. That might help make FSU feel even more comfortable in the conference.
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
A high-level UT source says the university’s decision-makers are increasingly preoccupied with Texas A&M. The source said there is a palpable sense that Aggies successes since moving to the Southeastern Conference last year have raised the ante for Texas.
“What they are concerned about is not just a football season or a football team,” the source said. “What they’re concerned about is that we’re going to lose this kind-of war to A&M. They are really paranoid about A&M.
“And not just in sports, by the way.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20131011-source-ut-officials-really-paranoid-texas-will-lose-war-to-am-on-and-off-field.ece?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
fyi, the link is to a subscription required site.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/11/report-texas-officials-paranoid-of-texas-ams-success/related/
Here’s a general article discussing UTAustin/A&M. Inside this article is a link to the Dallas Morning News that bypasses the “subscription required” page.
LikeLike
More from the Dallas Morning News:
“And during a nine-day span last month, Texas A&M announced a record enrollment of 58,809 for the 2013 fall semester (including a record 53,672 on the main campus) and that the university had received a record $740 million in donations and pledges from Sept. 1, 2012, to Aug. 1, 2013.
“When those numbers came out,” the UT source said, “that kind of sent a shock wave.”
Normally, Longhorns are loath to acknowledge Aggie prosperity, as evidenced by Texas’ refusal to schedule A&M since the Aggies’ move to the SEC. But these aren’t normal times in Austin, where the football team has lost 18 of its last 40 games and is 12-15 in conference play during that span.
During an interview last week about the university leadership at Texas, prominent UT donor Red McCombs brought up A&M, citing the $285 million government contract A&M received in March to produce vaccines.
“You didn’t ask me, but I’ll tell you: What I think was so great for the state was when John Sharp took over the [chancellor] role over at A&M,” McCombs said. “I think John Sharp will take A&M from a really good school to a great school.”
LikeLike
If the big boosters at Texas like Red McCombs are starting to worry, then that says a lot about the direction of the two schools. If aTm can sustain this momentum over the next 5 to 10 years, I think it could cement the UNC boosters, alumni, and fans fears of allowing NCST to join the SEC instead of them if it ever becomes evident that the ACC can’t compete financially with the SEC and B1G. They want no part of NCST becoming the football school in the state of NC.
LikeLike
It could be argued that Nc State has been the better football program lately. That being said the SEC making all who join a football power is stupid. A program success comes at the expense of another program. South Carolina’s success has coincided with Tennessee’s demise. Texas A&M is taking advantage of Auburn being down. The same goes for other conferences. Kansas State rose when Oklahoma was down and then Nebraska fell when Oklahoma rose. There are only so many top teams. Nc State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia or whoever would join the SEC and become fodder for the big schools. If anything, UNC would have more of a chance of becoming a football power with success in the BIG versus Nc State becoming another Kentucky.
LikeLike
It’s not about the SEC making NCST into a football power. It’s about creating more interest in the NCST football program because they would be in the SEC. Everyone is focusing on aTm’s facilaties upgrade and influx of donations by their boosters, but the same thing is happening at Mizzou (just to a lesser extent). Mizzou is also expanding and has seen an increase in donations due to moving to the SEC. That is what UNC does not want to see happen at NCST, because UNC won’t get the same response from their boosters since the vast majority of them will be ticked off that UNC turned the SEC down.
LikeLike
I wrote it on the last thread and I will say it again: Texas’ creation of the LHN was a greedy move fueled by hubris, and by pushing a&m into a far stronger conference, it runs the risk of a reduction in prominence, prestige, and profit. Especially if it doesn’t rebound and A&M keeps its success going.
Texas did it to itself, so it has no one else to blame.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I do think Texas underestimated both the desire and ability for A&M to move to the SEC. Heck, I certainly underestimated the ability for quite a long time (although I knew the desire was there). If Texas knew what they know now, I think UT would have scratched the LHN and pushed through the Pac-16 deal with A&M in tow. UT had the leverage in that situation since it was heading to the Pac-16 in a group that protected all of the Texas-based schools except for Baylor – it would have been tough for A&M to scuttle that deal by heading to the SEC alone (as was rumored at the time). Once the LHN was established, though, that ended giving A&M the practical political authority to head out on its own.
LikeLike
If the Pac 16 deal had gone through, A&M would have gone to the SEC at the time and Kansas would have just replaced A&M. That was Scott’s contingency plan A. A&M wasn’t going. Tech would have gone and Baylor would have been left behind.
LikeLike
I am split. What was happening is what bullet said. Frank was proposing what might have happened had UT et al been committed to going, as equals, the united forces in Texas might have impressed upon aTm the “need” to stick together. A mountain/plains division would have alleviated considerable travel concerns.
But that would have required UT to be looking out for and consulting with others as the best way to protect their own interest. That would have been a surprising, fundamental change.
LikeLike
Yep, aTm was going to the SEC if Texas was going to the Pac 12. I remember having that discussion on this blog back at the time it was all going down. Gene Stallings, who was on their board of regents at that time, was on national radio at the time saying that if the Big 12 wasn’t viable and Texas was going to the Pac 12, then he was for going to the SEC (it came out latter that he had a majority backing by one vote by the regents and backing by the president to go to the SEC if Texas was headed to the Pac 12). And after looking at the aTm message boards, I knew there was no way they were following Texas to the Pac 12. At the time, I think politically they had to stay in the Big 12 if Texas was staying. But if Texas was taking Tech to the Big 12, then aTm had the political backing to go to the SEC and that is where they were headed. In reality, aTm had already made the decision to go to the SEC regardless, they just needed time to build their case politically to leave a Big 12 that still had Texas (which was made easier by the whole LHN hoopla). That much was obvious from reading their message boards and listening to their president and Stallings. That’s why when the rumors started up the second time a year latter that aTm was headed to the SEC, I was adamant on this blog that aTm was gone, even when the SEC was saying that they were happy where they were and weren’t looking to expand.
LikeLike
You can say it all you want, but its still wrong. A&M, according to their own President, decided to move in 2010 when Colorado and Nebraska did. That was before the LHN was formed. The LHN was just used as a scapegoat to stir up the fanbase and justify what they had already decided to do. Like the LHN, A&M’s move was about branding and distinguishing themselves from other Texas universities, most importantly, distinguishing themselves from Texas universities other than UT.
And greed had nothing to do with the LHN. Texas wanted to do it when they thought they might have to pay to put it on. That’s why A&M wasn’t interested when Dodds approached Bill Byrne about a “Lone Star” network.
In a recent Dodds interview in the alumni magazine-Alcalde(http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2013/08/deloss-unplugged/):
One thing I think is not well understood is the rights situation. Could you explain briefly the premise of the tier system and how that factored in the creation of the Longhorn Network?
The Longhorn Network started 10 years ago, and we sat a staff meeting and we looked at tier-one TV. We looked at everything that wasn’t covered and we said, “Let’s try to build something that will allow us to televise tennis, golf, track, baseball, soccer, and volleyball.” There’s a lot good stuff there that wasn’t really getting exposure. That’s what we call tier three. Of all the things I’ve been associated with in 32 years in Texas—starting the foundation, building facilities, all those things—the Longhorn Network, 10 years from now, will maybe be the biggest thing we did.
Why do you say that?
It’s just going to separate us from everybody else. It probably will help the institution more than it helps Athletics in the end. I watched graduation on it, and it was really, really good. When we get distribution—and it takes time—everybody that said negative things about it will say positive things about it. And I’m not saying the SEC or Big 10 or Pac 12 did the wrong things by doing a conference network, because they’re going to have a beautiful network, and it’s going to be a lot of money. But Florida’s going to sit down there, and they’re going to be one-fourteenth of something. And Ohio State is going to be one-fourteenth of something and USC’s gonna be one-twelfth of something, and we’re going to be 100 percent.
LikeLike
My feeling/prediction at this moment is that 1) UNC will not move unless it is a part of some kind of “Pac-16” type of “paradigm shifting” offer. More importantly, 2) I think that the Big Ten or SEC will make a “Big Ten-20” or “SEC-20” kind of offer in the next decade and a half.
I think the game has changed. 1) The ACC is now at 14 (15 including ND) and the Big Ten and SEC are both also at 14. What does this mean? It means there aren’t that many slots in the Big Ten or SEC unless either is willing to blow up the current “common wisdom”…
Right now, the common mantra is that anything at 16 or beyond starts to look unworkable in terms of maintaining important rivalry games, especially if you start to have to create rotating pods. The common idea also seems to be that conferences will be unwilling to test 18 or 20 given how unwieldy those kinds of setups will look.
But what if that common wisdom is now wrong? It’s still a fact that UNC won’t be an early mover. They’ll move if the ACC is existentially threatened but not before. Thus, the Big Ten or SEC to 16 scenarios with UNC/Duke (or UNC + another 1) don’t really make much sense. They seem to rely on one of those two conferences going to 16 and then the other getting UNC/Duke as a response. But one of those two conferences going to 16 (for example Big Ten with FSU/UVa or SEC with FSU/Va Tech) isn’t as big of an existential threat to the ACC anymore with it’s current 14 (+ND) school lineup.
To me, that means that the Big Ten or SEC has to blow up the paradigm and offer a 20-school conference setup if it wants to move UNC. This is exactly the situation that we were in 5 years ago when people were discussing whether Texas would move. Texas only seemed to seriously consider moving when the paradigm was blown up by the Pac-16 offer. It means one of the Big Ten or SEC has to step up to the plate and say “we’ll take UNC + 5”.
For the Big Ten, that’s likely to look like UNC/Duke/UVa/Ga Tech/FSU + 1 of Va Tech or Miami (or possibly a dark horse like Kansas if the timing works out such that the Big 12’s GOR is nearly up if the expansion offer occurs in the mid-2020s).
For the SEC, that’s likely to look like UNC/Duke/UVa/Va Tech/FSU + 1 of Ga Tech or NC State (or possibly OU or Kansas if the expansion offer occurs in the mid-2020s).
(Don’t focus on the mix of schools; that’s not as important to this discussion; I think things will be fluid enough that the Big Ten and SEC will both easily look at taking multiple schools in NC and Va given how fast growing they are and that this kind of offer is contingent on a shock and awe kind of factor similar to how the Pac-16 offer came and went).
The way these offers will come about is something like this. In the mid-2020s, the Big Ten reapproaches the conference discussion and has in hand something like a $13-17 million per year difference with the ACC. The Big Ten COP/C decides that they want to UVa and another, and they end up deciding to go after FSU because they need a football power to justify expansion to the TV people. In the course of those discussions, they decide to talk to UNC who tells them that they aren’t going anywhere unless the ACC is existentially threatened. They point out to UNC that the money differences are only getting bigger (not smaller) and that UNC will have to move at some point. UNC tells them that they’d have to take a big chunk of the ACC to make that happen.
There’s other ways that this can obvious come about such as the SEC poking around at Va Tech and UVa when it’s looking at ways to expand its cash flow and network’s reach in the 2020s.
Getting to the second point: 2) The point of all of this is that I think we’re likely to get to a point in the 2020s where the Big Ten or SEC makes the 6 school offer and attempts to take a big chunk of the ACC in order to grab UNC. This doesn’t mean that UNC will accept; in fact, the most likely outcome is that such an offer crashes and burns like the Pac-16 situation did given just how many moving parts there are to an offer such as this, and just how many constituencies around the country (from network executives to other school ADs/commissioners) do not want this kind of thing to happen and will mobilize against it.
I would however prepare for a world in which a 20 school conference set of offers is on the table. I think it’s coming up in the next round of realignment.
LikeLike
Here’s one relatively plausible scenario in which both conferences make 6 team offers to UNC:
Let’s say the Big Ten is poking around at expansion candidates in the mid-2020s. It decides that it needs more football prowess and more population footprint as a result of the shifts of the next 12 years and another look at longer-term demographic challenges. They decide to focus on FSU/UVa in a move to 16, but also talk to UNC to make sure that UNC knows that the differences between the Big Ten and ACC and what the future differences look like (let’s say it’s around $13-17 million per school per year if the ACC doesn’t get a network by that time).
The SEC realizes that the Big Ten is making a move on the Southeast and also decides that they want to get in on this to make sure that they have access to markets in Virginia and North Carolina. They’ve probably been poking around at Va Tech all of this time for Va Tech’s presence in the D.C. and east Virginia TV markets. They go straight to UNC and start to talk with them. UNC tells them that they have an NC State problem (UNC and NC State seem to be more tied to one another than Texas and Texas Tech in terms of how the boards of the two schools are intertwined and this has been discussed ad nauseam around here) but that they don’t want to blow up the ACC and create a mad scramble unless the ACC is existentially threatened. They also mention to the SEC that they want to be in the same conference as UVa if possible along with NC State and Duke. The SEC realizes this and offers UNC/NC State/Duke/UVa/Va Tech (likely along with FSU although they may offer that spot to OU first).
The Big Ten realizes this is going on and then counteroffers to take UNC/Duke/UVa/Va Tech/FSU/Ga Tech and tries to get the FSU/Ga Tech/Duke/UVa people to try to sway UNC to the Big Ten based on the academic prestige that a 20 team configuration like that could have while also offering similar money.
Obviously, this still leaves the NC State problem unsolved in the Big Ten offer, but I’m just giving an example of how both conferences could make 20 team offers and how they would get to them.
LikeLike
I still have a hard time seeing how an athletic conference can justify going to 20+ teams. At some point it becomes an issue of diminishing returns. If either the SEC or B1G goes to 20+ teams, they will not only be duplicating one market, but they’ll have to duplicate at least two markets. At what point does the per school revenue start to diminish instead of increase?
LikeLike
bamatab,
The thinking would have to be that you’re basically forming leagues that will have subsets that act like conferences used to.
LikeLike
Brian,
But that still doesn’t explain where the additional revenue will be coming from to justify adding duplicate markets into the same league (especially since the schools we are discussing would most likely be part of the same division/league). I don’t see either the B1G or the SEC taking schools if it means that they lose money.
LikeLike
There’s more inventory for the TV deals and the conference network. You can approach a critical mass that forces your payouts to go up. The network may become national if the conference is big enough. If they’re doing this, they may also be adding a round of conference semis. Basically, it would be more like the NFL and less like the current NCAA.
LikeLike
Brian,
The conference networks are basically already available on a national basis regardless of how many teams are in the conference. Unless the plan is to create a B1G2 or SECN2 channel, you already have plenty of teams to fill the tv spots.
ccrider55,
I still don’t see how losing per school payouts is best for either the conference as a whole or the individual schools.
LikeLike
on the $$ point, I would say this: if the 7 best ACC teams join/merge with the B1G, essentially, all the ACC $$ accrues to the B1G including the Orange Bowl tie-in. And you can now get the BTN on basic at $1 per subscriber in the new states, rather than 10-15 cents per subscriber. In earlier threads, we looked at the cable/sat. households in these states and that is a massive jump in revenue for the BTN.
FWIW, the 7 lesser ACC schools are: BC, WF, Pitt, NCST, Syr, Clemson and VTech.
The better teams from the AAC leave and merge and make a pretty decent old-Big-East-level “new ACC.” Let’s say: Cincy, Cent. Flor, S. Florida, UConn and E. Carolina. Not completely awful.
Again, none of this is happening.
LikeLike
“Again, none of this is happening.”
Agreed.
I am still totally shocked that UNC and UVA willingly tied their hands with a GOR when they seemed to admit that there would eventually be a revenue gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. I realize that UNC likes to rule the roost, but why tie yourself down and not keep your option open?
LikeLike
bamatab,
“The conference networks are basically already available on a national basis regardless of how many teams are in the conference.”
They’re available, but in low demand. By making them national I mean getting more than $0.10 per household out of the footprint and/or greatly increasing demand outside the footprint.
“Unless the plan is to create a B1G2 or SECN2 channel, you already have plenty of teams to fill the tv spots.”
Yes, but more inventory means better choices for the tier 1 deal, and thus increased value. That trickles down to all the TV deals. More teams also mean a lot more games fans care about. The ACC and B10 footprints combined are well over 100M people.
“I still don’t see how losing per school payouts is best for either the conference as a whole or the individual schools.”
You have assumed diminishing returns without proving it. Say the B10 takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and Miami. Where is the overlap? Duke is a national hoops brand, and also helps in NJ and NYC. They don’t add NC by themselves, but they help the hoops ratings everywhere (like NE football, in other words). The others are in different states or on opposite ends of a giant state.
LikeLike
Brian,
More inventory doesn’t necessarily mean better choices. I would argue that you would actually be reducing the chances of having tier 1 games. By adding the likes of Duke, UVA, GT, and even UNC, you are actually diluting the overall pool of teams that draw real national interest. I doubt folks out in California will be demanding to watch Duke vs Michigan or UVA vs OSU football games. From a true national standpoint, adding FSU and Miami are really and truly the only football teams that would help increase your chances of having nationally demanded games. The only reason adding UVA, Duke, GT, or even UNC is even worth it is to gain the tv markets regional demand for the conference networks. I don’t see them doing anything for national demand.
LikeLike
Nobody’s dieing to see Indiana/Miami or Purdue/FSU.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“More inventory doesn’t necessarily mean better choices”
Actually it does, especially in the bad weeks. You have much higher odds of having a decent game if there are more games to choose from. I agree it doesn’t guarantee more elite games.
LikeLike
I gotta go with Bama on this one. While more inventory usually means better choices, that doesn’t always hold. 9 game conference schedules reduce the total inventory of games compared to an 8 game schedule, but TV network generally pay more for 9 game conference schedules since it improves the total quality of the TV package.
And it holds for expansion also. Wake Forrest and Vanderbilt (for example) would increase the total inventory of Big Ten games but reduce the total quality of the package since it reduce the number times the Big Boys play each other (every game tOSU would play WF would be game they wouldn’t be playing against Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.)
LikeLike
frug,
“I gotta go with Bama on this one. While more inventory usually means better choices, that doesn’t always hold.”
No, of course it doesn’t always hold. Adding UMass and WKU wouldn’t improve inventory. But that’s not what we’re looking at.
“9 game conference schedules reduce the total inventory of games compared to an 8 game schedule, but TV network generally pay more for 9 game conference schedules since it improves the total quality of the TV package.”
It’s also because it increases their choices during most of the year. Most OOC games come in September. The conference schedule fills up October and November. Going from 48 to 54 conference games (12 teams, 14 is 56 to 63) gives TV a lot more choices.
Look at this year with the double bye week. The B10 has roughly 48 games to fill 10 weeks of TV, or 4.8 games per week. Going to 14 would bump that to 5.6 games per week, or 1 extra choice every week for the tier 1 package. It won’t raise the ceiling for that game, but it does raise the floor.
Rough order of value (12 = 1 vs 2 in that division):
6 teams – 12, 13, 14, 23, 15, 24, 16, 25, 34, 26, 35, 36, 45, 46, 56
7 teams – 12, 13, 14, 23, 15, 24, 16, 25, 34, 17, 26, 35, 27, 36, 45, 37, 46, 47, 56, 57, 67
Crossovers – 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 14, 33, 15, 24, 16, 25, 34, 44, 17, 26, 35, 27, 36, 45, 37, 46, 55, 47, 56, 57, 66, 67, 77
But remember, everyone is a touch more valuable now since they should have fewer losses on average than they did before. If you added #7, everyone else benefits from getting to beat them and thus appearing to be better than they were before.
“Wake Forrest and Vanderbilt (for example) would increase the total inventory of Big Ten games but reduce the total quality of the package since it reduce the number times the Big Boys play each other (every game tOSU would play WF would be game they wouldn’t be playing against Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.)”
Would it? It’s also games they aren’t playing IN or PU, plus it means more wins for all the teams above WF and VU so they have better records.
LikeLike
At 20 you are two conferences that have joined in a joint marketing and administration venture. As long as the schools buy into “what’s good for the conference is in the individual school’s interest” it would work. The B1G and PAC haven’t had much problem sharing interest in the Rose Bowl for many decades. It might be like expanding that kind of association (like the B1G/PAC scheduling agreement that almost happened without an actual consolidation).
LikeLike
Could the Big Ten realistically go to 20 by taking from both the ACC and Big 12? Imagine a dozen years from now, at or near the end of the ACC and Big 12’s GORs, that the B1G pursues UVa, UNC, Duke and GaTech from the ACC and Texas and Kansas from the Big 12. That would create an academic/athletic superconference while adding a football king in Texas and basketball kings in UNC and Kansas (and possibly Duke if it can continue to thrive post-K; there’s no guarantee it will). Chapel Hill would have enough southern neighbors on hand for its fans to be satisfied. The SEC would take the strongest of what’s left not covered by its “gentlemen’s agreement” (Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma and Okie State), while the ACC and Big 12 leftovers would merge into a conference that would be a clear #5 on the conference totem pole.
LikeLike
In the event that Texas left the XII without Oklahoma, the SEC would invite Oklahoma, but not OkSt. After Texas leaves, everyone in Oklahoma will know the XII is a sinking ship, so the political problem will be solved except if the PAC will take both, and the PAC already rejected them. SEC could pair OK with VT, NCSU, or FSU. What is left of the ACC and XII will form the 4th best conference since one will be eliminated. The American or MWC will be 5th best.
LikeLike
Your scenario would lead to a 16-member Big Ten and SEC, the Pac remaining at 12 because of geographic isolation, and a 20-team ACC/Big 12 hybrid. Assuming Virginia Tech is SEC #16, you could divvy them up into two 10-team divisions for football:
Coastal Division: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, N.C. State, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech,, Miami
Continental Division:West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Texas Christian, Florida State
LikeLike
The divisions would be strictly separated, with teams playing a 9-game conference schedule (no crossover games). FSU vs. Miami or SU vs. Pitt could be scheduled as non-conference games.
As for Notre Dame, it could keep playing five designated games against this league, rotating foes over a four-year cycle (eight years by sites). Opponents would be set up on a 3/2 basis, so ND wouldn’t find itself facing five former Big 12 members in a single season.
LikeLike
After Texas leaves, everyone in Oklahoma will know the XII is a sinking ship, so the political problem will be solved except if the PAC will take both, and the PAC already rejected them.
The PAC would take them. When the PAC rejected the OK/OKSt pair, they had better things in mind. A decade from now, they’re going to see that expansion options are limited, and they’ll be worried about being stuck at 12 with nowhere to go.
Therefore, in the scenario you’ve envisioned (with Texas gone, and their peers at 16 or more), they’d take OK/OKSt as the best deal they’re ever going to get.
The divisions would be strictly separated, with teams playing a 9-game conference schedule (no crossover games). FSU vs. Miami or SU vs. Pitt could be scheduled as non-conference games.
No league is ever, ever, ever, ever, going to organize such that one of its most valuable games (FSU/Miami) is forced OOC. It would be like the SEC scheduling Alabama/Auburn as a non-conference game. It is hard to imagine a dumber move that a league could make.
LikeLike
@ Zeek:
a few thoughts.
adding a block of southern schools helps UNC, et. al., get over the cultural fit problem. particularly, since the new group of five or six are “reunited” with their old ACC buddy Maryland.
despite the fascination with rotating mini-divisions, if the B1G goes to 20, IMO, the B1G should just admit that it is more a merger-type situation and simply split the teams east and west, do a round-robin in division (with one protected cross-over (The Game)) with the champs ending up in the CCG. Winner of the CCG goes to the Rose Bowl; loser off to the Orange Bowl.
East tOSU, Rutgers and PSU and ACC7 (MD, UNC, Duke, UVa, FSU, GT & Miami).
West is current B1GW plus MI, MSU and Indiana.
yes, howls of outrage from the traditionalists.
btw, why stop at 20? 24 works just as well. Add UT + 3 and MI/MSU can be shifted to the East. Add UT, OKLA to the West and Pitt and VirTech/Clemson to the East? (the AAU requirement and the one-team-per-state rule will need to be relaxed).
the BTN is a big factor here particularly if the ACCN never gets done. I honestly think the BTN will out distance the SECN.
the CIC is a big factor here too.
IMO, none of this is happening.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“adding a block of southern schools helps UNC, et. al., get over the cultural fit problem. particularly, since the new group of five or six are “reunited” with their old ACC buddy Maryland.
despite the fascination with rotating mini-divisions, if the B1G goes to 20, IMO, the B1G should just admit that it is more a merger-type situation and simply split the teams east and west, do a round-robin in division (with one protected cross-over (The Game)) with the champs ending up in the CCG. Winner of the CCG goes to the Rose Bowl; loser off to the Orange Bowl.”
Under the current rules, I agree divisions might be A better choice. Your split is terrible, though.
“East tOSU, Rutgers and PSU and ACC7 (MD, UNC, Duke, UVa, FSU, GT & Miami).
West is current B1GW plus MI, MSU and Indiana.”
Why should OSU get kicked out of the B10 and forced to join the ACC? They aren’t going to agree to a plan that isolates them from the rest of the B10.
LikeLike
That would certainly let tOSU off the hook from playing all those ACC schools, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
Good argument for both conferences to expand. Historically, SEC does not expand with a school already in their footprint, certainly not in the same state. FSU for example and history could be the teacher here. The exception could be for new territory. Say three North Carolina schools and two Virginia schools and a surprise. Maybe Pitt and a whirl at the huge Pennsylvania TV market.
LikeLike
Actually, historically the SEC never had an issue with having multiple schools from the same state in the conference. That stance apparently has only occurred recently, and has primarily been a result of the ability to increase per school revenue due to the addition of new tv markets for the upcoming SECN (a secondary reason may also be a result of how crazy recruiting has become). But even as recently as the early 90s, the SEC was more than willing to take a school like FSU that shared a footprint with an existing school.
LikeLike
Yeah, and I think it largely comes down to the fact that those are big enough states to support multiple schools.
This is not like having 2 schools in Mississippi.
There’s more than enough population for 2 schools in Virginia and North Carolina given their demographics.
LikeLike
zeek,
16 is fun to play with for the symmetric pods, but larger may be better in some ways.
18:
2 divisions of 9
Schedule = 8 division games + 1 crossover game (maybe 2)
20:
2 divisions of 10
Schedule = 9 division games + 1 crossover game? or 8 division games (no full round robin)
Also, potentially look for 13 games in 2019 and 2024-5. Those are double bye years so the schools may push to add a 13th game.
LikeLike
2 divisions of 9 means it’s not really even a conference anymore. More like a partnership between two conferences.
LikeLike
So?
Wouldn’t that be something anti expansion advocates would embrace? And it brings more revenue.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So?
Wouldn’t that be something anti expansion advocates would embrace? And it brings more revenue.”
I wouldn’t say embrace, but it could be better than the status quo. It depends who you add, how you split the teams and how often you play everyone.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s something I was considering. It also solves some of those issues like old Big Ten versus new Big Ten if you can get most of the old schools together. The tradition minded folks will like that kind of outcome.
LikeLike
zeek, I really don’t see how you can interpret a Big 20 out of that article. I just don’t see it. I also don’t see what the incentive would be. Splitting the pot 20 different ways would likely be a lossy endeavor.
LikeLike
Not really seeing anything in the article to indicate that the decision makers at UNC were leaning any which way other than keeping the ACC intact.
The incentives for the Big Ten and SEC to consider 20 team configurations are the same as the Pac-10’s for considering 16 team configurations; namely, that the extra 6 teams are revenue additive on the whole. Everyone would likely believe in particular that the cable network money is there.
Maybe that changes in 15 years, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
I really don’t see how you can interpret a Big 20 out of that article. I just don’t see it. I also don’t see what the incentive would be. Splitting the pot 20 different ways would likely be a lossy endeavor.
You can split it as many ways as you want, as long as each addition is positive. They remain ahead, as long as any new market they enter is worth more than the average value of the markets they’re already in.
They’d certainly get net wins out of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, assuming the other drawbacks of expansion could be surmounted (and I’m not saying they necessarily could).
LikeLike
RTR
LikeLike
Go Mizzou – beat the Dawgs
LikeLike
Mizzou won and will go up in the polls. Next up Florida. If Mizzou wins next week they will have a chance at the SEC East.
LikeLike
6th straight Mizzou win by 15 pts or more, this time vs a top 10 team on the road in front of 93,000 hostile fans.
Time for duffman to eat some crow.
LikeLike
Everyone loves a gracious winner…
LikeLike
LOL. True. He can be gracious tomorrow. Now, too much adrenaline.
LikeLike
Andy,
It’ll be interesting to see how hurt Franklin really is. You guys are going to really need him for your next 3 games which includes both USCe & UF. I hope you guys can pull it out. I think it would be good for the conference as a whole to see Mizzou in the SECCG.
LikeLike
I’m hearing he’ll be out 2-3 weeks unfortunately. His backup, Matty Mauk, is a redshirt freshman, but he was a 1st team Parade All American, he’s supposed to be pretty good. We’ll see.
LikeLike
ESPN saying 6 weeks.
LikeLike
ESPN now says he’s done for the regular season.
LikeLike
Totally unconfirmed at this point. Missouri officials are denying it. Sounds like it could be anywhere from two weeks to the season, he’ll have more tests tomorrow.
LikeLike
Missouri officials don’t have authority to reveale students med conditions without permission.
LikeLike
Only one guy is reporting Franklin as out for the season, an ESPN guy. Several other local reporters are disputing it. We’ll find out more tomorrow or Monday.
LikeLike
Coach Pinkel now denying the reports that Franklin is out for the season, but says Franklin will likely be out for “a few games”, maybe longer.
Matty Mauk, the backup, holds the national high school record for passing yards and was the Gatorade Player of the Year in Ohio a couple of years ago. He’s probably a better passer than Franklin, but he’s inexperienced.
LikeLike
Andy,
Nice win, but the season is still only half way there. If Franklin is out and the rest of the team piles on injuries the win today was easily a loss. As depleted as Georgia is with lost linemen, 3 elite receivers, and 2 draft picks they still played a very solid game. The Tigers were fortunate not to turn the ball over once while the Bulldogs did so 4 times. Again the win was good for Missouri but they only had 375 yards and were totally shut down in the 3rd quarter. The Georgia team had 454 yards and were still scoring in the 4th quarter with a very limited roster.
I know you are all gung ho for your team and nothing wrong with that, but the season is not over until the last down is played.
LikeLike
you are such a douche. All I said was that I thought they’d win 8 games. That still looks very likely.
LikeLike
duffman tells me no way Missouri can hang in the SEC, no way they win 8 games, then Mizzou beats the #7 ranked team on the road and duff dismisses it. Shows a real lack of character by him if you ask me.
LikeLike
Andy,
I congratulated you on a good win. I just noted you used the injuries last year to explain Missouri. If your assessment was correct last year then the same would apply to Georgia this year. That is being a realist and not a douche just because you think things only work for your Tigers and nobody else. Hanging in the middle of the SEC is not the same as beating the top teams like Bamatab’s Tide and Alan’s Tigers. I think both of those schools are well above your Tigers. I think a Georgia team with no injuries is better than your team, as are the TAMU, Florida, and South Carolina teams. If you beat all 3 of these teams then I will agree your Tigers but they have to show me first.
Auburn was terrible last year but they are currently 5-1 and have already played 3 SEC schools. I might put them ahead of Missouri right now just because they have played a better slate of games. What you mistake as me being a douche is me looking at Missouri and not seeing them in the Top 7 teams in the SEC at the end of the season. You may be right and I may be right but I do not call you names while the jury is still out on your Tigers. Alan can attest my feeling that his Tigers may be the better SEC team that nobody is talking about. They are currently 6-1 and have already played 4 conference games and a ranked non conference team on the road. They are 3 points away from an undefeated season with that loss coming on the road to a team you beat but when that team was not as injured.
Try to not be so consumed by Tiger Punch that you forget the diversity of this board.
LikeLike
duffdouche, all I said was that Mizzou would likely win 8 or more games this year. You loudly disagreed. Mizzou is now 6-0 with 6 games left. 8 wins seems all but assured.
Yes, Georgia had injuries. But Missouri lost their QB in the third quarter and rallied to outscore Georgia 13-0 in the 4th to win the game.
Florida’s starting QB is out too. I suppose that means that win won’t count either.
Mizzou will win at least 8 games. Your dismissiveness is and has been unwarranted.
LikeLike
As a sometimes lurker on the blog this season, watching “duffman” move the goalposts week after week re:Mizzou has been pretty amusing. I don’t think Andy is saying Missouri is the best team in the country, duffman, so why the comment about the season not being over until the last down? What are we waiting to see and conclude upon the last down of the season? Will what we see at that time change what has happened up until now? Will losing several of the next six games mean that Missouri didn’t play some pretty good football in these games so far?
I can only assume that after watching his team get one of the program’s best road wins in decades, especially given what transpired last season, Andy was sure that you would finally admit that the Tigers have been pretty good this season. Instead you basically came back once again with a variation of ‘just wait, you’ll see.’…as you said last week, or the week prior, etc.
“Nice win, but the season is still only half way there.”
..half way to where, duffman?
LikeLike
UGA couldn’t overcome Murray having his worst game of the year. 4 turnovers vs. 0. The injuries could have been overcome. But they needed Murray to have a good game.
LikeLike
That was Missouri’s defense. Mizzou has 13 interceptions on the year, which is tied for 1st in the nation.
LikeLike
I’m sure they contributed, but Missouri hasn’t played anyone as good as Georgia. Murray only had 3 interceptions prior to today against Clemson, UNT, LSU, South Carolina and Tennessee. But had 2 interceptions and a fumble leading directly to two TDs yesterday.
LikeLike
Mizzou makes turnovers the focus of their defense. They’ve ranked in the top 10 in the country in turnover margin most years for the past 7 or 8 years now.
LikeLike
Mizzou makes turnovers the focus of their defense. They’ve ranked in the top 10 in the country in turnover margin most years for the past 7 or 8 years now.
If you find me a coach who’ll say that’s not the focus, it’ll be the first. It’s right up there with “playing physical” that every coach from Pop Warner to the NFL says they intend to do. Whether the Missouri coaches actually have a teachable skill the rest of the country lacks is an interesting question.
LikeLike
Franklin certainly has had some bad breaks. Maybe the bad karma in Athens was contagious (top 2 running backs out-1 for the season, top 3 receivers + 1 reserve gone for the season, 2 starting safeties have been out and even the punter got a concussion and missed Mizzou).
LikeLike
half way to where, duffman?
Missouri first half only 2 conference games played
Murray State (FCS) 4-3, 2-1
Toledo (MAC) 3-3, 2-1
OPEN
@ Indiana (B1G) 3-3, 1-1
Arkansas State (Sun Belt) 3-3, 1-0
@ Vanderbilt 3-3, 0-3
@ Georgia 4-2, 3-1
Missouri second half half 6 conference games remain
Florida 4-2, 3-1
South Carolina 5-1, 3-1
Tennessee 3-3, 0-2
@ Kentucky 1-5, 0-3
OPEN
@ Mississippi 3-3, 1-3
Texas A&M 5-1, 2-1
If you can not see the difference between the first 6 games and the final 6 games then I do not know what to say? 1st half with easy schedule and full roster vs 2nd half with hard schedule and depleted roster. Drinking the Tiger Punch I could say the second 6 = the first six but my choice would not be that rosy view. Tigers can easily drop the next 2 and I view the game with Tennessee as a toss up right now. Texas A&M is real and Mississippi has already played the toughest part of their schedule. The Fighting Ackbar’s have a much easier second half of the season to recover in.
Will losing several of the next six games mean that Missouri didn’t play some pretty good football in these games so far?
No, not taking anything away from the first 6. Just saying the next 6 are much more uphill than downhill. Not sure why this seems to be such an issue.
LikeLike
congrats to Mizzou (and Andy).
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Which pair would be better for the B1G’s 15th and 16h teams? North Carolina and Virginia or Texas and Kansas.
LikeLike
Probably Texas/Kansas, as each are a king of sorts. UVa and UNC have some synergy with each other and Maryland, and are part of growing states, but a UT/KU combo would have more impact.
LikeLike
Before the Maryland and Rutgers additions it would have been UT and KU by huge margin, now I still think those two would be best but it would close.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Which pair would be better for the B1G’s 15th and 16h teams? North Carolina and Virginia or Texas and Kansas.”
First look:
UT and KU because TX adds so much value to the BTN
Deeper look:
UT would not be in a contiguous state and a cultural outlier as well. They’d have to deal with the LHN issue. KS isn’t useful as a state to the B10. On the other hand, UNC and UVA add 2 large and rapidly growing states that would build on the UMD addition.
Depending on how the LHN issue is resolved, UT still adds so much value that you have to take them.
LikeLike
Those pairs aren’t coming like that.
To get Texas or UNC, you probably have to add 3 other schools that they like. UNC has too many rivalries that they don’t want to break (NCSU, Duke, & UVa) & share a board with NCSU. Texas likes TX.
LikeLike
Column by Tom Lindley: Game attendance drops as college football fans shun a bad deal
http://www.cnhinews.com/cnhins_sports/x134974944/Game-attendance-drops-as-college-football-fans-shun-a-bad-deal
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. The ideal college stadium of the future will probably look like an NFL stadium with less than 70k seats but all seats will be real seats, not benches and lots of luxury boxes and seating. Wonder if places like ND and Mich will put in more actual seats to reduce capacity. It takes a special person to pay close to $100 to sit on a crowded bench for 3.5 hours. I’d really enjoy the experience more with fewer folks at the games.
LikeLike
It is bigger and any farmer can tell you holding back some seed for next years crops is preferred to harvesting all the seeds and hoping things will grow in the barren dirt. The issue has been out there for quite some time, just the folks in the decision making positions are in touch with what it now costs the fans to actually go.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=091005yankeestickets
Here is a link I put up on here early in this blog and I think it resonates even more today
LikeLike
They’ve got a balance. They want to maximimize stadium revenue like the pros, but they want to keep alumni connected by bringing a lot back to campus.
LikeLike
Coke and Pepsi want to hook you when you are a kid and make you a lifelong consumer. The big drops in the students going to games may be the canary in the coal mine for large empty stadiums in 10 or 20 years. Baby boomers will begin to die off and those seats will become empty. If they have not engaged kids and students to fill them will this picture become the future of live sports?
This was halftime and not 1/2 hour before or after the game
LikeLike
duff – in defense of the TCU picture you posted, TCU does allow you to leave the stadium at halftime and return for the third quarter. The tailgating area is very close to the stadium. I attended two games in the new Amon Carter Stadium last season and plan to go to the Texas game in two weeks. At halftime, I’ll probably go to my friend’s tailgate and drink a beer.
LikeLike
Maryland, without its first-string QB, clawed past Virginia 27-26. The Terps are now 5-1 with a trip to Wake Forest coming up, and while they won’t go any higher than a minor bowl, they regained some self-confidence after the disaster in Tallahassee.
LikeLike
Sure you were without your starting QB, but Va is pretty GD awful. Ball State! And for the love of God, did Oregon truly destroy them. Unlike your game against FSU, which I believed hinged on the brutal loss of your QB, they got smoked and toyed with at home.
The ACC is top heavy this year, but at least its 3 teams (Clem, Miami and FSU), which is better than past years. I am not overlooking Miami, they could win the ACC, they have a lot speed and power & their game against FSU is a rivalry game, the type where all bets are off But, FSU seems destined & it would not shock me if they run away with the ACC.
BC definitely proved to be competitive against Clemson and FSU. Md has plenty of tough games left. Syracuse is better than advertised as well.
LikeLike
Andy,
Congrats to your Mizzou Tigers!!!! Big and costly win today.
Has anyone read the League of Denial yet? I just finished it, looking to hear some of your thoughts…
It is a good read.
AL
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Mariota played in the fourth quarter for the first time this year.
LikeLike
Interesting read on the perspective at UNC. Maryland bolting to the B1G forced acceptance that the BTN is a game changer in terms of potential revenue growth. The ACC needs to start its own successful network in order to keep up with the revenue potential of its neighbors. The GOR does not make sense for a UVA or FSU unless they believe that there is a realistic chance of an ACCN.
LikeLike
Utah proving, once again, why they earned a spot in the P5.
Also, nice game between Mich and PSU, although both teams benefitted from mistakes.
LikeLike
Nothing revealing in this current blog, nothing at all. Piecing together this research is about a year late. Some of us were genuinely remarking, months ago, various threads, that UNC to the BIG was far fetched and we were often citing the overwhelming sentiments of various UNC boards where fans were frankly disgusted with a possible BIG move & it was constant, consistent & often barbaric.
Nearly every UNC to the BIG thread I ever read was loaded and often locked with content filled with venomous criticisms against a possible BIG move. The often countered polite BIG fans with insults, jokes and claims of the BIG being nothing a has been symbol of the “the dreary, apocalyptic, decaying Rust Belt” where “slow football & boring basketball” is played. If you’ve had any credible time as a resident in NC then you shouldn’t be surprised. Their general dislike, sports wise, of the BIG is common – for these fans its continuous king status in the ACC is priority one, next is basketball & kicking Duke’s ass, partly because they are the school with out of state elites – then good ole NASCAR. If UNC is to make a move, then the vast majority of these fans want to try their luck & egos in the SEC – somehow their delusional “sleeping giant” status will awaken in the SEC, as if Tar Hell football is the Kraken of CF. There is simply no brief or extended period of dominate UNC football in the history books. These fans definitely bombed the emails of UNC administrators – declaring NO BIG. Yet, some of you persisted with your fantasies, disguised in academic and economic in-speak, sometimes confidently stating it was only a matter of time before UVa, UNC, & perhaps GT would join the BIG. Absurd! Culture matters so much more than we think in expansion & not primarily at the so-called academic administration level. I think Delany, a Tar Heel alum, knew this long ago. My belief is that he targeted GT and UVa, and maybe, just maybe FSU. But GT and ND have an unspoken, understated alliance that challenged Delany. GT’s new AD has a strong ND pedigree & it’s been obvious for many years now that ND, athletic side & most alum, are not interested in the BIG. They’ll do most anything to benefit recruiting down South & they’re attitude is that they are above their Midwestern roots – which is a crock of shvt.
The prospect of the ACC folding is quite slim. I remain confident that the only major conference at risk of dissolution is the Big12, which should have been obvious with the last major exodus – Mizzou, aTm, Neb and Colorado. Their failure to capture Lville and Cincy as partners with WVa was simply a further sign of their weakness, a head scratching-dumb move. I do think the Big12’s days are numbered & GD the BIG should try very hard to stretch into Tx & build the BIG West, though I think Wisky and Neb will hold their own against OSU, PSU, Mich, etc.
Moreover, the bright side of a viable ACC means the SEC will at times lose their dominating grip of the Southeast in football: FSU and Miami, especially, can’t be down for too long & this season is marking their comeback. CF needs a competitive ACC. There’s plenty of room down there for two major conferences, esp one with a decent northern influence (ACC) – it’s a nice cheque and balance.
LikeLike
First off, you are right in that it was quite obvious that the alumni, boosters, and fans wanted no part of the B1G to anyone that went over to their boards. I remember when the very first rumors of FSU possibly jumping to the Big 12 started, I went over to their boards and was somewhat surprised. I had a very strong feeling at that moment that UNC was not joining the B1G, and the anti-B1G sentiment on their boards only got worse as time went on.
Now I will have to take exception to your statement that the SEC loses their grip on Southeastern football. Even during the heydays of FSU and Miami in the 80s – early 2000s, Southeast was still tied more to the SEC than the ACC or Big East (which Miami was apart of for some of that time).
Also if the ACC is to remain a viable conference for the long term that can keep up financially with the SEC and B1G, then they better find some new revenue streams quick. Maybe they can get an ACCN started, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of talk about it since the ACC schools signed the GORs. If the ACCN doesn’t come to fruition, then the ACC may be in more trouble for the long term than some think.
LikeLike
If ACC members find Swofford has sold them a bill of goods with the ACC Network, the situation changes drastically — especially if they discover their Big Ten and SEC brethren are making twice as much money, or more.
LikeLike
The widening gaps will be at issue for both the ACC and B12. If the stable 3 (B1G + PAC + SEC) put real distance between the other 2 the better schools will jump or disband both conferences (ACC and B12) to reform as a single strong one.
LikeLike
bamatab,
What I say probably seems like wishful thinking since the SEC has truly dominated the BCS era.
But, I believe the ACC has upside due to their kings, though it will be hard for them. They have annual rivalry games to exploit such opportunities: GT-UGa, UF-Miami-FSU, Clem – USC, as well as shared culture, esp access to prep football. I think the latter 3 matchups can go either way on an annual basis. GT-UGa heavily favors the Bulldogs. But honestly, I usually root for the SEC in matchups against the ACC, so I don’t mind the difference.
The GD ACC has spoiled a lot of BIG runs for a NC in Men’s Basketball – 5 NCG’s – since 1992. Ouch!. But, all in good fun & fair play : ).
LikeLike
I remain confident that the only major conference at risk of dissolution is the Big12, which should have been obvious with the last major exodus – Mizzou, aTm, Neb and Colorado. Their failure to capture Lville and Cincy as partners with WVa was simply a further sign of their weakness, a head scratching-dumb move.
It wasn’t “dumb” or “head scratching”; it was the only thing they could do. They were NOT going to get a better TV deal if they added Louisville and Cincinnati. They would’ve had to split their existing deal two more ways. No one expands to lose money.
I agree that UNC fans don’t want to move to the Big Ten. Having said that, I think you place too much reliance on fan message boards, as if they were indicative of what the administration would do.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. The active letter campaigns by alum & simple t-shirt fans that Frank cited above were all over the UNC boards long ago. These campaigns were pretty detailed with logistics – contact info.
Bottom line, I’d hate to see any conference add a member where hostility and disappointment characterize their overwhelming feelings of a new conference home. That’s not right. I’d be pissed to see my alma mater, Minnesota, ever leave the BIG, no acceptable alternatives. This state would never let it happen, never.
As for FSU, I just don’t think they would have ever subjected themselves to “island status” in the BIG. Money doesn’t supersede culture in such a case.
LikeLike
Educating the fan base about the benefits of the new league plays a part in it. By the end of 2012, after learning about the CIC and how the move would help Maryland football — both at the gate and in recruiting — many in the College Park community became convinced the move from the ACC to the Big Ten was a wise one. Then again, Maryland has no in-state rivals to speak of; around the Research Triangle, UNC, State and Duke people are in virtually constant contact with each other, and the same holds true around the state, principally for UNC and NCSU (and for Wake and Duke to a lesser extent).I can’t think of any other state where “U. of” and “State U.” are both BCS members and in such geographic proximity.
LikeLike
The state schools in MI and OR are both within an hour of each other.
LikeLike
I’m not sure B1G fans (as opposed to the Conference leadership) want southern schools, either. Maryland might be the extreme limit. Ditto most Big 12 schools. Iowa State, Kansas and Missouri (SEC) might be a good cultural fit, but I don’t get Oklahoma, and why in the name of all that’s Holy would the B1G want Texas? They’ve destroyed every conference they’ve been in.
Similarly, B1G fans might not want Notre Dame. It might have been possible 10 to 20 years ago,but there is too much bad blood now. And ND seems to be ditching its long term B1G series. Purdue will go next. They’ll just keep MSU. Part of this is due to their five-game commitment to the ACC, part to bad blood. John Cooper’s comment, “just don’t play them”, is coming true.
It is probable the we will not see any further realignment for a generation, even after the current GOR’s end. The ACC and the Big 12 will survive, especially the ACC. Orphaned schools like Uconn might find a home in the MAC or some other second tier conference.
LikeLike
I’m not sure B1G fans (as opposed to the Conference leadership) want southern schools, either. Maryland might be the extreme limit.
B1G fans are too large a group to attribute a consensus opinion to them. Those who like the Maryland addition would probably favor its logical implication, which is to continue expanding in that direction. Those who oppose further expansion are probably not happy with Maryland either, because it means fewer games between traditional Big Ten foes.
B1G fans might not want Notre Dame. It might have been possible 10 to 20 years ago,but there is too much bad blood now. And ND seems to be ditching its long term B1G series. Purdue will go next. They’ll just keep MSU.
This is a classic case of what FTT warns against: thinking like a fan, rather than a university president. The presidents have none, I repeat, none of the animosity towards ND that the fans do. Of course, ND is not available anyway, but if they were, the Big Ten would take them in a heartbeat.
If ND goes down to one annual Big Ten game, Purdue is probably the one they’d keep. They have more tradition with Purdue, and it’s a game they win more often. It’s also a game that Purdue is desperate to keep, because no other high-profile program is willing to play them home & home. MSU is a bit sexier, and has been able to schedule good series without needing Notre Dame.
Orphaned schools like Uconn might find a home in the MAC or some other second tier conference.
I’m not sure how you get UConn to the MAC. If they ever leave the AAC, the only direction they’re going is up, not down.
LikeLike
I was giving what I thought was thebfan viewpoint, and you are correct that the prezs etal think differently. But the MAC is a substantial step up from the AAC.
LikeLike
I continue to fvck up the proper use of there, they’re and their : ).
LikeLike
Why is it a headscratcher to lower your revenue and add someone who is below the conference average like Louisville and Cincinnati? Neither of those programs was any different than Memphis a couple decades ago. It was a sign of strength not to panic and take those two. Although, without knowing what the TV people said, I would have been inclined to take UL and WVU over TCU and WVU. I suspect the TV people said TCU was the most valuable because of their success in the BCS era. TV is very much, “What have you done for me lately?”
LikeLike
Lville & revenue are only going up for the time being. They have a bigger stadium than half the current Big12 and one of the most profitable M-W’s basketball pairs in the country. Lville can win the football claims in Ky – basketball, different story. Plus a combo of Lville, WVa and perhaps Cincy helps reduce travel expenses.
LikeLike
Last 4 years average football attendance when UL has done well, they are behind all of the Big 12 schools other than the two privates. They’re even behind Kansas. Basketball doesn’t generate enough TV revenue to the conferences to be particularly relevant.
LikeLike
Not for one lacking a B12N. 🙂
LikeLike
…a combo of Lville, WVa and perhaps Cincy helps reduce travel expenses.
Travel expenses would be a rounding error in the budget, if they had to split the same TV deal 12 ways instead of 10. It would certainly have been better for the Mountaineers, but I’m not seeing that it would have been better for the other nine.
There’s also the division-split problem. On a pure geographical split, you’d have:
South: Texas, TT, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
North: Kansas, KState, Iowa State, Cincy, Louisville, West Virginia
Those two divisions would be ridiculously unbalanced. I don’t know how many votes the Big XII needs to expand, but I think Kansas, KState and Iowa state would hate the schedule implied by this alignment, replacing annual TX/OK games with lesser teams they have no history with. The Texas/Oklahoma bloc won’t agree to split up either.
Because of all this, they’d need to be offered a very financially compelling picture, before they’d expand again, and I don’t think they can get that without adding at least one king. Louisville and Cincy aren’t kings.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
I think you are right that the ACC will stay together mainly because UNC is stuck in a no win situation right now. Their fans, alumni, and boosters overwhelmingly favor the SEC however the administration and academic side will never go for that move. As In_Fan posted above, look who UNC considers its peers: UPenn, USC, northwestern, Duke, John Hopkins, Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkley, ucla, Minnesota, UMD, UVA, Pitt, and Washington. That is the cream of the crop. The SEC is slumming it comparatively.
I agree that the big 12 is next to go but there will be defections from the ACC. $20 million less by 2017 is a huge number. You could fund a giant portion of all the nonrevenue sports just on that number. More and more athletic departments are borrowing from the university to pay its bills. The economics will be too much to ignore for some. That being said, I could see the ACC becoming the new Big 12 when their GOR comes up after a few defections: a couple of top schools with UNC playing the part of Texas and the rest serfs with nowhere else to go.
LikeLike
That was in response to gfunk.
LikeLike
I do not see major implosions or Defections when it comes to Big 5 (ACC, Big 10, Big XII, PAC & SEC) Schools. If Football Playing Schools need extra revenue they could add an extra game. Now I know that University President’s do not like that, but it is better alternative then implosion.
If you look at the B10, you can make the argument that the worst program Top To Bottom is Purdue (potentially they could sink further behind if one day Notre Dame drops them). If the B10 decided to go to a 10 Game Conference Schedule (13 overall), they can be guaranteed to have Michigan or Ohio State visit every Ross-Ade more often, which (along with extra TV $$$$$) would really help them to compete. Of course, for the bigger Schools, it becomes important as well (look at the impact that yesterday’s Michigan classic had on Penn State? Recruiting, attendance, and TV Coverage). Going forward, we will have either Michigan or Ohio State every year at Beaver Stadium, and Pitt every other year (we just need to have another “Big School” come every year Pitt does not. It could be a Nebraska, or a Wisconsin or a West Virginia? But it would mean 107,000 people like last night, and that pays a lot of bills ps. Don’t think the B10 noticed that )). I predict this will happen.
LikeLike
I do not see major implosions or Defections when it comes to Big 5 (ACC, Big 10, Big XII, PAC & SEC) Schools. If Football Playing Schools need extra revenue they could add an extra game. Now I know that University President’s do not like that, but it is better alternative then implosion.
Here is where I think your rationale breaks down:
The reason for expansion is income disparity. Maryland sees that it can earn $20 million more per year in the B1G, and there’s just no way they can turn that down.
If you add a 13th game, the income doesn’t just go up for Purdue. It goes up for everyone. If there was a $20 million disparity with 12 football games, there’s a $20 million disparity with 13. Indeed, it could be that adding football games just amplifies the disparity, because Penn State earns a lot more for the extra home game than Purdue does.
LikeLike
I agree with you that income goes up for everybody (and that would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?) But the “Have Not Schools” (like Purdue) need it even more so they can upgrade their facilities and programs. Again using Purdue versus Penn State, the capacity at Ross-Ade is 62,500 compared to 107,282 at Beaver Stadium. Basically the worst attendance you can expect to see at Penn State is about 30,000 more than you will find at Purdue for their most desirable match-up (and that means Notre Dame, Indiana, Ohio State or Michigan in town to play the Boilermakers). Speaking of Indiana, with the guarantee of either Ohio State or Michigan visiting Bloomington every year, I could actually see IU surpass Purdue in the Big 10 football pecking order, if Purdue loses the Notre Dame Game.
LikeLike
PSUhockey,
A $20M per year per team disparity amongst the Power 5 conferences is economically unsustainable. Possibly it could occur for a year or two, but the large disparity means that there is too much inefficiency and someone will innovate to address the problem. This disparity means that the B1G television value is worth at least double the ACC (comparable number of schools as the B1G).
If the revenue growth from the BTN is going to be that dramatic, then an ACC Network would likely make a lot of additional revenue for the ACC schools…as well as ESPN. No one wants to leave money on the table for too long.
LikeLike
Their inventory (all of any value) is all spoken for. Expect ESPN to pay the 2M/school in leu of an ACCN, as their agreement called for.
LikeLike
And as years go by, that $2M will carry less and less weight for ACC members, especially as they recruit against schools from conferences who do have active networks..
LikeLike
Oh, I know. I’m actually wondering how they got that commitment as they have no “free” inventory. Even if they do start an ACCN (and buy back inventory) it won’t be very productive until current contracts expire. But with the GOR what choice do they have? Perhaps 2M/yr was the price to sign it.
LikeLike
Pablo,
Why is the $20 million gap unsustainable? If all the power 5 were equally valuable than yes there is a market inefficiency but the conferences are not. These are entertainment properties with a different level of popularity. Popular shows pay their actors more than unpopular shows in perpetuity. Unless ratings across the board even out, the $20 million difference could continue forever.
LikeLike
Far greater disparity exists inter conference with athletic dept. budgets (Mich/Purdue, UT/ISU, WSU/USC, etc).
If the media revenue reflects a failure to realize proper value it can be a problem. Ironically it is a much more significant portion of the lesser schools AD budgets than the coveted schools, who hold the fate of their conferences.
LikeLike
Texas likely makes more than anyone on TV, but it is still less than 20% of their revenues. I think FSU was around $80 million in total revenue, so it was only around 20% of theirs. You have to consider if maximizing TV revenues hurts other revenues. Colorado was willing to go to the Pac 12 even if it meant less TV revenue because they figured they would more than make it up based on their fund-raising success in previous trips to California.
LikeLike
“Far greater disparity exists inter conference with athletic dept. budgets (Mich/Purdue, UT/ISU, WSU/USC, etc).”
This is true and it will lead to more consolidation IMO at some point. There is a lot of dead weight in the Big 12 and to a lesser extent the ACC as far as television appeal. These conferences are being held together by a couple of big brands willing to subsidize the other schools athletic programs. The BIG ten can be said to be similar but doesn’t have as many noncontributors as those two conferences. The rankings are my opinion based not just on recent success.
BIG: Football Kings: PSU, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska
Basketball Kings: Indiana, Michigan State
Hockey Kings (actually matters in specific states in Midwest and New England): Minnesota
State Headliners: Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers plus above Kings
None of the Above:Purdue, Northwestern
Big 12: Football Kings: Oklahoma, Texas
Basketball Kings: Kansas
State Headliners: West Virginia plus above Kings
None of the Above: Okie State, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, ISU
ACC: Football Kings: No top 10 alltime except partial member ND
*Football Princes: Clemson, FSU, Miami, Va Tech, GT
Basketball Kings: UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Louisville
Hockey Kings: BC(Hockey East, no ACC conference)
State Headliners: UVA
None of the above: Nc State, Wake Forest, Pitt
*I made up another category to describe the football schools of the ACC. These schools have a better tradition than the Okie State and Kansas States of the world but not on the traditional level of Texas, OU, ND, Michigan, etc. They have value but are a step below IMO.
Now every school brings something to a conference so it would be complete false to say TCU or Baylor or Louisville add nothing. But Sports Kings and State Headliners bring a certain level of interest outside of their alumni base (Rutgers is debatable) for television purposes. The Big 12 only has 4 such programs out of 10. How long will those programs want to prop up the other 6? How long will networks want to give a ton of money to Iowa State, TCU and the rest just to get UT and Oklahoma? The ACC is a weird case in that they have a lot of valuable programs but very few headliners (only two state headliners in UVA and UNC and a few basketball kings). The ACC looks like it could stay together long term as long as those schools were content with making less money than the BIG or SEC.
LikeLike
*edit Michigan State is not a state headliner
LikeLike
Bullet:
“Texas likely makes more than anyone on TV…”
Temporarily, and only as an anti P16 bribe.
PSU:
Unless the kings want to join in a cingle conference (and all become .500 teams), the others are essential to a conferences well being.
“The Big 12 only has 4 such programs out of 10. How long will those programs want to prop up the other 6?”
Who’s the fourth?
None of the B8 got left when forming the B12.
It’s a matter of who another conference invites. The invitee doesn’t get to dictate who and when they join. They need the others, until they can move.
LikeLike
Ccrider,
The fourth is West Virginia. They are at least are the state’s headlining school even though West Virginia isn’t exactly a populous state. The reality is that Oklahoma and Texas and to a lesser extent Kansas make up the Big 12’s worth but at least West Virginia adds something.
As far as the kings all joining and being .500: the point is that the “bad” football teams in the BIG bring something to the television pie. Texas and OU can beat up on Indiana and Minnesota in football while enjoying there contributions to the leagues television pot in the winter thru basketball and hockey. What does Texas get for being associated with Iowa State in television when ISU isn’t even the headliner for the state? Is it a coincidence that the two richest conferences have the least overlap in states and the most state headlining schools?
LikeLike
That’s an interesting analysis by @psuhockey. I hadn’t ever thought of it that way.
Leagues need doormats to beat up on; as someone pointed out, no one wants a league of all .500 schools. Someone needs to be the perennial loser, so that others can be winners. That’s why Temple is the only modern example of a school kicked out of a league for being bad at football.
There is a certain collegiality in conference make-up, which is why there aren’t more Temples. Leagues don’t go out and acquire dead wood (if they can avoid it); but they don’t eliminate the dead wood they’ve already got.
But as @psuhockey pointed out, most football doormats contribute something else of value, such as being a king in another major sport, or being the flagship school in their state. Among P5 leagues, the Big XII has the highest proportion of schools that do neither.
LikeLike
Completely agree with psuhockey. A major strength of both the Big Ten and SEC is that there’s very little complete deadweight from a conference realignment perspective. Even the Big Ten schools outside of the kings and state headliners bring value: Northwestern is an academic powerhouse located directly in the Chicago market (which is the alumni center of the Big Ten and needs multiple schools to be “delivered” for TV purposes), while Michigan State and Purdue would be flagships in the vast majority of other states and have large fan bases (the former very solid across all of the major Big Ten sports of football, basketball and hockey, while the latter brings more basketball fans from the most basketball-mad state).
LikeLike
We need another term for the less prominent members. Dead weight, leaches, etc are not the true discription of them. A poor analogy might be an OG or deep snapper aren’t a drag on a FB team, or even noticed much except when they screw up (but a QB will still be a star inspite of occasional picks). They are in fact essential.
LikeLike
We need another term for the less prominent members. Dead weight, leaches, etc are not the true discription of them. A poor analogy might be an OG or deep snapper aren’t a drag on a FB team, or even noticed much except when they screw up (but a QB will still be a star inspite of occasional picks). They are in fact essential.
They are not essential. The ACC gains nothing from dragging along Wake Forrest. WSU adds nothing to the PAC they don’t have already, Miss St. and Northwestern take more than bring to the Big 10 and half the Big XII could be best described as Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas opponents.
The fact is many of these cases simply tossing out those teams and splitting pie fewer ways would be an upgrade and even if they needed to be replaced (say for CCG purposes or whatever) the freely available teams (UNLV, Nevada, BSU, New Mexico, Cincy, UConn or even USF and UCF) would be upgrades.
LikeLike
Don’t agree. You are forgetting fan support, rivalries and the actual competitiveness. There may be addition by subtraction, but replacing those schools would rarely be an improvement.
Most of those schools you mentioned are terrible in football. When you look at long run average attendance, Air Force, Fresno, Hawaii, UTEP, East Carolina and South Florida are the only schools ahead of any P5 school other than Wake Forest and Duke. If you look only more recently, the last 4 years, UConn and UCF join that group plus a few schools pass Washington St. who has been awful lately.
In the last 4 years, only ECU and USF crack the top 62 in attendance other than P5 schools, ND and BYU. Remaining P5 schools are BC #64, Vandy #67, NW #72, WF #77, WSU #81 and Duke #82. The P5 has the best schools and there really is a gap with only a few schools near or above the gap.
LikeLike
Frug:
They are, through rivalries and history, essential to the conference. Wake and WSU may not be essential to FSU or USC, but they are to enough other members the conference. Unless they are willing and able to leave for another conference (which one has no equivalent members?) or independence, the conference is essential to the Seminoles and Trojans.
LikeLike
@bullet
Attendance isn’t always a huge issue. The Big Ten, PAC, SEC and ACC all lowered their average attendance as a result of expansion but still made more money by adding media markets. Cincy and UConn might have lower attendance than ISU (just as an example) but they would do a much better job of addressing the Big XII’s biggest weaknesses (small population footprint and lack of attractive media markets).
This also goes with WSU being dropped in favor of Boise, UNLV, New Mexico or Nevada or any number of replacements for Vanderbilt or Northwestern.
@ccrider55
If WF left the ACC, the ACC would make more money. If FSU or UNC left the ACC would collapse. Wake is not “essential” in any sense of the word.
LikeLike
I should say that I am not advocating that the SEC, PAC or Big 10 actually start kicking out members (since they can afford drag along their have-nots), I’m just saying that the Northwesterns and Vandys of the world are by no means essential.
LikeLike
As I said, there could be addition by subtraction. SEC probably wouldn’t lose a dime without Vandy and Mississippi St., but I don’t think anyone in the G5 would make more for them than staying at 12. I don’t see any of those schools from small population states where the Pac 12 already has some interest doing any better than breaking even vs. Washington St. Maybe UConn or Cincinnati adds a little over Wake Forest. But I don’t see either of those adding vs. Iowa St. UConn is really on an island and Cincinnati has a limited radius of interest.
LikeLike
As I said, there could be addition by subtraction. SEC probably wouldn’t lose a dime without Vandy and Mississippi St.
The various conferences have been pretty ruthless over the years, and I don’t recall any of them even thinking about booting out their dead wood, aside from Temple in the Big East, a decision that was eventually reversed.
LikeLike
frug and I are talking about value and hypotheticals, not actions. I don’t think anyone believes there is any chance the SEC kicks out Vandy or the Pac 12 kicks out WSU.
LikeLike
Psu hockey,
Two reasons:
1) The Power 5 conferences compete in the same industry/market. There is a pecking order, but the similarities are greater than the differences. These conferences are growing in order to expand markets, gain leverage in negotiations with broadcasters, and control TV inventory. Although the recent run of SEC on-field performance is impressive, I’d argue that each of the Power 5 conferences football products are more comparable than different. Last year the B12 was strong; this year the PAC is strong and the cream of the ACC is producing. The non Power 5 FBS conferences are in no way in the same league.
2) $20M per team differential = $300M to entire B1G = $600M overall profit (50% owned by TV partners)…the TV payout would be double the ACC amount for a comparable inventory. Assuming ESPN wants to have a going relationship with the ACC, they will have to pay a somewhat comparable rate…not equal, but similar. ESPN’s own statements when announcing contracts with both the SEC and ACC acknowledge this understanding.
LikeLike
ESPN has the ACC locked up for 16 years, what incentive do they have to give them a raise?
LikeLike
@frug – They don’t. I’m someone that doesn’t think that the ACC will collapse during this grant of rights period, but a lot of their fans seem to be getting overconfident. The TV money gap between the Big Ten and ACC is very real and it’s going to be in place for a long time. A lot of arguments that I see from ACC fans in thinking that the gap will shrink tend to be some combo of (a) the BTN model will collapse when the basic cable model collapses overall and (b) the “shrinking” population of the Rust Belt. The problem with those arguments is that even if (a) were to occur, it’s been well-established that the Big Ten fans are as intense as anyone next to the SEC, so they’d still have an advantage over other power conferences in an a la carte model (not to mention that the basic cable model also completely supports the ESPN money going to the ACC, so it’s not exactly smart to cheer for that to occur). Under (b), it’s an argument that drives me crazy because the Big Ten population base is NOT shrinking. It’s simply in slow growth mode today. That’s not to say that there aren’t demographic challenges in several Midwestern markets, but places like Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus are hardly looking like Rust Belt cities in terms of growth. The fast growth of the Sun Belt won’t last into perpetuity (see the tepid growth of California recently). Plus, the ACC added some slow growth Rust Belt areas itself (Upstate New York and Western Pennsylvania) in its expansion last year.
LikeLike
@FranktheTank:
You are correct, but forget that B1G fans in non-Big Ten states are equally rabid and will pay extra for the BTN. I remember Stewart Mandel talking about meeting Nebraska fans who live in Phoenix who were quite happy and anxious to subscribe to the BTN down in Arizona. I am sure that replicates itself somewhat in California, Florida, New York, and other areas with critical masses of Big Ten alumni who would rather spend $5 bucks a month to get the games vs. $35 worth of booze at a nearby sportsbar every Saturday.
LikeLike
I agree with Pablo’s evaluation, and I will expand on what is also wrong and (or) missing from PSU Hockey’s opinion of certain Schools & Conferences. 1: Where is the PAC & SEC? I will add them. A: PAC: Football Kings: Oregon & USC. Football Princes: Washington. Basketball Kings: Arizona & UCLA. State Headliners: Arizona State, Colorado & Utah. None of the above: Cal Berkeley, Oregon State, Stanford & Washington State (although no one in their right mind puts Cal & Stanford in the same boat as Oregon State & Washington State). B: SEC: Football Kings: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU. Football Princes: Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee, & Texas A&M. Basketball King: Kentucky. State Headliners: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri. None of the above: Mississippi State & Vanderbilt. 2: You brought in Hockey, but do not mention MICHIGAN with NINE National Championships being a King, or Michigan State & Wisconsin as Princes? 3: Since you want to bring Hockey into the Conversation, what about Baseball? Schools that would qualify as “None of the above” like Mississippi State, Oregon State & Vanderbilt certainly qualify as “Princes” (you can actually argue that the Beavers (with two National Championships within 10 years), should qualify as a King). 3: I do not see where Georgia Tech is a “Football Prince” and should be listed on the same level as Clemson, FSU or Miami. 4: Certain Schools qualify as a “King” in multiple sports (such as LSU, North Carolina, Texas & USC), that must be noted as well. 5: You have to look at the size of a School. For example: UVA might be a a “State Headliner” in Virginia, but it is not on the same level as the Number 3 or 4 in California (Cal & Stanford). Nice try though.
LikeLike
David brown,
I didn’t do the SEC and PAC because those conferences are secure now and in the future IMO. The SEC as you broke broke down only doubles up in 3 states with Auburn being a very good football school. Miss State and Vanderbilt don’t add much to a sports television factor. The PAC is a stable league due as much to geography and time zone as anything else.
As far as not mentioning Michigan hockey or Wisconsin football: both those schools fall under other categories adding worth to television. Wisconsin is good at football and a state headliner. Michigan and OSU for that matter are good at multiple sports as well as being a state headliners. I only did the prince category for the ACC because Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT and Va Tech are not the flagship but do have worth. GT won a national championship in the last 25 years so I put them in there as well. As I stated, state headliners often have a decent portion of fans outside of their alumni bases typically stronger than other schools from that state. An example: are there as many Iowa State fans as their are Iowa fans? Prince schools will also have a significant fan following outside of their alumni base but not on the level of the kings. Virginia tech has made things interesting in the state of Virginia with their recent success and UVA hard times, but at one point UVA was the unquestioned school of choice for residents of Virginia. Size of alumni does matter as far as rabid fans but televisions is also about getting casual fans not directly associated with the universities which state headliners and kings and princes often do.
The reason I mentioned hockey and not baseball is that hockey has a passionate following in parts of the country and generates a decent portion of revenue. Baseball I believe is not on the same level. Here is a list of the revenue generated per division I hockey program in 2010. http://www.gopherpucklive.com/index.php?page=blogfull&id=11205
The total revenues of all 56 (army and Air Force not given) was over $100 million with an average of about $1.8 mil. I tried to find baseball statistics but was unable. However I found article that had some numbers. http://seamheads.com/2012/07/18/college-baseball-economics/
Here is the part I found intersting
“Sports Finance. The NCAA reported that a typical baseball program in Fiscal Year 2010 generated median revenue of $338,000 in Division I-A and $71,000 in Division I-AA. Although baseball ranked fourth in revenue among the former group of schools, its median amount exceeded each woman team sport. In other words, football games and then those in men’s basketball, ice hockey, and lacrosse provided more money from ticket sales, their conferences, and other outside sources than did baseball.
In amount of net revenue, which is generated revenue less expenses, baseball teams in Division I-A had the highest median loss among men sports at ($605,000), second highest in Division I-AA at ($137,000), and fifth highest in Division II at ($7,000). As a result, schools had to subsidize their baseball programs although football in Division I-A and men’s ice hockey and lacrosse, and women’s crew, ice hockey, and volleyball in Division II each had net revenue greater than $0.”
So according to this baseball is not only behind hockey but also lacrosse. Now more schools play baseball so that does bring down the average but did a single baseball program in America make $6.7 million dollars last year with a profit of $4.7 like Minnesota hockey did? I would love to see the actual statistics if anybody can find them.
LikeLike
Crew had net positive revenue? Find that hard to believe.
LikeLike
psuhockey – Less than 60 schools field D-1 Men’s Hockey programs. By contrast there are over 300 D-1 baseball programs. Only nine AQ schools field a hockey team. Only four AQ schools don’t field a baseball team. Only two schools make a profit of more than a million dollars in hockey (Minnesota $4.01mm and North Dakota $1.47mm). Only two baseball programs make a profit of more than one million dollars (LSU $2.11mm and Texas $1.92mm). LSU’s profit numbers are only that low as its paying off the bond on a 5 year old $40mm new baseball stadium.
http://college-sports.findthedata.org/
Hockey teams play about 20 home games per year. Most baseball teams play at least 30 home games. 46 hockey teams average 1500 or more for attendance. 42 baseball teams average 1500 or more for attendance. LSU averaged over 11000 over 43 home dates last season while Minnesota averaged about 9500 in 2010-11. I’m not trying to denigrate hockey but the sports are different. The baseball season is longer. Hockey is played inside when there is nothing else to do on many campuses where hockey is their only or main sport. Baseball is played outdoors in the spring when the weather is nice.
LikeLike
PSU Hockey, the real problem is many Schools choose not to compete, and are quite content with losing, as long as they collect $$$$, and until there is a real threat of throwing teams out of a Conference, it may not change. You mentioned Iowa State versus Iowa (I would bet on the Cubs winning the World Series before ISU getting to (not even winning) a Major Bowl Game). They choose not to compete for talent, and for fan interest. Look at Cael Sanderson. You can make an argument he is the greatest athlete ever produced at Iowa State. But they instead of spending $$$$ to keep him at Coach, they let him go to Penn State, and what happened? Not only do the Nitts have the best Wrestling Program in America, but ISU is behind Iowa as well. That is my problem with Penn State hoops: Dave Joyner (like Curley before him) really does not care, if we lose at Basketball to the Pitt Panthers. Pitt is even worse when it comes to Football: They should not be sharing a Stadium with the Steelers, when even Baylor is building an On-Campus Stadium. What has happened hurts Recruiting? Pitt: ONE Four-Star Recruit (Mike Grimm), Baylor and Penn State FOUR. Nuff said
LikeLike
Frank,
I think the lesson will hit home for most fans once the B10 actually completes their new TV deals. Right now there are just projections for what UMD would make in the B10 vs the ACC. In 2017, it will be facts (including the new playoff money, too).
LikeLike
If we’re going to include hockey and baseball in the equation, we must include women’s basketball, too. Queens: Tennessee, Connecticut, Stanford. Princesses: Maryland, LSU, Louisville, Notre Dame, Duke, North Carolina, Baylor, Purdue. A step below them, Michigan State, Iowa State (attendance-wise), Georgia, Kentucky and a few others.
LikeLike
Alan,
LikeLike
Alan,
Thanks for the baseball numbers. It does look like a there are a few very profitable baseball team especially in the SEC, LSU, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt to name a few. It should do well on the SECN network. My original point that I was trying to express is that hockey in Minnesota matters to the point of adding a decent amount to the television package. Minnesota is the home of hockey in the US and the gophers. Much like football in Texas, all be it at a much smaller level as football is religion in that state, high school hockey is hugely import in the state. Kids grow up watching and wanting to play for the gophers. I never lived in Mississippi or Louisiana so I cant speak to the popularity of baseball down there. However as an avid hockey fan, I know the importance of hockey in Minnesota and that hockey on the BTN and other television formats, as it has deals to air games national with both ESPN and NBC and regionally with fox sport networks, will be a good contributor to the overall television money of the conference.
LikeLike
This post was getting long so broke it into Big 5 schools and non Big 5 schools
Part 1 of 2 = Big 5 schools
************ Top 10 SoS for week 7 according to Sagarin ************
01 Georgia = @ Clemson + S Carolina + BYE + N Texas + LSU + @ Tennessee + Missouri
02 Ole Miss = @ Vanderbilt + SEMO St + @ Texas + BYE + @ Alabama + @ Auburn + TAMU
03 UK = WKU (TN) + Miami (OH) + Louisville + BYE + Florida + @ South Carolina + Alabama
04 Cal = Northwestern + Portland St + Ohio St + BYE + @ Oregon + Washington St + @ UCLA
05 Col = Colorado St + C Ark + Fresno St + BYE + @ Oregon St + Oregon + @ Arizona St
06 SMU = Texas Tech + Montana State + BYE + @ Texas A&M + @ TCU + Rutgers + BYE
07 UW = Boise State + BYE + @ Illinois + Idaho State + Arizona + @ Stanford + Oregon
08 UNC = @ S Carolina + MTSU + BYE + @ Ga Tech + ECU + @ Virginia Tech + BYE
09 Utah = Utah State + Weber State + Oregon State + @ BYU + BYE + UCLA + Stanford
10 Texas = N M St + @ BYU + Ole Miss + Kansas State + BYE + @ Iowa State + Oklahoma
Updated Sagarin after week 7 run with SoS rank mid season point :
first 8 numbers are Sagarin Rank by week (preseason included)
last 7 numbers are Sagarin SoS by week (weakest SoS in group in BOLD)
ACC – Atlantic
018 014 011 008 004 005 003 003 Florida State – 41 / 25 / 70 / 108 / 73 / 57 / 51
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8 Top 10 SoS
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10 Top 10 SoS
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
.
PAC – North
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7 Top 10 SoS
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5 Top 10 SoS
.
SEC – East
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3 Top 10 SoS
SEC – West
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
LikeLike
This post was getting long so broke it into Big 5 schools and non Big 5 schools
Part 2 of 2 = non Big 5 schools
************ Top 10 SoS for week 7 according to Sagarin ************
01 Georgia = @ Clemson + S Carolina + BYE + N Texas + LSU + @ Tennessee + Missouri
02 Ole Miss = @ Vanderbilt + SEMO St + @ Texas + BYE + @ Alabama + @ Auburn + TAMU
03 UK = WKU (TN) + Miami (OH) + Louisville + BYE + Florida + @ South Carolina + Alabama
04 Cal = Northwestern + Portland St + Ohio St + BYE + @ Oregon + Washington St + @ UCLA
05 Col = Colorado St + C Ark + Fresno St + BYE + @ Oregon St + Oregon + @ Arizona St
06 SMU = Texas Tech + Montana State + BYE + @ Texas A&M + @ TCU + Rutgers + BYE
07 UW = Boise State + BYE + @ Illinois + Idaho State + Arizona + @ Stanford + Oregon
08 UNC = @ S Carolina + MTSU + BYE + @ Ga Tech + ECU + @ Virginia Tech + BYE
09 Utah = Utah State + Weber State + Oregon State + @ BYU + BYE + UCLA + Stanford
10 Texas = N M St + @ BYU + Ole Miss + Kansas State + BYE + @ Iowa State + Oklahoma
Updated Sagarin after week 7 run with SoS rank mid season point :
first 8 numbers are Sagarin Rank by week (preseason included)
last 7 numbers are Sagarin SoS by week (weakest SoS in group in BOLD)
AAC
031 027 019 019 016 014 010 008 Louisville – 111 / 159 / 131 / 168 / 174 / 140 / 125
052 057 039 030 030 023 031 032 Central Florida – 162 / 172 / 134 / 138 / 69 / 78 / 74
048 043 047 054 052 053 054 053 Rutgers – 35 / 158 / 206 / 160 / 155 / 115 / 84
064 077 061 074 068 059 059 056 Houston – 194 / 184 / 209 / 137 / 137 / 136 / 135
036 031 051 044 049 055 069 070 Cincinnati – 104 / 83 / 133 / 148 / 158 / 152 / 150
069 072 085 082 092 098 086 094 Sou Methodist – 67 / 90 / 72 / 14 / 3 / 4 / 6 Top 10 SoS
126 116 127 127 105 100 099 102 Memphis – 103 / 102 / 102 / 111 / 122 / 86 / 63
061 091 102 135 129 162 123 115 South Florida – 138 / 128 / 128 / 113 / 54 / 43 / 53
072 088 084 086 082 108 111 122 Connecticut – 125 / 80 / 80 / 49 / 34 / 31 / 60
093 084 100 122 113 142 141 143 Temple – 6 / 24 / 110 / 81 / 95 / 60 / 42
.
CUSA – East
084 089 086 076 085 056 055 065 East Carolina – 145 / 188 / 138 / 154 / 84 / 80 / 90
097 094 071 073 066 062 057 067 Marshall – 146 / 219 / 198 / 123 / 124 / 145 / 126
140 133 146 121 130 114 097 103 Florida Atlantic – 22 / 20 / 31 / 60 / 44 / 54 / 59
111 118 111 117 102 110 108 121 Middle Tennessee – 183 / 121 / 168 / 134 / 90 / 73 / 68
124 122 115 109 112 112 136 139 Alabama – Birmingham – 89 / 17 / 8 / 89 / 29 / 76 / 111
106 125 130 148 138 156 165 163 Southern Mississippi – 151 / 73 / 24 / 18 / 8 / 29 / 39
136 137 154 175 182 197 180 170 Florida International – 47 / 34 / 52 / 9 / 4 / 26 / 66
CUSA – West
081 065 070 066 075 077 076 072 Rice – 2 / 1 / 17 / 35 / 59 / 68 / 73
131 120 113 100 091 080 084 076 North Texas – 168 / 144 / 129 / 62 / 57 / 55 / 86
147 148 150 131 128 102 107 100 Tulane – 190 / 218 / 197 / 156 / 141 / 139 / 117
045 056 067 078 079 101 106 104 Tulsa – 51 / 87 / 33 / 24 / 24 / 46 / 64
181 171 144 132 106 115 119 124 Texas – San Antonio – 122 / 57 / 11 / 31 / 52 / 35 / 50
079 078 105 118 119 147 143 146 Louisiana Tech – 29 / 139 / 172 / 132 / 129 / 137 / 131
115 108 128 123 136 157 156 158 Texas – El Paso – 194 / 194 / 195 / 186 / 164 / 171 / 153
.
MAC – East
087 069 058 072 070 067 067 058 Bowling Green – 86 / 88 / 66 / 107 / 140 / 159 / 129
127 107 112 116 121 094 088 075 Buffalo – 9 / 2 / 5 / 2 / 16 / 103 / 134
083 081 092 085 076 082 071 081 Ohio – 19 / 52 / 73 / 106 / 83 / 102 / 119
102 110 108 111 120 123 115 112 Kent State – 171 / 154 / 90 / 29 / 58 / 59 / 46
161 155 156 140 134 137 148 144 Akron – 40 / 77 / 18 / 48 / 25 / 36 / 32
164 153 175 176 175 171 173 165 Massachusetts – 14 / 62 / 13 / 17 / 11 / 11 / 34
132 136 160 161 167 184 194 189 Miami (OH) – 66 / 44 / 44 / 36 / 19 / 50 / 76
MAC – West
053 047 048 057 058 052 051 054 Northern Illinois – 38 / 26 / 77 / 93 / 68 / 83 / 109
076 067 076 067 065 074 070 068 Toledo – 8 / 4 / 9 / 22 / 20 / 48 / 44
090 087 077 084 083 073 063 069 Ball State – 136 / 175 / 148 / 175 / 153 / 128 / 130
114 109 118 142 144 153 147 134 Central Michigan – 13 / 51 / 93 / 80 / 61 / 87 / 88
107 099 131 139 159 176 181 182 Western Michigan – 25 / 120 / 28 / 16 / 26 / 21 / 41
151 162 165 168 174 175 186 183 Eastern Michigan – 201 / 132 / 37 / 61 / 48 / 52 / 58
.
MWC – Mountain
016 022 025 029 035 033 036 028 Boise State – 18 / 72 / 122 / 65 / 114 / 125 / 83
051 050 041 042 036 026 038 041 Utah State – 39 / 28 / 78 / 47 / 45 / 37 / 28
105 092 079 069 060 071 075 085 Wyoming – 21 / 98 / 175 / 144 / 116 / 129 / 144
130 130 120 108 101 096 105 109 Colorado State – 97 / 60 / 98 / 51 / 91 / 111 / 106
073 075 093 102 111 120 120 131 Air Force – 166 / 151 / 58 / 59 / 53 / 49 / 70
155 170 151 151 148 152 142 140 New Mexico – 172 / 146 / 104 / 97 / 136 / 156 / 136
MWC – West
055 051 055 058 057 061 058 051 Fresno State – 77 / 106 / 125 / 71 / 75 / 118 / 113
077 071 062 068 078 087 087 088 San Jose State – 150 / 56 / 62 / 21 / 14 / 53 / 61
080 073 078 095 087 090 093 095 Nevada – 12 / 82 / 4 / 54 / 107 / 88 / 91
062 086 104 099 094 106 104 096 San Diego State – 137 / 49 / 29 / 33 / 51 / 74 / 75
128 126 140 138 117 117 112 118 UNLV – 49 / 37 / 54 / 109 / 132 / 123 / 133
121 113 125 113 132 130 132 126 Hawaii – 58 / 27 / 15 / 15 / 27 / 44 / 47
.
Sun Belt
078 076 089 077 080 081 079 079 Louisiana – Lafayette – 28 / 14 / 30 / 63 / 56 / 99 / 108
110 098 098 105 108 088 082 080 Western Kentucky – 85 / 29 / 63 / 120 / 94 / 92 / 100
174 177 163 150 152 113 113 114 South Alabama – 156 / 161 / 151 / 164 / 93 / 100 / 98
095 101 096 097 115 131 122 117 Arkansas State – 191 / 130 / 147 / 133 / 71 / 75 / 120
157 144 136 144 125 085 101 120 Texas State – 91 / 199 / 211 / 126 / 118 / 89 / 123
120 121 114 104 122 125 130 135 Troy – 139 / 227 / 178 / 141 / 110 / 131 / 140
089 082 107 098 104 141 149 138 Louisiana – Monroe – 4 / 129 / 71 / 11 / 55 / 67 / 77
200 201 208 213 216 208 200 194 Georgia State – 155 / 182 / 141 / 180 / 163 / 117 / 124
.
IND
032 038 030 033 043 043 029 024 Brigham Young – 45 / 32 / 36 / 30 / 47 / 32 / 25
011 010 013 026 028 037 027 033 Notre Dame – 113 / 42 / 53 / 56 / 32 / 9 / 15
065 060 059 052 053 070 060 074 Navy – 35 / 35 / 115 / 104 / 70 / 101 / 79
108 128 139 137 150 129 117 119 Army – 211 / 190 / 75 / 96 / 128 / 79 / 114
158 164 180 162 166 163 172 171 Idaho – 88 / 61 / 162 / 28 / 37 / 47 / 55
165 150 170 186 185 189 204 201 New Mexico State – 11 / 33 / 81 / 26 / 62 / 85 / 85
LikeLike
Only two BIG teams ranked in this week’s AP25. That’s just sad, very sad. I don’t think NW deserved to fall out – but a blowout loss will do that. Outside Wi, they could beat anyone of the teams ranked 15-25 on a neutral field. Iowa proved as competitive as Tx or TT, but unlike those two, they didn’t need home field or controversy to beat Iowa State. Yet TT sits comfortably in the top 25 at 16.
All is fine in the end, Neb and either NW or MSU will end up ranked in the end. I think MSU and Neb are blooming in nice ways right now.
I see Michigan fighting for the top 25 the rest of the way. The have horsecrap lines, both sides of the ball & Gardner continues to produce costly to’s at the worst time, or is it just the fact that every one of his to’s turns into points for the other team? I’m also thinking that Hoke is an average coach in situational contexts. The ever overrated Mattison needs to hang it up at the college level – his schemes are better fitted for the NFL. But hey now, it’s up to the players to hit the weight room and work on technique and speed.
LikeLike
I’m also thinking that Hoke is an average coach in situational contexts.
I am not sure he is even average. Aside from legacy, on what planet does his resume get you hired at a program like Michigan? If he didn’t have a stint as a Michigan assistant, he wouldn’t have gotten a sniff.
The ever overrated Mattison needs to hang it up at the college level – his schemes are better fitted for the NFL.
Mattison has been a collegiate coach for most of his lifetime, so I don’t know where that is coming from. When he was with the Ravens, some of the fans there thought he belonged back in college. He didn’t cover himself in glory yesterday, but on the list of problems Michigan has to fix, they’d have a lot more pressing issues before replacing Mattison would be on the table.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Only two BIG teams ranked in this week’s AP25.”
#4, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 34. They had to make room for 8 SEC teams somehow.
LikeLike
I hear you. Mizzou deserves to be ranked. I’m not sold on Auburn.
But the Big12 has 4 teams, OkSt’s resume is no better than MSU or Neb – neither have an ugly loss like WVa.
VTech’s record is no more distinguished than Neb or MSU. They’ve had a lot more close calls than Neb.
LikeLike
I have to disagree about NW. I would probably take at least 40 to 50 teams on a neutral field against them. Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Michigan State are all probably top 25 teams though, provided Sparty’s QB keeps improving.
LikeLike
Current Sagarin rankings of teams involved in conference realignment:
7. Missouri
8. Louisville
10. Texas A&M
25. Utah
30. TCU
33. Notre Dame
35. Nebraska
46. Maryland
53. Rutgers
55. Pitt
59. Syracuse
63. West Virginia
99. Colorado
LikeLike
I want to see what happens if Oregon and Ohio State both go 13-0 and no SEC team finishes unbeaten. Could the SEC be bypassed for the national title game (much to the delight of the rest of the country)?
LikeLike
Oregon is probably in because the rest of the PAC is doing well in the public eye. With Michigan losing last night, it costs B1G perception points. Ohio State is winning, but like Louisville, they are losing on schedule. The biggest non conference game was Cal, and they are 1-5 and becoming a big anchor to the Buckeyes quality of wins. If the Ducks win out and Alabama is at 1 loss, this seems to be the game the non B1G part of the country folks want to see.
Oddly, if Oklahoma had won out I could have seen demand for them but even if Baylor or Texas Tech sweep, it seems like both will be passed over.
LikeLike
Michigan lost perceptions points after Akron and then UConn, who got destroyed by Buffalo.
LikeLike
gfunk, I agree in principle but Michigan is still a brand and if they were undefeated going into the Ohio State game the Akron and Uconn games would have been brushed aside – think of Notre Dame last season as example – to allow the end of season buildup between 2 unbeaten teams. With the loss to Penn State the Akron and Uconn wins come back to haunt them.
LikeLike
It could be argued a 1-loss SEC or ACC team would get the nod over OSU. The ACC, despite a miserable BCS record, has a nice 3-team race going on and all of those schools have NC pedigree – Clemson, Miami and FSU. Fans would truly think a 1-loss ACC team simply endured a greater challenge throughout the season.
In another hypothetical, I wonder what happens if the ACC and SEC both have very strong 1-loss teams like FSU or Bama and Baylor finishes undefeated?
Who do you take amongst a crop of Oregon, OSU, Baylor (all undefeated) and a 1-loss FSU and Bama.
I’d think Baylor would be the furthest on the outside amongst the undefeated teams. This could be a slam against the Big12’s preferential hierarchy. If OU or Tx were on the same boat, we’d likely have an Oregon vs OU or Tx NCG, any other year.
The country, outside Ohio and some BIG fanatics, would go apeshit if OSU got in. Oregon would be a lock for one of the spots.
LikeLike
I don’t think that there’s any question an undefeated Oregon or UCLA would get in the title game over a 1-loss SEC team or an undefeated Ohio State. For that matter, I don’t think there’s any question an unbeaten ACC team would get the nod over an undefeated Ohio State or a 1-loss SEC team either. On the flip side, an undefeated Ohio State, 1-loss SEC, ACC, or Pac team would get in over undefeated Louisville or Houston (still technically a BCS team). The real question for me would be where an undefeated Baylor squad would fit in. I think that based on strength of schedule, quality of wins, and the eye test undefeated Baylor trumps an undefeated Ohio State and 1-loss team SEC/ACC/Pac 12.
LikeLike
I do not see it happening but if Texas Tech wins out (that means winning @ Oklahoma, West Virginia, & Texas & beating Baylor @ Home) they would be ahead of Ohio State).
LikeLike
vp19,
“I want to see what happens if Oregon and Ohio State both go 13-0 and no SEC team finishes unbeaten. Could the SEC be bypassed for the national title game (much to the delight of the rest of the country)?”
At some point, OSU’s hypothetical 25 game winning streak would become a factor. Even if you think the B10 stinks, winning 17 straight games against them is difficult. If you suppose OSU had a 90% chance of winning each B10 game, that’s only a 17% chance of going 17-0. Extend that to OOC, and you’re talking a 7% chance of being 25-0. Nobody really believes OSU had 90% in every game, either. Make it 80%, and OSU had a 0.4% chance of going 25-0. In other words, OSU has to be better than you think to get 25-0 or ridiculously lucky.
Also, look at the SEC. In the East, only 6-0 MO (minus their QB as they get ready to play UF and SC back to back and then finish with TAMU) and 5-1 SC (still have MO, UF and Clemson) have 1 or fewer losses. A 10-2 champ is likely (maybe 9-3). In the West, you have 6-0 AL, 6-1 LSU, 5-1 TAMU and 5-1 Auburn. LSU still has to play AL and TAMU, and Auburn has yet to play AL and TAMU, plus the aforementioned TAMU/MO game. AL has the easiest remaining path, but the others would find it tough to finish at 12-1 I think.
If SC wins the East, their result against Clemson could be huge. If anyone other than AL wins the West, that would be huge. I think a 12-1 AL would have a strong shot at the NCG, but I’m not sure another SEC team would get the same treatment. Remember, in your scenario OSU would probably be #2 in the polls (voters love undefeated teams) and they’d move up in the computers as other teams lose (Stanford is gone, FSU/Clemson loser will drop, Clemson/SC loser will drop, etc).
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any chance a 1 loss SEC team (i.e. LSU or Alabama) gets in over an unbeaten Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 or ACC champ. AP voters don’t count. Coaches respect what it takes to go unbeaten, even against weaker opposition. And the computer polls normally weight wins more heavily than SOS. Baylor, Ohio St. and Florida St. still have the meat of their schedule ahead of them.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think there is any chance a 1 loss SEC team (i.e. LSU or Alabama) gets in over an unbeaten Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 or ACC champ.”
P12 or ACC I agree. OR would be #1 in all the polls and Clemson/FSU/Miami would have a win over an SEC rival plus the CCG win (I think UCLA is much less likely to win out).
The B12 is down to Baylor and TT, and neither has beaten anyone of note yet. Both have 3 ranked teams left to play, so I doubt either survives. Even if they do, the computers won’t love them. The lack of a 13th game to boost their SOS could be important, too.
I could see the computers lifting AL over OSU potentially. They’d be #2 and #3 in the polls, but the computers hate OSU for their weak schedule.
“AP voters don’t count. Coaches respect what it takes to go unbeaten, even against weaker opposition.”
True, but they’re only 2/3 of the system. If AL is a close #3 in the polls, then the computers could bump them up to #2 in the BCS.
“And the computer polls normally weight wins more heavily than SOS.”
OSU isn’t even top 10 in Sagarin. 4. LSU, 10. TAMU, 11. OSU. And LSU would add wins over #2 AL, #7 MO and #10 TAMU plus the CCG.
“Baylor, Ohio St. and Florida St. still have the meat of their schedule ahead of them.”
Not OSU. We play IA, PSU, @PU, @IL, IN and @MI (plus the CCG). WI and NW back to back were the meat of our schedule. MI is the toughest game left.
LikeLike
The BCS left an undefeated USC team out of the NCG. If they can do that to a Pac-12 king, they could do it to a Big Ten king.
LikeLike
@Marc
USC had one loss that year and they changed the BCS formula immediately afterwards to incorporate human voters.
LikeLike
Baylor is already #5 in Sagarin and they haven’t played anyone yet.
LikeLike
@frug: Oh, sorry…I forgot.
LikeLike
I just want the two best teams, be they SEC or MAC.
Alabama/Oregon would be a great game. Chess match between offense and defense. We could do a lot worse.
LikeLike
I think this is a real issue and can see that very matchup even if either has 1 loss by the end. Big 12 is already done because neither Baylor or Texas Tech have brand status. With no other undefeated B1G teams left it will make Ohio State look weaker. Not saying it is fair but the perception is what drives the country as a whole. While I may be happy with Indiana winning it is not helping the conference as a whole. I really felt an undefeated Michigan State meeting an undefeated Ohio State in the CCG would keep more focus on the B1G as a whole as the season progressed. The loss to Notre Dame followed by Notre Dame not being pegged with 2 losses means less visibility for Sparty.
PAC is now in the #2 spot in the national eye and the ACC darlings still have much work to do. With Clemson and Florida State meeting, one will drop out. Virginia Tech still has to play Miami and the early loss to Alabama has put them on the forgotten list. They still have to play Miami and if they win Miami will not make a MNC over a 1 loss Alabama or 1 loss Oregon. Maybe my view is skewed but I can see this BCS MNC as a SEC vs PAC matchup and just the teams have yet to be determined. I still see Alan’s Tigers with 1 loss at the end as a very real chance to slip into the MNC over undefeated Louisville / Baylor / Texas Tech and possibly even an undefeated Ohio State.
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (14 teams) after Week #7 – season midpoint :
Big 5 schools 10 of 62 = 16.13% of population : 10 of 125 = 08.00% of total
ACC = 03 of 14 => 21.43% : Florida State, Clemson, and Miami (FL)
B 12 = 02 of 10 => 20.00% : Texas Tech and Baylor
PAC = 02 of 12 => 16.67% : Oregon and UCLA
SEC = 02 of 14 => 14.29% : Alabama and Missouri
B1G = 02 of 12 => 08.33% : Ohio State
Non Big 5 schools 04 of 63 = 06.35% of population : 04 of 125 = 03.20% of total
AAC = 02 of 10 => 20.00% : Louisville and Houston
MWC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : Fresno State
MAC = 01 of 13 => 07.69% : Northern Illinois
IND = 00 of 06 => 00.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 00.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 00.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 6-0 Clemson and 5 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : 5 – 0 Miami (FL)
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 6-0 Ohio State
B 12 : 6-0 Texas Tech and 5-0 Baylor
PAC North : 6-0 Oregon :::: PAC South : 5-0 UCLA
SEC East : 6-0 Missouri :::: SEC West : 6-0 Alabama
AAC : 6-0 Louisville and 5-0 Houston
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 6-0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 5-0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #8 (both undefeated in bold) ********
AAC vs AAC
4-1 Central Florida @ 6-0 Louisville | Friday 8:00 pm | ESPN
4-2 Memphis @ 5-0 Houston | Saturday 3:30 pm | ESPN / ESPN2 / ESPNU
ACC vs ACC
5-0 Miami (FL) @ 1-4 North Carolina | Thursday 7:30 pm | ESPN
5-0 Florida State @ 6-0 Clemson | Saturday 8:00 pm | ABC
B12 vs B12
6-0 Texas Tech @ 3-3 West Virginia | Saturday 12:00 pm | FOX 1
1-4 Iowa State @ 5-0 Baylor | Saturday 7:00 pm | ESPNU
B1G vs B1G
4-2 Iowa @ 6-0 Ohio State | Saturday 3:30 pm | ABC
MAC vs MAC
6-0 Northern Illinois @ 3-4 Central Michigan | Saturday 3:00 pm | ESPN3
MWC vs MWC
4-2 UNLV @ 5-0 Fresno State | Saturday 10:00 pm | ????
PAC vs PAC
5-0 UCLA @ 5-1 Stanford | Saturday 3:30 pm | ABC / ESPN2
4-3 Washington State @ 6-0 Oregon | Saturday 10:00 pm | Fox 1
SEC vs SEC
4-2 Florida @ 6-0 Missouri | Saturday 12:21 pm | ESPN3
3-4 Arkansas @ 6-0 Alabama | Saturday 7:00 pm | ESPN / ESPN2
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #8 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #7 ********
Oklahoma lost to Texas
Stanford lost to Utah
Michigan lost to Penn State
******** Teams who have (6) wins this week (#7) ********
AAC 6-0 Louisville
ACC 6-0 Clemson
ACC 6-1 Virginia Tech
B 12 6-0 Texas Tech
B1G 6-0 Ohio State
MAC 6-0 Northern Illinois
MAC 6-1 Ball State
PAC 6-0 Oregon
SEC 6-0 Missouri
SEC 6-0 Alabama
SEC 6-1 Louisiana State
LikeLike
There are only 15 once beaten teams as well, 13 in the P5 + Ball St. and UCF.
LikeLike
Were you going to make the list?
LikeLike
UCF 4-1
Ball St. 6-1
Maryland 5-1
Virginia Tech 6-1
Oklahoma 5-1
Oklahoma St. 4-1
Michigan 5-1
Nebraska 5-1
Michigan St. 5-1
Oregon St. 5-1
Stanford 5-1
LSU 6-1
South Carolina 5-1
Auburn 5-1
Texas A&M 5-1
LikeLike
Most of these have little chance at the MNC as many have bad losses or, as in the case of Michigan, bad wins. Virginia Tech & Oklahoma might play themselves in. Stanford definitely has a shot. The SEC quad has a shot. UCF, Ball St., Maryland, Nebraska and Oregon St. have no chance unless everyone else loses at least two.
LikeLike
UCF 4-1 = NO
Ball St. 6-1 = NO
Maryland 5-1 = NO
Virginia Tech 6-1 = YES, if they run the table and get some breaks
Oklahoma 5-1 = NO, even if they run the table, “Texas is down” mantra is an anchor
Oklahoma St. 4-1 = NO, Mississippi State is going to hurt not help
Michigan 5-1 = NO, even if they run the table because of Akron and Uconn
Nebraska 5-1 = ??, must win out and UCLA must win out but lose PAC CCG
Michigan St. 5-1 = NO, sad because if they win out they should get the love
Oregon St. 5-1 = NO, because they are not Stanford or Oregon
Stanford 5-1 = YES, because they are Stanford
LSU 6-1= YES, because they are in the SEC and they are LSU
South Carolina 5-1 = ??, if they win out they have the OBC as ace in hole
Auburn 5-1 = ??, feels like a no but who knows if they win the rest + SEC CCG
Texas A&M 5-1 = YES, SEC + JFF + TX = ratings magic
LikeLike
Results of week #7
AP – Michigan and Northwestern dropped out / Auburn and Wisconsin moved in
(8) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 LSU, #7 TAMU, #11 USC, #14 MU, #15 UGA, #22 UF, #24 AU
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #9 UCLA, #13 Stanford, #20 Washington
(4) ACC : #3 Clemson, #5 Florida State, #10 Miami, #19 Virginia Tech
(4) B12 : #12 Baylor, #16 Texas Tech, #18 Oklahoma, #21 Oklahoma State
(2) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #25 Wisconsin
(1) AAC : #8 Louisville
(1) MWC : #17 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #23 Northern Illinois
Michigan (118) / Nebraska (94) / Michigan State (69) / Utah (47) / Notre Dame (39)
USA – Northwestern dropped out / Missouri moved in
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Texas A&M, #8 LSU, #9 S Carolina, #14 MU, #16 UGA, #22 FL
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #10 UCLA, #13 Stanford, #25 Washington
(4) ACC : #4 Clemson, #5 Florida State, #11 Miami (FL), #20 Virginia Tech
(4) B12 : #12 Baylor, #15 Texas Tech, #17 Oklahoma State, #18 Oklahoma
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #21 Nebraska, #24 Michigan
(1) AAC : #6 Louisville
(1) MWC : #19 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #23 Northern Illinois
Wisconsin (124) / Michigan State (83) / Auburn (67) / Notre Dame (60)
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FOUR :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (4-4) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
ACC : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 1-1 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FOUR :: U = CLEMSON/FSU/MIAMI
ACC (4-4) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (1-1) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
B 12 : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = BAYLOR / TEXAS TECH
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (4-4) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
PAC : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = OREGON / UCLA
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (6-6) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 1-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = ALABAMA / MISSOURI
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (5-5) :::::::: FCS (1-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (1-0) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
xxx : B5 = xxx : NB5 = xxx : FCS = xxx : OFF = xxx :: U = (x) teams
ACC () : B1G () : B12 () : PAC () : SEC () :::::::: FCS ()
AAC () : IND () : CUSA () : MAC () : MWC () : SunB ()
.
PAC was all conference games with nobody off and SEC had a FCS game but both scheduled well. Big 12 was in the middle while both the ACC and B1G had 4 idle teams this past week.
.
Observations :
Wisconsin moved back in the polls – the good
Michigan and Northwestern dropped out – the bad
The beatings both Northwestern and Purdue took – the ugly
LikeLike
Btw, was anyone else concerned that when ESPN reported that Mizzou’s QB was injured, that he was going to be out “for the rest of the regular season?” Regular season??
Part of college football’s charm is that the weekly games constitute both the regular season and the playoffs. The BCS era, for all its flaws and faults, created more interest in week 6 matchups than I fear a playoff will. Jockeying to stay in the top 4 will still be close, but with each expansion of the playoffs, these week 6 games will take on less meaning.
Lets use a quick example from the NFL: The Steelers beat the Jets and are now 1-4. In CFB, they would have no chance to complete for the national title/top 4. But in the NFL, they can get win a few games, capture the wild card (like the ’93 Oilers), and have an equal shot at the title as, say, the Saints or Patriots.
LikeLike
Part of college football’s charm is that the weekly games constitute both the regular season and the playoffs. The BCS era, for all its flaws and faults, created more interest in week 6 matchups than I fear a playoff will. Jockeying to stay in the top 4 will still be close, but with each expansion of the playoffs, these week 6 games will take on less meaning.
People keep saying that when other sports expand their post-seasons. I see no evidence of it. Did NCAA basketball lose interest when it expanded its post-season? Not as far as I can see.
When four teams make the playoff, rather than two, there are more games throughout the season that can affect who those four will be. The regular season becomes more relevant, not less.
I understand the purist view that in the current system, one loss eliminates you from championship contention, and wild-cards can’t qualify. Except that it’s a fantasy. How else do you explain the 2011 season, when Alabama (which didn’t even win its conference) got a second chance at an LSU team it had already lost to, while Oklahoma State went to a consolation bowl and didn’t get a chance to prove its worthiness on the field.
Unlike most fans outside of SEC country, I didn’t disagree with Alabama’s selection that year. But don’t try to tell me it would have diminished the regular season, if Oklahoma State had been invited to the party along with them.
Lets use a quick example from the NFL: The Steelers beat the Jets and are now 1-4. In CFB, they would have no chance to complete for the national title/top 4. But in the NFL, they can get win a few games, capture the wild card (like the ’93 Oilers), and have an equal shot at the title as, say, the Saints or Patriots.
Wild cards do not have an “equal shot” at the title. The playoffs make their path more difficult: they don’t get a first-round bye, and they don’t get a home game. A few teams, over the years, have surmounted those obstacles, but they certainly don’t have the same shot. That’s one of the reasons that the regular-season games remain important, even for teams that have already clinched a playoff berth.
There are occasions in the NFL where a team in the final week of the season has sewn up both its playoff berth and its seeding, and has literally nothing left to play for. But those occasions are vastly outnumbered by the teams who have more to play for, all year long, by virtue of not being eliminated so early in the season. In a system with smaller playoffs, teams are eliminated sooner, making the rest of their seasons basically meaningless exhibitions.
I can understand the view that you’d just rather not have the possibility of wild cards winning it all. But to say that an expanded post-season diminishes the regular season is just mathematically wrong. The more you expand the post-season, the more the regular season games matter.
LikeLike
I don’t have much interest in basketball reg season. The move to even 32 diluted my interest. And having regular season conference place be almost irrelevant (thanks to conf tourney auto qualifiers)? Thirty something wild cards? The season is a beauty contest to gain selection rather than a competition to win a spot.
LikeLike
“In a system with smaller playoffs, teams are eliminated sooner, making the rest of their seasons basically meaningless exhibitions.”
Yes. The eliminated teams shouldn’t have anything but pride and a spoiler roll to play for. I find a championship deminished if almost half the league is elligible. And almost meaningless if the last team in wins it. Really, what is the reg season value really? 80% to qualify for post season, 10% home field, and 10% more for a bye?
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I generally agree with you, although college basketball probably isn’t the best example. That’s a sport where the postseason format has made the regular season largely inconsequential outside of being a seeding exercise.
The NFL, though, has managed to create the right balance between keeping interest in the regular season very high and providing enough playoff spots where a good number of teams are still mathematically in contention late in the season, but not having too many playoff spots where the impact of each regular season game is diluted too much.
I’m a firm believer that an 8-team playoff (5 power conference champs and 3 at-large bids) wouldn’t dilute interest in the regular season at all. It would turn most of the focus back to conference races as opposed to rankings and gets closer to the “determining it on the field” ideal that most of us want. That translates into many more games mattering during the course of the regular season (as opposed to the ones involving just the top 3 or 4 teams in a given week).
Now, I do think going to a 16-team playoff would really dilute a lot of the power of the regular season, so there’s always a risk of over expansion. However, I think there’s a check against that in the desire of the power conferences to maintain control. As long as the 5 power conference champs are involved in the playoff, I don’t see them having a desire or much of a financial incentive to go beyond that (particularly since their own conference championship games will turn into guaranteed de facto playoff games that they get to control all of the revenue for).
LikeLike
An 8 team playoff becomes a 12 or 13 team playoff. Although the 5 ccg losers aren’t necessarily eliminated (although you could set it up that way by selecting wildcards separate from the ccgs).
LikeLike
FtT:
40% NFL qualifying for playoffs? 9-7, possibly 8-8 qualifying while better records don’t is not deminishing? I guess the citizens don’t care who the gladiators that entertain them are.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – The point is that I (and I believe most of the American viewing public) still feel that every week in the NFL has a lot of impact. The fact that there are 12 playoff teams doesn’t take away from the fact that games in, say, week 6 of the NFL season matter both mathematically and psychologically.
That’s why I don’t buy the argument that a limited expansion of the college football playoff (for me, a max of 8 teams) would detract from the interest in week 6 of the college football regular season. Yes, those instances where the planets align and you get #1 LSU vs. #2 Alabama or #1 Ohio State vs. #2 Michigan would no longer be “Games of the Century”, but I think we’re romanticizing those relatively rare highlights to the detriment of ignoring the 99% of other games in any given week. Plus, as Marc Shepherd noted, that LSU-Bama result didn’t end up being a de facto playoff game, anyway. College football already has a small sample size of games to work with in determining who is best, so it’s not really a “week to week” playoff when it’s often arbitrary how one 1-loss team gets ranked higher than another 1-loss team.
Look – I’m not one of those guys that wants to see massive NCAA Tournament-style playoff for football. However, I do think an 8-team system that gives a automatic spot to all 5 power conference champs would ultimately be an improvement. I can’t see how having 8 teams out of 120-plus FBS schools (or even just looking at the universe of 65 power schools) in a playoff is going to dilute interest of the regular season for the general public. (I understand some old school fans may feel otherwise, but I think that’s a vocal minority.)
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank:
Giving an automatic spot to a power conference champ is much worse, as it presents the possibility that a 6-6 team that wins a division and upsets a top-tanked foe in a conference title game goes to the playoffs.
Which year was it, for example, that Colorado won the B12 north at like 7-5? And didn’t UCLA win their division last year at 6-6? Why on earth should such mediocrity be rewarded with a potential playoff birth? It devalues the “regular” season at that point.
The NFL Week 6 is much fun to watch, but utterly meaningless as far as the playoffs go. College week, 6, if a top ranked team loses, they might not get another shot at the title. Hence, the fun results from the heightened stakes.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I’m just saying that there’s a balance. For the top 5 or 6 teams in any given week in college football, I agree there are massive stakes compared to the NFL. The issue is that there are low or no stakes for the other 100-plus FBS teams (at least at a national level), whereas in the NFL, the “stakes” are distributed further down the food chain. You don’t get many truly meaningless games until the last couple weeks of the season in the NFL.
Is the NFL model necessarily better for determining the very best team? Maybe not. However, I do think it’s much better in terms of keeping the bulk of its fan bases (as opposed to a select handful) heavily invested in the regular season while not having an oversupply of postseason access (in the way that the NBA and NHL do). When every power conference division race matters on a national scale, that’s going to drive a lot more national interest for a lot more games. That’s going to matter quite a bit in the long-term as this Millenial generation and their kids will inevitably divide their time among even more entertainment options in the future than we have now. We already see attendance issues across much of college football. Fans are increasingly going to want to watch their teams have more than just a chance to get to a lower tier bowl game in order to invest their time and money.
I know a lot of people point to the weak Pac-12 South and Big Ten Leaders division champs last year, but that was the byproduct of once-in-a-generation occurrence of multiple high level teams not being eligible for bowls. Even then, we don’t seem to get bothered by the notion of a lower record team getting into the postseason in any other sport as long as they actually clinched a championship (midmajor conference tournaments in basketball, winning bad divisions like the NFC East in the NFL this year, etc.), which is at least determined on-the-field/court as opposed to a third party ranking system that the teams involved have little control over.
LikeLike
Giving an automatic spot to a power conference champ is much worse, as it presents the possibility that a 6-6 team that wins a division and upsets a top-tanked foe in a conference title game goes to the playoffs.
I entirely agree with you: I am not a fan of auto-bids for football. In an 8-team playoff, in most years the Big Ten champion will make it to the dance; but why a guarantee? I say, make them prove it.
And yet, some people (including @ccrider55) believe precisely the opposite: that it devalues the playoff, when qualifying is not dependent on first winning your conference. I believe @ccrider55 said in another post that he thinks the new playoff is a misnomer: in his view, it ain’t a playoff if conference champs don’t get autobids.
This, I think, is why you have to look at objective criteria, rather than one’s personal, abstract, tradition-based preference for how a national champion ought to be decided. You can read tradition any way you want, and just about every tradition was at some point new.
Years ago, the polls used to decide the national champion before the bowls. And so, oddly enough, the games that now determine the championship were once considered meaningless exhibitions, having nothing to do with it at all! That was long ago, but I suspect most here recall the various changes to the way the national champion was decided, including multiple changes to the BCS and its predecessor, the Bowl Alliance, each being (in some sense) the abandonment of an older “tradition” in favor of another.
The reality is, in terms of measurable fan interest, expanding the post-season generally does not make the regular season less meaningful, but rather the opposite. It’s just mathematically true, to the point of obviousness, that when more teams qualify, more of the games have national championship implications.
You’re welcome not to like it personally, but it has been demonstrated over and over again that most of the fans do not react that way.
LikeLike
“Plus, as Marc Shepherd noted, that LSU-Bama result didn’t end up being a de facto playoff game, ”
Because the BCS isn’t a playoff. It’s a selection – an invitational. The reg season derives much of its meaning because it serves as the elimination rounds.
We would/will be in an 8-10 team playoff next year if the selection process eliminates all but conference champs. Here’s to hoping the committe applies the lesson of the Ala/LSU non-championship (in many eyes).
I am not a staunch opponent of an actual playoff, but I resent the usurping of the Rose and other major bowls (and the direct qualification/elimination through conf play).
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – If I had my way, the bowls wouldn’t be usurped. The 8-team playoff would look like this:
Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange/Peach: ACC champ vs. at-large
Cotton/Fiesta: Big 12 champ vs. at-large
That’s actually more of a throwback to how the bowls used to be while still advancing the notion of an expanded playoff. Call me crazy, but I find that lineup to be a more compelling set of games on and around New Years Day compared to the new CFP system while providing more of the traditional matchups. The practical business case for the power conferences is also there, as the bowls are the means through which they can continue to control the playoff. That’s a direct financial and control interest for the power conferences for the playoff to stop at 8 (as opposed to going to 16 and beyond as some fans fear).
LikeLike
Because the BCS isn’t a playoff. It’s a selection – an invitational. The reg season derives much of its meaning because it serves as the elimination rounds.
Well, whatever term you use for it, the participants are being decided by votes and computers, rather than on the field. College Football is the only sport I can think of that does so.
(Other sports have selection committees, but they invite enough participants that anyone with a credible argument for being there, IS there.)
We would/will be in an 8-10 team playoff next year if the selection process eliminates all but conference champs. Here’s to hoping the committee applies the lesson of the Ala/LSU non-championship (in many eyes).
That ship has sailed, and not to the port you desire. There is no such rule, and there is no way there could be, given that there are more leagues than playoff slots, and the system needs to accommodate independents who don’t even have any conference championship to win.
It would be a bizarro world where Wisconsin last year, a very mediocre Big Ten champion who won a weak league with a weak schedule, was seeded above the SEC #2. I don’t think you could find very many people who’d sign up for that result.
LikeLike
NFL planning on going to 14. Its starting to look more like basketball and hockey.
When you have a playoff you have to balance two major things (other than all the financial impacts): 1) You don’t want it so big it makes it hard for the best team to win because they might have an off day; and 2) You don’t want to exclude anyone who might be the best team. That’s why I think 8 to 12 is a good number for college football. With 4, sometimes you might leave out the best team. With 8 and autobids for the major conferences, you have all the teams that have earned their way in and room for 3 from minor conferences or who were otherwise very good and may have gotten knocked out by a tie-break or only lost on the road in overtime to someone in the tourney.
From the financial side, I’m not convinced that 16 necessarily devalues the regular season, but it is definitely close to that point. 24 like in FCS definitely would. It would also depend on how you select the teams. 16 with 10 conference champs gives you 6 pretty good wildcards even though some of the conference champs won’t be that great. 16 with 5-6 conference champs and you start getting some 3 loss wildcards who are 3rd or 4th or 5th best in their own conference, making it a little too easy to get in and the regular season less relevant.
LikeLike
@marc
The bowls really were an exhibition is the past. Occasionally you would have one that was a defacto playoff. But mostly it was a reward to a good season and a nice trip. Many teams still approach it that way. IMO polls give way too much emphasis to bowl results.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“The point is that I (and I believe most of the American viewing public) still feel that every week in the NFL has a lot of impact. The fact that there are 12 playoff teams doesn’t take away from the fact that games in, say, week 6 of the NFL season matter both mathematically and psychologically.”
What you need to remember is that the CFB and NFL fan bases are not the same. There is overlap, but even those who like both tend to favor one over the other. Many CFB fans don’t like the NFL precisely because of it’s postseason. Why watch during the season when 9-7 has a decent shot at the title? Those losses meant next to nothing.
Of course NFL fans would be fine with CFB expanding their playoff. The CFB fans that don’t like the NFL might not be so keen on the idea.
LikeLike
@Brian: I agree with you that the NFL and CFB fan bases are different sets of people.
But I cannot imagine that you think it’s a terrific system to have a couple of polls and a bunch of computers decide which two teams get the chance to play for a national championship.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’m just saying that there’s a balance. For the top 5 or 6 teams in any given week in college football, I agree there are massive stakes compared to the NFL. The issue is that there are low or no stakes for the other 100-plus FBS teams (at least at a national level),”
I disagree. Many of those teams are playing for bowl eligibility, rivalries, or the chance to spoil someone else’s season. You may not care about the lesser bowls but they are important to the players.
“You don’t get many truly meaningless games until the last couple weeks of the season in the NFL.”
Except for all those losses that don’t knock teams out of the playoffs, you mean?
“Is the NFL model necessarily better for determining the very best team? Maybe not.”
There’s no maybe about it. The NFL doesn’t even try to find the best team. They find a tournament champion. Otherwise a 9-7 Giants team wouldn’t get to play the 16-0 Patriots again for the title.
“However, I do think it’s much better in terms of keeping the bulk of its fan bases (as opposed to a select handful) heavily invested in the regular season while not having an oversupply of postseason access (in the way that the NBA and NHL do).”
What works for a league of 32 teams of fairly similar talent levels doesn’t necessarily work for 10 conferences plus independents that total to 125 teams of widely varying talent levels.
“When every power conference division race matters on a national scale, that’s going to drive a lot more national interest for a lot more games.”
What’s good for casual fans is rarely good for true fans. This is just like NASCAR going national to chase more total fans while losing a bunch of diehards. It works great for the bottom line unless the casual fans tire of it, because the diehards are still angry.
“We already see attendance issues across much of college football.”
Skyrocketing ticket prices have a lot to do with that.
“I know a lot of people point to the weak Pac-12 South and Big Ten Leaders division champs last year, but that was the byproduct of once-in-a-generation occurrence of multiple high level teams not being eligible for bowls.”
Was it? It’s happened 50% of the time for the B10 and P12.
The B12 had 3 unranked teams in their 15 CCG. They all at least tied for best record in their division, but still weren’t impressive.
1996 7-4 (6-2) UT upset #3 NE
2004 7-4 (4-4) CO lost to #2 OU
2005 7-4 (5-3) CO lost to #2 UT
3 more were ranked outside the top 15:
2006 9-3 (6-2) #18 NE lost to #10 OU
2008 9-3 (5-3) #19 MO lost to #4 OU
2009 9-3 (6-2) #21 NE lost to #3 UT
The ACC was even worse. They’ve had 3 unranked teams in 8 games, plus 6 more ranked outside the top 15.
2005 7-4 (5-3) #23 FSU won
2006 10-2 (6-2) #16 WF beat 9-3 (7-1) #22 GT
2008 8-4 (5-3) VT beat 9-3 (5-3) #17 BC
2009 8-4 (6-2) Clemson lost to #10 GT
2010 9-3 (6-2) #20 FSU lost to #11 VT
2011 9-3 (6-2) #21 Clemson won
2012 6-6 (5-3) GT lost to #12 FSU
No 3 loss team should even have a chance to be in the playoff, but your autobid plan would do that somewhat regularly based on CCG history.
“Even then, we don’t seem to get bothered by the notion of a lower record team getting into the postseason in any other sport as long as they actually clinched a championship”
Who is this “we” you are talking about. Lots of people take issue with letting bad teams that win something into the playoffs at the expense of much better teams.
“midmajor conference tournaments in basketball”
Most people hate tournament winners getting in, they just don’t get that upset because they aren’t knocking out a good team.
“winning bad divisions like the NFC East in the NFL this year”
I’ve heard plenty of NFL fans advocate for taking the top 6 teams by record rather than letting an 8-8 (or even worse, 7-9) division champ in.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I entirely agree with you: I am not a fan of auto-bids for football. In an 8-team playoff, in most years the Big Ten champion will make it to the dance; but why a guarantee? I say, make them prove it.”
The people that want an autobid generally don’t trust “the system” to be fair, so they want to avoid anyone getting screwed over by bias. They also tend to believe that winning a bad conference is still a better qualification than being runner up in a great one. If you aren’t the best in your conference, how can you be the best in the nation?
“This, I think, is why you have to look at objective criteria,”
Here’s the problem. What objective criteria can you get everyone to agree upon? You just mocked ccrider55 for choosing “conference champs” as his objective criteria, and those are at least decided on the field. You think people will agree to trust computer rankings instead?
“The reality is, in terms of measurable fan interest, expanding the post-season generally does not make the regular season less meaningful, but rather the opposite.”
Yes it does, but most true fans will watch anyway. Casual fans only ever watched the big games anyway, so nothing changes for them.
“It’s just mathematically true, to the point of obviousness, that when more teams qualify, more of the games have national championship implications.”
Yes, but equally true is that the implications of each game are diminished by the increased size of the playoff. Now it’s the second or third loss that’s huge rather than the first one.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well, whatever term you use for it, the participants are being decided by votes and computers, rather than on the field. College Football is the only sport I can think of that does so.
(Other sports have selection committees, but they invite enough participants that anyone with a credible argument for being there, IS there.)”
How many sports have a 12 game season and can only be played head to head and weekly? It’s apples and oranges to compare different sports because they are all so different. CFB is limited by only being able to play 2 teams at a time (many sports can have 8-100+ competing at once), once per week (most sports can play several times per week), with a limited season length (most sports play a lot more times). On top of that, the NFL has 1/4 the number of teams and they are all much more equal than the I-A schools are. There is no reason to believe that the best solution for another sport is also the best solution for CFB.
“There is no such rule, and there is no way there could be, given that there are more leagues than playoff slots, and the system needs to accommodate independents who don’t even have any conference championship to win.”
He didn’t say there was, he merely hoped the committee would basically impose a high standard on any runner up they let into the top 4 (as in, never do it).
“It would be a bizarro world where Wisconsin last year, a very mediocre Big Ten champion who won a weak league with a weak schedule, was seeded above the SEC #2.”
Unless, you know, you valued being the best in your subset as a qualification for being the best in the superset.
“I don’t think you could find very many people who’d sign up for that result.”
Actually, I think previous discussions of this issue has shown a decently large minority that feel that way. Some opted to stick to 4 and take the best 4 champs or independents rather than going to 8 and letting all 5 AQ champs in just to avoid the WI scenario you described. On the other hand, I could point out that said mediocre team gave Stanford a very tough game in the Rose Bowl so perhaps they weren’t all that mediocre.
LikeLike
bullet,
“NFL planning on going to 14. Its starting to look more like basketball and hockey.”
What a shock to see the NFL doing a money grab.
“When you have a playoff you have to balance two major things (other than all the financial impacts): 1) You don’t want it so big it makes it hard for the best team to win because they might have an off day; and 2) You don’t want to exclude anyone who might be the best team.”
I agree. Only the best should get in. That’s why MLB, NBA and NHL should only have the finals. They have 162 or 82 games to decide the best team in each conference. The runner ups had their shot already. The NFL can justify at least having semifinals, maybe even an elite 8. There is still no need for runners up, though.
CFB is in a hard place because the number of teams and the short season say they could have a large playoff, but the playoff length is actually limited by school factors plus, unlike in the pros, we know that most of the schools never had a shot of being the best.
“That’s why I think 8 to 12 is a good number for college football. With 4, sometimes you might leave out the best team.”
How often have 5 or more teams all had valid arguments for being the best team in the country? You lose a game, your argument goes away. You win a crappy conference without playing a tough OOC schedule, you lose my sympathy.
“With 8 and autobids for the major conferences, you have all the teams that have earned their way in and room for 3 from minor conferences or who were otherwise very good and may have gotten knocked out by a tie-break or only lost on the road in overtime to someone in the tourney.”
I will never understand how a runner up has a valid claim to be #1. If you said 8 to take the 8 best independents or conference champs, at least I could understand your reasoning. I’ve never seen a #8 team that deserved to be #1, though.
I still believe that the old system was better than any playoff CFB will ever come up with. Play the games and let the fans sort it out.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But I cannot imagine that you think it’s a terrific system to have a couple of polls and a bunch of computers decide which two teams get the chance to play for a national championship.”
No, I’m not a huge BCS advocate. Personally, I’d go back to the old system of letting the fans argue it out. But if you must do it, then I’d rather the NCAA spend $10M financing research into the most valid ways to rank CFB teams based on the latest math and stats knowledge. I believe the result will be that there is no optimum way to rank teams, but many solid ways. Then put together several computer systems that vary widely and use them (all code open to the public, including the input data sets so people can check them, and no limitations on what they can consider). Drop the highest and lowest ranking for each school and average the others. No bias, just pure objective rankings.
I think the real issue is that people fundamentally disagree on what describes the “best” team. Is it the one that accomplishes the most or the one that best passes the eye test or something else? If we don’t agree on that, why should we agree on the champ?
LikeLike
Marc:
“That ship has sailed, and not to the port you desire.”
Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant. A defacto 8 to 10 team playoff is here with CCG’s as the qtr finals (B12 champ assumes a qtr bye if a CFP participant) simply by selecting conf champs (or independents).
LikeLike
“Well, whatever term you use for it, the participants are being decided by votes and computers, rather than on the field. College Football is the only sport I can think of that does so.
How many sports have a 12 game season and can only be played head to head and weekly? It’s apples and oranges to compare different sports because they are all so different.
But as you know, the other divisions of college football (below FBS) have a playoff, and have had for many years, so the lack of one is obviously not an intrinsic limitation of the sport.
LikeLike
Haven’t the majors always had a playoff (aka the regular season) that led to their reward (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, etc)? Which was the more interesting, followed, valuable?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But as you know, the other divisions of college football (below FBS) have a playoff, and have had for many years, so the lack of one is obviously not an intrinsic limitation of the sport.”
The financial disparity between schools in I-AA (and below) is much less than in I-A. I-AA teams can’t afford as many intersectional OOC games. I-AA teams play a shorter season, leaving even more questions about which team is best. The money involved is smaller so the NCAA runs their posteseason. There are autobids at the lower levels. There are no bowls. The playoffs use home fields in the lower levels. In other words, almost everything is different.
LikeLike
Haven’t the majors always had a playoff (aka the regular season) that led to their reward (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, etc)? Which was the more interesting, followed, valuable?
I don’t want to go dictionary on you, but whatever the merits of that system, I’d challenge you to find very many people who would’ve called it a “playoff” by any known definition.
But even that system changed many, many times over the decades. It was by no means static. If the commissioners and ADs have proven anything, they know how to count money and viewers. It would be very surprising if you could demonstrate that every time they changed it, they made it less valuable and less followed.
I do realize that VERY recently (like, last year or two), TV ratings and attendance have gone down. I am quite sure that if that condition endures, they’ll change it again. (Well, they’ll probably change it again no matter what.)
LikeLike
“I don’t want to go dictionary on you, but whatever the merits of that system, I’d challenge you to find very many people who would’ve called it a “playoff” by any known definition.”
Please do.
A)The B1G and PAC both spent a long time playing seasons with only the champion going to the Rose (except when that team declined the honor).
B) A poll based system selects participants, on field results being informative…but not determinative.
In which system have you actually played off against the competition?
LikeLike
@MarcShepard: Yes, I suppose the more you expand the playoffs, the more the regular season games matter, but for the wrong reasons. The regular season should not be a mere seeding exercise for the playoffs. There should be a more definite, concrete reward for success in the regular season than a first round bye or an extra home game–like a legitimate shot at the playoffs.
My ideal was how MLB used to do it, before the wild card round, where the two division winners faced off in the LCS, and the winner went to the World Series (I would have done away with the divisions, and just had the top 2 in the League play in the LCS, but anyways).
The NFL is also decent, in that 12/32 makes the post season. But teams like the Giants a few years ago catching fire at the right time and winning the Super Bowl shows that the regular season lacks as much value as it did before.
I understand the financial windfall that comes from expanding playoffs, which is why I am concerned that college adopted it in the first place. We all know intuitively that a 4 team playoff will expend to 16 eventually, ruining CFB’s uniqueness in the process. Just because something would make more money doesn’t make it good for the game.
LikeLike
The regular season should not be a mere seeding exercise for the playoffs.
In college, even a 16-team playoff (which has practically zero chance of happening in our lifetimes) would eliminate roughly 85% of the teams. So obviously, for the overwhelming majority of them, the issue would not be seeding, but the far more substantial question of whether they get in at all.
My ideal was how MLB used to do it, before the wild card round, where the two division winners faced off in the LCS, and the winner went to the World Series.
I am old enough to remember the days when baseball traditionalists considered that system an abomination. The original LCS format took a lot of getting used to, for people who grew up under old system of sending the league’s best overall team directly into the World Series.
It just goes to show that if tradition is your lodestar, all it really means is that you prefer what you grew up with, and nothing would ever change.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard:
“In college, even a 16-team playoff (which has practically zero chance of happening in our lifetimes) would eliminate roughly 85% of the teams. So obviously, for the overwhelming majority of them, the issue would not be seeding, but the far more substantial question of whether they get in at all.”
That’s true, but misses my point. Its not that 85% of the teams are eliminated, its that a 14th ranked 9-3 team is in the same playoff structure, and has the same shot to win, as a 12-0 or 13-0 number 1 or 2 seed. That regular season should not come down to jockeying to be in the top 16, or even a top 8.
The number 8 team in the land should not have a shot at the national title. That is, in essence, my opposition to the potential 8-team playoff.
By giving said #8 team a shot, the sequence of events (read; regular season) that made them #8, and not #1 or #4, is thereby devalued, because as long as they are in the playoffs, how they got there loses meaning.
Further, in college, where rivalry games are played in the last game before conference title games, top-ranked teams will have a disincentive to play their best players or to win, knowing that they are secure. A #1 ranked Alabama playing a 5-6 Auburn would have no incentive to win the Iron Bowl, or to risk having key players get hurt a week before the SEC title game. Without a playoff, they have to win. Even in a 4 team playoff, they have to win. That’s the difference, especially when the Colts sat players for the last few weeks a few years back to rest up for the playoffs. I don’t want Alabama resting players vs. Auburn, or players sitting out OSU- Michigan. Those games differentiate college from the pros, and such charm should not be lost.
As for the MLB playoffs, I definitely agree about people liking the system they grew up with, but I happen to feel that system worked best because it balances fan excitement with rewarding regular season achievement. I also think that since there is a wild card, the new play-in game for the WC is far more equitable, as it gives incentives and tangible rewards to division winners.
LikeLike
I still think its an abomination that a #9 team in a college basketball conference who has failed to win in the regular season and failed to win in a conference tournament gets another chance in the NCAA.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“People keep saying that when other sports expand their post-seasons. I see no evidence of it. Did NCAA basketball lose interest when it expanded its post-season?”
From 64 to 68? No, because that was a trivial change. From 8 to 16 to 24ish to 32 to 48 to 64? Yes. A lot more people used to care about the regular season back when the games mattered. When only the conference champ could make the tournament, every regular season game was vital. Now, the tournament is a bigger deal but most “fans” ignore college hoops until March.
“When four teams make the playoff, rather than two, there are more games throughout the season that can affect who those four will be. The regular season becomes more relevant, not less.”
You state this like fact when it’s actually opinion. Some people lose interest when even a #1 vs #2 game actually doesn’t matter. They’ll just wait until January to start watching. Others will stay interested longer because their team still has a chance. The bigger of an event you make the postseason, the less the regular season matters and more fans will just wait until the postseason to watch.
“How else do you explain the 2011 season”
Bribes.
“But don’t try to tell me it would have diminished the regular season, if Oklahoma State had been invited to the party along with them.”
How important would the first AL/LSU game have been if we all knew both would make the playoff (or in that case, the NCG)?
“Lets use a quick example from the NFL: The Steelers beat the Jets and are now 1-4. In CFB, they would have no chance to complete for the national title/top 4. But in the NFL, they can get win a few games, capture the wild card (like the ’93 Oilers), and have an equal shot at the title as, say, the Saints or Patriots.”
You say that like it’s a good thing.
“But to say that an expanded post-season diminishes the regular season is just mathematically wrong.”
You’re assuming math is applicable to calculate whether or not the season is diminished. I don’t think it can because it’s an intangible quality.
“The more you expand the post-season, the more the regular season games matter.”
No. More games might matter, but they all matter less than they used to matter.
LikeLike
“When four teams make the playoff, rather than two, there are more games throughout the season that can affect who those four will be. The regular season becomes more relevant, not less.”
You state this like fact when it’s actually opinion.
As I interpret your post (further down), you aren’t disputing that I’m mathematically right. You’re arguing that the regular season is diminished in some abstract way. In that sense, I agree that my view is just opinion, and so is yours. But among factors that can be measured, is there any evidence? For instance, did college basketball attendance and ratings go down when they expanded the tournament? Those, at least, are things we can quantify.
Otherwise, “diminishing the regular season” is a standardless concept, capable of infinite manipulation according to whatever version of “tradition” one happens to like.
Some people lose interest when even a #1 vs #2 game actually doesn’t matter.
It’s hard to come up with many cases where such a game truly wouldn’t have mattered, even assuming you can demonstrate the dubious proposition that a significant number of people actually lost interest.
How important would the first AL/LSU game have been if we all knew both would make the playoff (or in that case, the NCG)?
At the time it was played, no one knew that. Whether or not you approve of the re-match, other events had to happen in the ensuing weeks, for Alabama to scratch its way back to #2. At the time, I think everyone believed it was an elimination game.
LikeLike
“#2. At the time, I think everyone believed it was an elimination game.”
You make our case. Now everyone knows it won’t be.
LikeLike
To me, eight teams is the ideal balance — especially if all five power conferences get automatic bids, and one spot is reserved for a non-power 5 team. It also lessens the influence of “brand names” on the process without too much watering down, so a Oklahoma State or Kansas State that wins its conference title wouldn’t be shafted because it wasn’t a traditional “king.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As I interpret your post (further down), you aren’t disputing that I’m mathematically right.”
I’m disputing your basic statement that the regular season matters more with an expanded playoff. I don’t believe you can measure exactly how much the season matters in the first place because that’s intangible. But I believe your statement would be true if you said that more regular season games will matter for the playoff if the playoff is bigger (there are other ways games can matter, but I don’t think you’re talking about those definitions of matter). My counter point is that while that’s true, each one of those games individually will matter less than they used to when the playoff was smaller.
“You’re arguing that the regular season is diminished in some abstract way.”
You’re arguing that it gains value in some abstract way.
“But among factors that can be measured, is there any evidence?”
You weren’t talking about any such factors.
“For instance, did college basketball attendance and ratings go down when they expanded the tournament? Those, at least, are things we can quantify.”
MBB ratings are down from what they used to be, and the tournament expanded to 64 a while ago. I’d argue there is some causation there, but I can’t prove it.
“It’s hard to come up with many cases where such a game truly wouldn’t have mattered, even assuming you can demonstrate the dubious proposition that a significant number of people actually lost interest.”
In this world of CFB, what loser of a #1 vs #2 game is going to miss the playoff without losing a second game? Heck, AL made it to the BCS NCG and MI almost did.
The ratings were way down for the AL/LSU NCG because a lot of people weren’t interested. If people knew in advance that the loser of the first game would make the playoff anyway, how many of them would have still watched?
“At the time it was played, no one knew that.”
Because the BCS only takes 2 teams, and even then the possibility was being discussed. If the BCS took 4 teams, nobody would have doubted that the loser would have been #4 at worst that year.
“At the time, I think everyone believed it was an elimination game.”
But now, we’ll all know it won’t be. That’s the point.
LikeLike
“#2. At the time, I think everyone believed it was an elimination game.”
You make our case. Now everyone knows it won’t be.
The fact that the first LSU vs. Alabama was NOT an elimination game, despite outward appearances, just goes to show that the system the playoff is meant to replace is not the greatest.
You can like the playoff, or not like it, but I think the games that “everyone knows” are meaningless will be comparatively rare, in relation to the many more games that have added meaning.
Whether you like the NFL or not, meaningless games involving contenders are not the norm. Of course, there are plenty of meaningless games where both sides have already been eliminated, and no one has proposed to change that.
LikeLike
“Whether you like the NFL or not, meaningless games involving contenders are not the norm.”
Unless you equate playoff positioning to playoff inclusion they certainly are for a significant number of the top teams at the end of every reg season.
“The fact that the first LSU vs. Alabama was NOT an elimination game, despite outward appearances, just goes to show that the system the playoff is meant to replace is not the greatest.”
And the response it to codify one of the former system’s failing?
LikeLike
It should have been an elimination game. My philosophy is that it should be the most “deserving” teams. With a two team playoff, Alabama had no business in the playoff. They had their shot and lost at home. There was no objective way to tell who was better, Oklahoma St. or Alabama, but Oklahoma St. won when they needed to. Alabama lost when they needed to win. That was the bottom line.
I could be for a champs only if you had clear champs like baseball. But you don’t have 162 games or playoff games to break ties. You have to use tiebreaks. And sometimes you get 3 way ties which are really messy like the Big 12 in 2008. And had Arkansas upset LSU in the last game of the season in 2011, we would have had a 3 way tie with Arkansas, LSU and Alabama that would have been even messier.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I agree, but suggest that a three way tie indicates perhaps all three didn’t grab the brass ring when presented. I’m not saying they all should be eliminated. But to those outside the affected schools does it really matter who the representive is? Conferences set the criteria to break ties and they should live with it, or change it preseason.
LikeLike
[AL/LSU] should have been an elimination game. My philosophy is that it should be the most “deserving” teams. With a two team playoff, Alabama had no business in the playoff.
I can respect that viewpoint. But the thing is, the BCS had multiple shots at coming up with the “most deserving” formula. It kept failing, and they kept tweaking it. Then it failed again. And they tweaked it again. Failed again. Tweaked again.
If you’d like, they could put in yet another tweak to disallow re-matches. And then, you know what? Some other condition no one had thought of would happen, and it would still fail.
I could be for a champs only if you had clear champs like baseball. But you don’t have 162 games or playoff games to break ties. You have to use tiebreaks. And sometimes you get 3 way ties which are really messy like the Big 12 in 2008.
That’s not even the messiest problem. The problem is that there are five “power” leagues, plus independents, and occasionally a team from outside the P5 that puts up a credible claim. Even if you believe that non-champs are de facto unworthy, you’ve still got a formula, a committee, a poll, or all three, deciding amongst the various champs.
I agree, but suggest that a three way tie indicates perhaps all three didn’t grab the brass ring when presented. I’m not saying they all should be eliminated. But to those outside the affected schools does it really matter who the representive is? Conferences set the criteria to break ties and they should live with it, or change it preseason.
I’d say the outrage over the AL/LSU re-match shows you’re mistaken. People want a game that makes sense to them from a “sporting” point of view (however they define that). Otherwise, everyone would have been happy with AL/LSU, since those two teams qualified under the agreed rules.
LikeLike
“People want a game that makes sense to them from a “sporting” point of view (however they define that). Otherwise, everyone would have been happy with AL/LSU, since those two teams qualified under the agreed rules.”ee
Ala/LSU didn’t tie for SEC title, or even division champ.
Less than one in ten people I know and have talked to about it felt that was the right matchup, at the time and since.
We all know the rules were/are created as a set of compromises. It’s difficult to do what is best for the game when that conflicts with powerful parochial and financial interests.
LikeLike
Ok, I’m going to make this post, but I am obviously bias with this subject so take it for what it’s worth.
But, IMO, to say that the regular season Bama/LSU game should’ve been an elimination game, yet the Ok St/ISU game shouldn’t have been is crazy. Both Bama and OSU (and Stanford btw) lost 1 game during the regular season. Bama not only lost to a higher ranked team, but Bama out played #1 ranked LSU for 4 quarters (but not in overtime) and lead in most statistical categories (including time of possession, 1st downs, yards, penalties, and 3rd down conversions). Unfortunately we also lead in missed FGs which lost us the game. OSU lost to a mediocre (at best) ISU team.
At the time of the game, the Bama/LSU game was a huge game with a lot at stake. That loss took Bama out of the driver’s seat for the BCSCG, and put Ok St and Stanford in it. It just so happened that both OSU and Stanford ended up losing to lesser ranked teams (ISU and Utah), which put Bama back in the BCSCG.
In the end, OSU and Stanford lost to teams that they should’ve beaten fairly easily. To say that Bama shouldn’t have gotten in for losing to a far superior team than either of them is, IMO of course, ludicrous. Bama ended up proving that they were the better team in the end, and IMO, proved that they should’ve been in the BCSCG.
LikeLike
And OkSU lost barely a day after the tragedy that took a number of Cowboy’s way before their time. Point is we don’t need to engage in comparisons. Can we know Ala. was better than OkSU? Can we know the SEC has eight of the top five? We can guess and argue. But we can know who is conference champion.
bamatab, I’m not saying they weren’t (or were) the second best (before the NCG). I’m only saying you’re now 1-1 with LSU that year and unless we adopt a best of three tiebreaker that game was a waste. Again, no disrespect but I only watched short parts of it. I just didn’t think they deserved a rematch (a problem I have with CCG’s but am not sure there is a practical solution). I felt like someone from grade school had called “do over.”
LikeLike
This whole discussion shows the issue when there are multiple teams with a legitimate claim to be playing for the national title.
From my vantage point, Alabama making it to the title game in 2011 was completely justifiable. Remember that LSU was the highest rated team statistically in the history of the BCS. So, in a very real sense, Alabama had the “best loss” of any 1-loss team in BCS history.
I certainly sympathize with giving extra weight to conference championships, which is why I’d want to see auto-bids for the conference champs in an 8-team playoff. However, in a 2 or 4-team format, it’s very difficult to have that restriction. Should 2012 Notre Dame get an advantage over 2011 Alabama simply because it’s independent? ND inherently can’t be a conference champ, and we all know it’s not feasible to have a system that locks them out (as much as some fans might want to). It’s not an accident that the notion of a conference championship requirement has been rejected continuously over the past 15 years.
LikeLike
That would make perfect sense except OkSU wouldn’t have been facing the team that beat them in the NCG. We already saw LSU/AL. AL had a chance and blew it. With LSU in as #1, everyone they already beat should be eliminated from consideration. In a season with so few games, playing a rematch is an incredible waste.
The same issue bugs me with the playoff. Why should a runner up get a second bite at the apple? Let someone else get a chance instead.
LikeLike
“That would make perfect sense except OkSU wouldn’t have been facing the team that beat them in the NCG. We already saw LSU/AL”
If OSU had been facing the team that beat them, they would’ve been facing a 6-7 team. Like Frank said, Bama had the more impressive loss (if there us such a thing).
The BCS system is setup to pit #1 vs #2. Bama and OSU had the exact same record (OSU didn’t play in a conference championship game). The only thing that could be compared in a real, on the field, manner was there loses, and there loses were not even close to being equal.
LikeLike
FtT:
I understand and agree that Ala. appeared the probable best contender. But as Brian says they already had their shot. How many other sports/championships have actually had the best game in the semi, or even qtrs. Are we trying to decide the best game, or who still has legitimate claim to play for the championship?
PS: if an eight team “playoff” arrives conference mates (if selected) should play first round. Perhaps 18-20 team conferences would alleviate this as CCG could be first round, and there would be very few cross division games. Basically adopting conf champs only from 9-10 team conferences.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“If OSU had been facing the team that beat them, they would’ve been facing a 6-7 team.”
I don’t care. LSU already beat AL. That eliminates AL as an option for me. There just aren’t enough CFB games to allow postseason rematches when major conferences rarely play each other. The next team up was OkSU.
It’s the same reason MI didn’t deserve a rematch in 2006.
“Like Frank said, Bama had the more impressive loss (if there us such a thing).”
They lost to the best team, yes, but in one of the ugliest displays of CFB ever. Offense is part of the game, too.
“The BCS system is setup to pit #1 vs #2.”
And a good system would’ve put OkSU #2.
“The only thing that could be compared in a real, on the field, manner was there loses, and there loses were not even close to being equal.”
No, there were also their wins and the circumstances of those losses. OkSU beat 4 ranked teams, AL was 3-1. OkSU played 10 AQ teams and 2 non-AQs, AL played 9 AQs, 2 non-AQs and 1 I-AA. In other words, OkSU played a tougher schedule. OkSU lost on the road after a tragedy on a short week (Friday game) by a missed FG that may have actually been good against a mediocre team, while AL lost at home after a bye week to prepare for a great team.
LikeLike
…if an eight team “playoff” arrives conference mates (if selected) should play first round. Perhaps 18-20 team conferences would alleviate this as CCG could be first round, and there would be very few cross division games. Basically adopting conf champs only from 9-10 team conferences.
It is exceedingly unlikely that the schools will conveniently organize into precisely four (or eight) eligible conferences, with no independents. That’s the only way “conf champs only” could work, even assuming we wanted that.
So the far more likely scenario in an 8-team playoff is that #2’s sometimes qualify. In that case, it’s tough to imagine why anyone would want to schedule them against their conference mate in the first round, unless they hadn’t played before and it was the logical seeding. They’d probably seed them 1-8 on competitive merit, and then re-jigger the seeding (if need be) to avoid re-matches.
(As FTT noted, the league commissioners were opposed to limiting it to conference champions, and I don’t see that changing. I think Jim Delany tried to push that, as his weaker league would have been the beneficiary. I can see why that didn’t get much traction.)
LikeLike
“I don’t care. LSU already beat AL. That eliminates AL as an option for me. There just aren’t enough CFB games to allow postseason rematches when major conferences rarely play each other. The next team up was OkSU.”
I very strongly agree with this. Note that it was also unfair to LSU. Alabama won beating only two ranked teams from the final AP Poll (Penn St. dropped out after the bowls), LSU and Arkansas, while splitting with LSU. LSU beat WVU (BE champ), Oregon (Pac 12 champ), Arkansas, Georgia and Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Its hard to beat a good team twice in a row.
And that first AL/LSU game was so ugly I didn’t want to see the rematch even if I wasn’t opposed to it on principal.
LikeLike
I really hate to weigh in on this topic since my team got the shaft in 2011, but question really is “most deserving” versus “best”. The poll members are very inconsistent from year to year. Some years like 2011, they pick “best”, while other years they pick “most deserving”.
With all due respect to Bamatab, in 2011, the Tide may have been the second “best” team throughout the regular season, but they weren’t the “most deserving”. In fact, by losing to LSU in Tuscaloosa, the Tide actually had an easier path to the BSC NCG than LSU. Granted, they lost control of their own destiny, but the Tide avoided the SEC CG with a hot Georgia team in Atlanta, had an extra week to rest, and an extra week to prepare.
In 2011, LSU played only six home games, defeated the Big East and Orange Bowl Champ (West Va) in Morgantown, and defeated the Pac-10 and Rose Bowl Champ (Oregon) at a neutral site. I know the Cowboys Stadium crowd was pro-LSU, but the Tigers still had to travel over 400 miles to get to the game. LSU defeated eight ranked teams that season.
I would argue that while Alabama’s home loss to LSU in overtime was a better loss than OK State’s last second road loss to Iowa State, Alabama (2nd place in the SECW) had their shot against LSU on their campus and couldn’t pull out a win. Big XII champ OK State was “most deserving” of a shot. Also, LSU deserved a new team to play. LSU had winning a two game winning streak against the Tide, and three in a row was just too much to ask, or require.
I’m not making excuses for my Tigers’ performance in the BCS NCG. LSU certainly could have played better on offense.
Instead, the 2011 LSU team will go down in history with the 1988 Miami team as one of the best teams not to win a national championship. Note: the ’88 Miami team was the best team I’ve ever seen in person. That year they beat the SEC Champ (LSU), B1G Champ (Michigan), SWC Champ (Arkansas), Big 8 Champ (Nebraska), and a pre-season #1 team in Florida State that finished #3. The ‘canes lone loss was to eventual champ Notre Dame 31-30 in South Bend.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t a better argument for College Basketball’s diminishing value of the regular season be that there are conferences where over 50% of the teams make the playoffs? If the 64 teams in the tournament were comprised of 2 teams max per conference or 4 teams max per conference, would that raise the value of the regular season significantly? (because mid-major and low-major games would matter, whereas now they don’t, and the major conference games would matter again because they aren’t all getting in).
64 teams in Basketball would be like a 32 team tournament in football where the lower 5 conferences get their champions and the other 27 bids are split among the other 5 conferences. What would SEC regular season football games matter if 8 out of 14 teams are making the playoffs anyways? Because that is what is happening in D1 college basketball right now…
I don’t think 8 with conference championship requirements is bad (top 8 conference champions that are either undefeated or ranked in the top 25 are in; if there aren’t 8 that qualify, then wild cards will be added). The way to make the regular season matter is to make conference championships matter, not to eliminate post season play, especially when there are 8 times more teams than games played.
LikeLike
Here’s the complete CFP selection committee.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9823134/jeff-long-arkansas-razorbacks-chair-college-football-playoff-committee
LikeLike
Interesting given his history in B1G country and the low probability his school has in the near future to be a participant. Seems like he would be agreeable to both Delany and Slive and may be why he was chosen to lead.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s upcoming home and home with Tennessee is being pushed back 10 years at Tennessee’s request. SEC going to a 9 game conference schedule?
Nebraska adds home-and-home with Oregon for 2016-2017.
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=209283172
LikeLike
A lot of talk about it, seems likely.
LikeLike
Now I’m seeing that the Tennessee request to change the game might have to do with the match up with Virginia Tech in the NASCAR stadium. Hopefully the SEC does go to 9 conference games but I think Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky might fight it due to their annual OOC rivalry games.
LikeLike
Do official announcements count as talk and merely make it seem likely?
“With the change in dates of the future matchups with Tennessee, Nebraska announced on Monday it has agreed to a home-and-home series in 2016 and 2017 with the University of Oregon.”
LikeLike
I’ve seen comments that seem like resignation by SEC ADs regarding the 9 game schedule. ESPN has probably told them they need 9.
LikeLike
Mizzou’s AD spoke directly about it, said it was a real possibility and they’re waiting on adding any more non-conference games until the issue is settled, and that it should be settled this winter.
LikeLike
Follow-up from the NC News-Observer reporter
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/11/3272793/through-unc-emails-a-look-back.html
Also, an interesting analysis on UNC, Duke, & NCSU’s football programs: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/11/3273571/giglio-historically-football-success.html
Bottom line: Author things there is no reason to expect these programs to be anything more than what they have been in the last 60 years–mediocre with pockets of big success, though in UNC’s case, apparently Frank Beamer took the job and then backtracked in 2000 (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/11/3272916/frank-beamer-on-taking-the-unc.html)
LikeLike
Also, an interesting analysis on UNC, Duke, & NCSU’s football programs. . . .
Bottom line: Author things there is no reason to expect these programs to be anything more than what they have been in the last 60 years–mediocre with pockets of big success.
It’s devilishly difficult for teams to over-perform (or for that matter, to under-perform) their long-term average for any significant period of time. A few have pulled it off, but most can’t.
LikeLike
I have a hard time granting Duke ‘mediocre’ status.
“Since the ACC was formed… Duke has a .395 winning percentage (252-390-16).”
LikeLike
But Tulane and Rice lead the CUSA at this point at 3-0. Only Marshall, in the East, at 2-0 doesn’t have a conference loss among the rest.
LikeLike
For those interested, the initial reports by ESPN and CBS about Missouri QB James Franklin being out for the season were incorrect. Official word came out today. He is projected to be out 3 to 5 weeks, meaning he would miss between 2 and 4 games.
LikeLike
2 games
Florida
South Carolina
4 games
Tennessee
Kentucky
remaining games
Ole Miss – should be 6-4 heading into Missouri and 8 win season hopes
Texas A&M – LSU may be only loss so 9-2 heading into Missouri game
LikeLike
wow you’re such a tool.
1) you’re assuming Franklin will miss all 4 and not just 2.
2) you’re assuming there’s a tremendous dropoff between Franklin and Mauk even though Mauk broke the national high school record for total yards and is by all accounts an excellent passer and excellent scrambler. He redshirted last year and learned the offense, which is very similar to what he ran in high school. True he likely won’t be as good as Franklin but with Franklin Mizzou has won all 6 games by 15 or more points and scored nearly 50 pts per game. Also lead the SEC in rushing. As long as Mauk is decent the offense should still score.
3) Florida just lost 17-6 to the same LSU team that lost to the Georgia team that Mizzou blew out (including beating them 13-0 in the 4th while Mauk was in there). Florida’s offense is very bad. Their starting QB is out and they just lost their starting RB for the season. Yes Mizzou might lose this game but right now Vegas thinks they won’t.
4) South Carolina doesn’t look too promising for a Missouri win but we’ll see.
5) Tennessee is bad. Mizzou beat them last year in Knoxville when Mizzou was significantly worse. Tennessee is at least as bad or worse this year and the game is in Columbia.
6) Kentucky is awful. Their Sagarin ranking is 86. Mizzou beat them by 30 pts last year.
So IF Franklin misses 4 games instead of 2 or 3, Mizzou should still be 8-2 or 9-1 at that point. But even if they’re somehow 7-3 an 8 win season is still highly probable.
I can only assume you’re trolling at this point and always have been there’s no justification for the crap you’re saying.
LikeLike
If you are going to tout Sagarin, then look at the first 6 SoS’s and the last 6.
Missouri first half only 2 conference games played
168 Murray State (FCS) 4-3, 2-1
068 Toledo (MAC) 3-3, 2-1
OPEN
047 @ Indiana (B1G) 3-3, 1-1
117 Arkansas State (Sun Belt) 3-3, 1-0
048 @ Vanderbilt 3-3, 0-3
016 @ Georgia 4-2, 3-1
168 + 68 + 47 + 117 + 48 + 16 = 464 / 6 = 77.33 average
Missouri second half half 6 conference games remain
015 Florida 4-2, 3-1 (currently #16 SoS)
017 South Carolina 5-1, 3-1(currently #20 SoS)
045 Tennessee 3-3, 0-2 (currently #30 SoS)
086 @ Kentucky 1-5, 0-3 (currently #3 SoS)
OPEN
031 @ Mississippi 3-3, 1-3 (currently #2 SoS)
010 Texas A&M 5-1, 2-1 (currently #31 SoS)
15 + 17 + 45 + 86 + 31 + 10 = 204 / 6 = 34.00 average
34.00 2nd half < 77.33 1st half
I hate using Sagarin but even you must be able to see the final 6 SoS’s average?
16 + 20 + 30 + 3 + 2 + 31 = 102 / 6 teams = 17 SoS AVERAGE!
I think you are either so blind or are trolling me to not see and acknowledge that the harder part of the Missouri schedule still has yet to be played.
LikeLike
You have to look at the margins of those games too. Missouri didn’t just win those games, they dominated.
Missouri’s Sagarin ranking is 7.
At he very least they should beat Tennessee and Kentucky handily. They are also favored vs Florida and should be favored vs Ole Miss. That’s 6 wins plus 4 gams they’re favored in. They should only be underdogs in 2 more games this year, both at home.
How you can say Mizzou won’t win 8 games when they’re sitting at 6-0 is ludicrous.
LikeLike
Florida just lost 17-6 to the same LSU team that lost to the Georgia team that Mizzou blew out (including beating them 13-0 in the 4th while Mauk was in there).
There is no transitive property in football.
LikeLike
Fair enough, but the point remains Florida has been decimated by injuries and is really struggling on offense. Worst offense in the SEC. Vegas guys are pretty smart and have Missouri as the 3 pt favorites this week.
LikeLike
Vegas has nothing to do with who will win or lose. Its how people will bet.
LikeLike
Sure, and they were very wrong about the last game. Mizzou beat the spread by 23 pts.
I’m just saying Missouri should be favored in 4 out of their final 6 games, which would mean 10 wins, so 8 isn’t exactly a stretch.
LikeLike
And the way I read that post is that that you’re still saying that Mizzou will not win 8 games this year (you’re saying Mizzou will go 0-7 or 1-6 in their next 7 games after starting 6-0 and winning every game by 15 or more pts), although you only implied it rather than saying it explicitly this time.
LikeLike
I am saying beating Georgia helps greatly in getting to 8 but you still need 2 more wins
I favor your opponent in these 2 games
Florida
South Carolina
I give the edge to your opponent in these 2 games
Texas A&M
Mississippi
I give the edge to Missouri in these 2 games
Tennessee
Kentucky
If you lose the first 4 that puts you at 6-4 and needing the last 2 to get to 8. I feel one of the 2 will upset you, which means you do not get the eight wins. If it is too hard for you to see that this possibility exists then maybe the internet is too tough for you.
LikeLike
So yeah, you’re predicting Mizzou, who started the season 6-0, won every game by 15 pts or more, ranks 3rd in the country in the composite computer rankings the BCS uses, will finish the season 1-5. Brilliant.
You’re either a troll or a total tool. I can’t decide.
LikeLike
Andy, could you please explain to me why you care so much about Duffman’s opinion of the Missouri Tigers?
You know he doesn’t get to vote in any of the polls, right?
Let other people have their opinions without resorting to grade school insults. Time will tell if Duffman is correct or not.
Try to enjoy the season rather than constantly going into histrionics based on a perceived lack of respect that Missouri is getting.
LikeLike
Why? Because I said I thought Mizzou would probably win 8 or more games this year, he laid into me and said no way they’ll win 8 games, Mizzou is a fraud, hasn’t beat anybody, will probably lose almost all of the rest of their games, and will never amount to anything in the SEC. We argued about it, he said, and I quote, “Beat Georgia and then I’ll believe it”, so then Mizzou beat Georgia, and now he’s saying Mizzou will finish the season 1-5 and that they didn’t prove anything. So when I call him a troll or a tool those aren’t schoolyard insults, he’s either one of the other or both, there’s no way around it.
LikeLike
Arch,
You’ll save yourself a lot of aggravation if you just don’t read what he writes, and certainly don’t respond to him.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m getting there…
LikeLike
Brian, we both know you read every word that I write.
LikeLike
Arch,
Brian is right on this one.
Andy is pro Missouri as a fan and that is great but he is at such an extreme that there is no tolerance for reasonable and rational discussion. Last season Andy blamed the poor performance by Missouri on their injury issues and I made the same point for Georgia this season. In a normal discussion this point would have been made and we all would have moved on. Andy instead views it as a personal affront to all things Tiger and it gets blown up to epic proportions and Andy resorts to name calling.
It would be funny except for in the very beginning of Frank’s blog on realignment I was pro Missouri and Maryland to the B1G when this was not the popular opinion. While pro Missouri in nature I am not the blind level Andy demands so I must be anti Missouri and therefore a terrible human being. Brian got even more wrath because he was not in favor of any expansion early on and Andy seemed to view his posts as a direct conspiracy to undermine Missouri at any and all times. It reached a peak awhile back and I just gave up on responding to or engaging Andy when it involved anything to do with Missouri.
He is not a terrible poster as long as the topic is not related to his team. I know lots of Indiana fans like him that are okay as long as you do not hit a point where they go to DEFCON 1 and try to nuke everything to defend a minor point. Stating the point that Missouri had an easy first half of the season and face a much tougher half now was a DEFCON 5 point that Andy has now escalated to DEFCON 1 because it involves Missouri instead of another team in FBS football. Brian is correct, and the best thing to do is ignore Andy when the discussion relates to Missouri. Now that you have made a rational comment, but not blind Missouri, Andy will probably lump you into perceived “Missouri Haters Club” of Brian, myself, and others.
Welcome to the club I suppose.
LikeLike
Andy is pro Missouri as a fan and that is great but he is at such an extreme that there is no tolerance for reasonable and rational discussion.
One of the real strengths of this forum is that most posters don’t use it for homering. Andy is the unfortunate exception.
LikeLike
duff, I innocently noted, after Missouri beat Vanderbilt by 23 pts on the road, that Missouri would probably win 8 or more games this season. You chose to engage with me with extreme views that Missouri almost certainly would finish the season 2-5 or worse, but then said “if you beat Georgia then I’ll change my mind”. Then Mizzou beat Georgia by 15 pts despite losing their QB at the start of the 4th quarter. You chose to dismissively say that that road win against a top 10 team doesn’t really matter and that they would finish 1-5 or worse for the rest of the season.
There is someone who is being extreme in this discussion and it ain’t me. I’m saing that the #14 ranked team in the country will probably go 2-4 or better. That’s not a “homer” view. That’s very conservative and modest. I tend to be very conservative when making any predictions about Missouri. I predicted a 7-5 season. I upped it to 8-4 after the Vandy game. Those are very modest predictions. And yet you called those predictions homer-ish and extreme.
You’re the one being extreme. Not me.
And you started it. And then you broke your word about what you’d say if Missouri beat Georgia. Which is pretty weasely of you. I can see why you and Brian get along so well.
LikeLike
Also, I had nothing against Brian for being against B1G expansion. I never once said a word against that.
Me and Brian’s conflicts came down to one single thing: When discussing expansion, I would bring up why Missouri was a decent candidate, and Brian would barge into the conversation and bash Missouri with the most dismissive and arrogant language possible. He was the aggressor 9 times out of 10. And yes, he did piss me off and I did get into back and forths with him, but your revisionist retelling of how it went down isn’t anywhere near the truth.
LikeLike
Also, the reason Brian stopped responding to me is because his Missouri bashing had become so total that it had lost any logic or reasonableness at all, and I thoroughly demonstrated that through perfectly modest and reasonable arguments, and he really had no rebuttal whatsoever to what I said, so he gave up.
It looks like you’re taking the same path. Fine by me. Very weasely of you, but at least you won’t make anymore obnoxious dismissive posts if ever I make modest predictions.
LikeLike
@Andy: Although we all know that Brian is as passionate an Ohio State fan as they come, very few of his posts actually mention that school. Of course, he says many things one may disagree with, but he attempts (whether succeeding or failing) to approach the issues without wearing his school on his sleeve.
I’ve lost count, but it seems like about 75% of your posts are somehow about Missouri, and about 99% of the 75% are blatant homering. This doesn’t mean you’re always wrong about Missouri, but when you only take one side, it’s hard to believe you even when you could be right. I could go out and do the research for myself, but if I’m forced to double-check you every time, it’s just not worth it.
LikeLike
While it’s true that I talk about Missouri a lot, 8 times out of 10 it’s because somebody else brought them up first.
And I don’t know how you define “homering”. I define it as distorting what you’re saying so that they’re more in favor of your home team than reality dictates.
I don’t do that.
I’m actually pretty conservative when I talk about Missouri.
Academically they’re high 60s low 70s in grad work, they have top 50ish med school and law school, undergrad is more in the 90s and not really much different from Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.
Basketball is top 30ish, on par with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Pitt, West Virginia, etc.
Football is ranked in the 50s all time thanks to the Mizzou administration abandoning football throughout the 80s and 90s. Pre 1980 and post 2000 Mizzou is top 30ish.
Mizzou is what it is. Above average but not great. I’ve never ever claimed otherwise. I just take exception to people claiming Mizzou is significantly worse than that, because it’s not true, and the facts back that up. There’s nothing homerish about that claim.
If I were saying Mizzou was a solid top 25 program all time in football and basketball and on par with middle of the road Big Ten teams academically then, by my definition at least, I would be a homer. But I don’t do that.
LikeLike
*meant to say top 50ish med school and business school. Law school was top 50 for a long time but has struggled in the last decade and is ranked in the 80s now I believe. See, I try to be accurate and correct myself even if it’s bad for Missouri. Would a homer do that?
LikeLike
Here was the post from above :
Andy,
Nice win, but the season is still only half way there. If Franklin is out and the rest of the team piles on injuries the win today was easily a loss. As depleted as Georgia is with lost linemen, 3 elite receivers, and 2 draft picks they still played a very solid game. The Tigers were fortunate not to turn the ball over once while the Bulldogs did so 4 times. Again the win was good for Missouri but they only had 375 yards and were totally shut down in the 3rd quarter. The Georgia team had 454 yards and were still scoring in the 4th quarter with a very limited roster.
I know you are all gung ho for your team and nothing wrong with that, but the season is not over until the last down is played.
As you can see, I gave you full credit for the win. Instead you chose to focus on the issues if they can continue to win with an injured QB and a tougher schedule. Not acknowledging the positive part of the post and only concentrating on the questions is a good sign of homerism. As Marc pointed out Brian goes out of his way to exclude Ohio State and on the rare occasion I homer for Indiana it is written in a joking manner or I point out I am being a homer so there is full disclosure.
Marc brought up an interesting point about fact checking that made me think as well. While my early support for Missouri was solid and direct, I do find myself tiring of checking up on your facts and it may have resulted over time in not believing what you say the first time. If I appear more critical about Missouri than I used to it could be due to your posting about Missouri. This is a good forum for discussion across the entire spectrum of FBS football and how you post may be doing more harm for your school than helping it. If this is a non homer site, when you press for Missouri, your posts stick out more.
Brian and myself butt heads on here about various issues but I never remember calling him names or him doing the same to me. When I read his posts I do not ridicule his position as much as I try to see what he is trying to say from his point of view. Sometimes I see his point of view but when I do not I at least respect what that point may be. We all get you are excited about Missouri, just keep in mind we may not be at that same level and some may feel the same way about their own teams but they mellow it out when they post here.
LikeLike
duff, I know my team beat your team by 17 pts in Bloomington this year, but that’s no reason to carry on this way.
Those things you bolded are called backhanded compliments.
“Oh, that was a nice win you had against a depleted Georgia squad. Good for you, man. Oh, you think you can finish the season with at least 2 wins out of six? Sorry, that’s just not likely at all. 1 win and five losses if you’re lucky. But then you do have to use a backup quarterback so I dunno, you may go 0-6. But really, great win. You go Andy.”
And btw, I really don’t care what Brian does or doesn’t bring up. He’s a creep either way. I’ve seen him stand up for tOSU on the rare occasion that somebody bashes them. Just so happens people bash Missouri all the time on here. And by “people” I mean mostly Brian, bullet, and Arch, and now you.
As for me, I’m not going around proclaiming Mizzou will win the SEC or anything. You could just let me make my modest prediction of 8 wins and 4 losses after starting 6-0 without getting all over my case about it.
It’s not a crime of homerism for a fan of a top 15 team to think they can win at least 2 out of their last 6 games.
LikeLike
As for this forum being respectful, I agree that a lot of people on here are.
A couple of Nebraska guys who don’t post here very often any more were noticeably worse than me.
Arch has been disrespectful at times.
bullet as well, but in a more subtle way.
But Brian took the cake. It looks like he’s tried to cool it in the last year or so but there was a long stretch there where he was much, much worse than I’ve ever been.
If you don’t like that I stand up for myself when challenged so be it. Don’t talk to me. I wouldn’t mind that one bit.
LikeLike
And for the record I don’t think I’m doing Missouri a disservice at all.
Better that people don’t like me but the truth is represented then to have a bunch of chucklehead B1G fans bash Mizzou with lies all day long.
LikeLike
Also, as far as fact checking me, Brian played that game for years. He fact checked every little thing I said. Tried to nitpick me to death. That was his favorite game. And not once did he ever come up with a single thing I said that was significantly wrong. Oh, I get the details a little bit off at times when I write from memory rather than looking up the exact details. But every single time what I’ve said has been pretty close to correct. Now, Brian can go on and on about how being pretty close to correct is somehow a terrible thing and invalidates me as a human, but that’s because he’s a sociopathic OCD weirdo. Feel free to do what Brian used to do. Go through every post I’ve made in the last month. Check for errors. I’d bet good money that like Brian you could nitpick a little hear or there but that I never said anything that wasn’t basically true give or take 10%. I know it might blow your mind but just because I’m a fan of a school that doesn’t make me a liar.
LikeLike
Aside from duffman’s continued nonsensical trolling of me, I guess my point was that ESPN is becoming a TMZ-type source when it comes to Saturday night injury reports. They rush to be first and get the story wrong as often as not. Kind of a shame.
LikeLike
And they probably won’t even bother to post a correction to their false story either.
LikeLike
@ Andy: you said: “… ESPN is becoming a TMZ-type source …”
there is no “becoming” about it. ESpin IS the TMZ of college sports and sports, in general. Anyone for All Tebow All the time?
ESpin exists to get ratings, page views, etc., which translates into getting $$ for the Mouse The Rules The World.
as such, ESpin dissembles, outright lies, makes stories out of fluff, makes their personalities the story, hypes hypes hypes, etc. etc. etc.
but, as loathsome as it is to sort of halfway defend ESpin, the “TMZ source” re: QB Franklin appears to be Bruce Feldman from CBS. As far as I can tell, he started it.
on game day Saturday, SI reported Frannklin would be out 6 weeks based on Bruce Feldman’s tweet saying “…6 wks, probably longer w a Grade 2 shoulder separation, per source.”
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/12/missouri-james-franklin-separated-shoulder/
Obviously, we just finished week 7 of the season and Mizzou has played 6 games. If Franklin is out “6 wks, probably longer” then he’s out essentially for the remainder of the season. That is what ESpin said. Now, in the meantime, all outlets are reporting Franklin out 3-5 weeks.
my rule with ESpin is to think of them as an internet message board. if they are the only ones saying something, then it’s bull***t.
LikeLike
FWIW Franklin’s replacement is a redshirt freshman named Mauk. Hasn’t thrown a college pass yet, but some very impressive numbers from high school.
“The coach said Mauk will start Saturday’s game against No. 22 Florida. The redshirt freshman hadn’t thrown a college pass prior to the Georgia game, but he came to Missouri in 2012 as a highly touted recruit. At Kenton High School in Kenton, Ohio, Mauk broke the national prep records for career passing yards (18,932), touchdown passes (219), pass completions (1,353) and total offense (22,681).”
wow.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/14/james-franklin-missouri-injury-out-3-5-weeks/#more-22348
So, the Florida-Mizzou game should be entertaining. Lamb-2-Slaughter or Birth-Of-A-Star? Somewhere in the middle, of course, but should be interesting.
LikeLike
Franklin’s injury was downgraded from a grade 2 separation to a grade 1 sprain. He may only miss 2 or 3 games. Responsible journalists chose to wait until the actual medical tests were done on Sunday. Feldman and ESPN rushed the story and got it totally wrong.
As for Mauk, I wouldn’t say he’s never thrown a college pass. He led Mizzou to outscore Georgia 13-0 in the 4th quarter last Saturday. But yes, he’s inexperienced. He redshirted last year and learned the offense.
Word is he’s very talented, but very inexperienced. We’ll probably see a mix of great plays and stupid ones.
LikeLike
I’m not sure where Brian’s population numbers for the various conferences came from, but I’m looking at Wikipedia, too — and the numbers he reports are wildly off-base. If you include all the “new ACC” states (no splits) the footprint is more like 96 million. The “new BIG” is something like 82 million. I didn’t have time to do the other conferences but the SEC numbers are way off, too — Fla,Tex and Ga alone are just shy of the total 58 million he assigns the SEC, and there are eight states still to be counted. So I would imagine that the numbers for the other conferences are equally flawed.
Obviously, when splits are considered the numbers change quite a bit; but we might as well start with the right numbers
LikeLike
Fred,
“I’m not sure where Brian’s population numbers for the various conferences came from, but I’m looking at Wikipedia, too — and the numbers he reports are wildly off-base.”
Yeah, I saw that afterwards but the discussion died out so I didn’t see the point in going back to fix it. These should look better:
ACC – 95.3M
SEC – 92.2M
B10 – 85.0M
P12 – 63.4M
B12 – 37.7M
This is one reason why the B12 should be concerned.
LikeLike
By the way, I didn’t include Notre Dame (Indiana) in the “new ACC” footprint, since the discussion is primarily about the value of football. But their association in football and full-membership in basketball+ should add something to the ACC’s national reach.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t include IN for them either. Full member or nothing.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s appeal has very little to do with the the state of Indiana. NBC didn’t give them a TV contract because of Indiana. They’re a national brand.
What’s a lot more relevant is giving full credit to a state like New York, where the ACC nominally has a presence, but with a school (Syracuse) that most residents don’t identify with.
LikeLike
The Walking Dead beat Cowboys/Redskins last night.
http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/fall-tv/the-walking-dead–beats-everything-on-tv–yes–even-football–203508897.html
LikeLike
U Conn says they’ll rebrand to the Zombies, if it’ll help…
LikeLike
Alan,
Do you watch the show? I’m a football fan, but this show is crazy good!!!!
LikeLike
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-sports/2013/10/14/monday-tailgate-poll-history-at-the-seasons-midpoint/
Interesting chart. Shows what the ACC’s problem has been. Too often they just don’t have enough teams in the top 25-this year is the first time since their 2005 expansion they have had more than 3 ranked teams at this point in the season:
Thus, we decided to take a look at the Week 8 Coaches Poll from every year dating back to 2002, and break down the ranked teams by conference.
2013: 7 SEC teams, 4 Big 12, 4 Pac-12, 4 ACC, 3 Big Ten, 1 AAC, 1 MWC, 1 MAC
2012: 7 SEC, 5 Big 12, 5 Pac-12, 3 Big East, 2 ACC, 1 Big Ten, 1 MWC, 1 Independent
2011: 6 Big Ten, 5 SEC, 4 Big 12, 4 Pac-12, 3 ACC, 1 Big East, 1 MWC, 1 C-USA
2010: 6 SEC, 5 Big 12, 4 Big Ten, 3 Pac-10, 3 ACC, 2 MWC, 1 Big East, 1 WAC
2009: 5 SEC, 4 Big 12, 3 ACC, 3 Big East, 3 Big Ten, 3 MWC, 2 Pac-10, 1 WAC, 1 C-USA
2008: 6 Big 12, 5 SEC, 3 ACC, 3 Big Ten, 3 MWC, 2 Pac-10, 1 Big East, 1 WAC, 1 MAC
2007: 7 SEC, 5 Big 12, 4 Pac-10, 3 ACC, 3 Big East, 2 Big Ten, 1 WAC
2006: 6 SEC, 4 Big 12, 4 Big Ten, 3 ACC, 3 Pac-10, 3 Big East, 1 WAC, 1 Independent
2005: 6 SEC, 5 ACC, 5 Big Ten, 4 Pac-10, 2 Big 12, 1 Big East, 1 MWC, 1 Independent
2004: 5 SEC, 5 Big Ten, 4 Big 12, 3 ACC, 3 Pac-10, 2 C-USA, 1 Big East, 1 MWC, 1 WAC
2003: 7 Big Ten, 4 Big 12, 4 SEC, 3 Pac-10, 3 Big East, 2 ACC, 1 C-USA, 1 MAC
2002: 5 SEC, 5 Pac-10, 5 Big Ten, 4 Big 12, 2 ACC, 2 Big East, 1 MWC, 1 Independent
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/10/14/football-four-monday-tailgage-coaches-poll-conferences-sec-big-ten/2978507/
Your linked fails. Mine should work.
LikeLike
Bahamas Bowl.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/14/mac-announces-bahamas-bowl/
I think this is brilliant.
My first thought was, “damn, how come my team can’t play in the Bahamas?” Then my second thought: “Aw, a way to overcome the home field advantage of all those south and southwest teams!!”
But then I see the stadium seats only 30,000 according to this report. Not near big enough for B1G teams.
But that is excellent IMO for the MAC. 30,000 might actually be too big, but any bigger and you are sure to look empty on TV. I think a lot of folks in the midwest might use the bowl game as an excuse to take a trip to the Bahamas even if it’s not “your team.” the novelty factor will be high.
LikeLike
I don’t want to be the football staffer who has to manage getting all those passports.
LikeLike
Its interesting that UNC really does have importance with the increased emphasis on football. They are one of 4 P5 teams not to be ranked in the final AP Poll in the BCS era. They haven’t won a conference title since 1980. They aren’t in good company there. Teams who have been longer without a conference title:
70s-North Carolina St., Kentucky, Kent St., Memphis, New Mexico St.
60s-Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Ohio
40s-Mississippi St.
10s-Iowa St.
Never-Vanderbilt and a few schools who didn’t have a football team when UNC last won a title or even when Duke last won a title in 1989 with Steve Spurrier as coach.
LikeLike
LOL. I am so confused. Are you saying that Duke won a FOOTBALL conference title in 1989? Wow, who would have thunk it?
LikeLike
Spurrier was the coach, warming up for Gainesville.
LikeLike
I am sorry, but the Oregon contact lenses for the cheerleaders completely freaks me out. Ugh.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/13/between-the-hashes-college-football-week-7/
Nike has gone too far.
(But I loved the Huskies trolling the Ducks by putting yellow rubber duckies in the urinals at the stadium. I want to do mini-MI football helmets next year at the ‘Shoe !! LOL)
LikeLike
I’d bet OrSU has done the rubber duck thing since the invention of rubber. 🙂
LikeLike
LOL. Probably true. ORState probably invented it and Wash stole it for the weekend.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/10/15/tuesday-tailgate-football-four-non-conference-games/2985255/
A look ahead to 5 of the best OOC games each year for the next decade. The game has to have a firm date to count, and neither traditional rivalries nor ND games count.
2014
Wisconsin vs. LSU, Aug. 30 (at Houston)
Oklahoma State vs. Florida State, Aug. 30 (at Arlington)
Clemson at Georgia, Aug. 30
Texas vs. UCLA, Sept. 13 (at Arlington)
Virginia Tech at Ohio State, Sept. 20
2015
Alabama vs. Wisconsin, Sept. 5 (at Arlington)
Auburn vs. Louisville, Sept. 5 (at Atlanta)
Stanford at Northwestern, Sept. 5
Ohio State at Virginia Tech, Sept. 7
Nebraska at Miami, Sept. 19
2016
LSU vs. Wisconsin, Sept. 3 (at Lambeau Field)
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee, Sept. 7 (at Bristol Motor Speedway)
Oregon at Nebraska, Sept. 17
Ohio State at Oklahoma, Sept. 17
Northwestern at Stanford, Sept. 24
2017
Maryland at Texas, Sept. 2
Nebraska at Oregon, Sept. 9
Georgia Tech at Ole Miss, Sept. 9
Oklahoma at Ohio State, Sept. 16
Texas at USC, Sept. 16
2018
Arkansas at Michigan, Sept. 1
Texas A&M at Oregon, Sept. 15
LSU at Oklahoma, Sept. 15
USC at Texas, Sept. 15
Boise State at Oklahoma State, Sept. 15
2019
Boise State at Florida State, Sept. 7
Oregon at Texas A&M, Sept. 14
Virginia Tech at Wisconsin, Sept. 14
Oklahoma at LSU, Sept. 21
TCU at Ohio State, Sept. 21
2020
Florida State at Boise State, Sept. 12
Ohio State at Oregon, Sept. 12
Wisconsin at Virginia Tech, Sept. 12
Cincinnati at Nebraska, Sept. 12
Virginia Tech at Michigan, Sept. 19
2021
Texas at Arkansas, Sept. 11
Michigan at Virginia Tech, Sept. 11
Oregon at Ohio State, Sept. 11
Nebraska at Oklahoma, Sept. 18
Oklahoma State at Boise State, Sept. 18
2022
Oklahoma at Nebraska, Sept. 17
Ohio State at Texas, Sept. 17
Penn State at Virginia Tech, Sept. 17
Michigan State at Boise State, Sept. 17
West Virginia at Virginia Tech, Sept. 24
2023
West Virginia at Penn State, Sept. 2
Texas at Ohio State, Sept. 16
Boise State at Michigan State, Sept. 16
Virginia Tech at Penn State, Sept. 16
Northern Illinois at Nebraska, Sept. 16
32 games for the B10 out of 50 total. Part of that is due to scheduling strategy, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Brian, went back and highlighted the brand type teams in BOLD
For secondary SEC – as they seem to rotate – they were put in italic
Did not see Notre Dame listed in any year but seems they should be somewhere
Non ACC / B1G / B12 / PAC / SEC schools denoted by ****school****
SEC appear in flux and may be due to 9 game schedule issues
12 schools with most brand value ? (roughly 10% of FBS)
(1) ACC : Florida State
(4) B1G : Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State
(2) B 12 : Oklahoma and Texas
(1) I ND : Notre Dame
(1) PAC : Southern Cal
(3) SEC : Alabama + 2 of 6 (AU, LSU, UGA, TAMU, UF, and UT)
2014
Wisconsin vs LSU, Aug. 30 (Houston)
Oklahoma State vs Florida State, Aug. 30 (Arlington)
Clemson @ Georgia, Aug. 30
Texas vs UCLA, Sept. 13 (Arlington)
Virginia Tech @ Ohio State, Sept. 20
2015
Alabama vs Wisconsin, Sept. 5 (Arlington)
Auburn vs Louisville, Sept. 5 (Atlanta)
Stanford @ Northwestern, Sept. 5
Ohio State @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 7
Nebraska @ Miami, Sept. 19
2016
LSU vs Wisconsin, Sept. 3 (Lambeau Field)
Virginia Tech vs Tennessee, Sept. 7 (Bristol Motor Speedway)
Oregon @ Nebraska, Sept. 17
Ohio State @ Oklahoma, Sept. 17
Northwestern @ Stanford, Sept. 24
2017
Maryland @ Texas, Sept. 2
Nebraska @ Oregon, Sept. 9
Georgia Tech @ Ole Miss, Sept. 9
Oklahoma @ Ohio State, Sept. 16
Texas @ USC, Sept. 16
2018
Arkansas @ Michigan, Sept. 1
Texas A&M @ Oregon, Sept. 15
LSU @ Oklahoma, Sept. 15
USC @ Texas, Sept. 15
****Boise State**** @ Oklahoma State, Sept. 15
2019
****Boise State**** @ Florida State, Sept. 7
Oregon @ Texas A&M, Sept. 14
Virginia Tech @ Wisconsin, Sept. 14
Oklahoma @ LSU, Sept. 21
TCU @ Ohio State, Sept. 21
2020
Florida State @ Boise State, Sept. 12
Ohio State @ Oregon, Sept. 12
Wisconsin @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 12
****Cincinnati**** @ Nebraska, Sept. 12
Virginia Tech @ Michigan, Sept. 19
2021
Texas @ Arkansas, Sept. 11
Michigan @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 11
Oregon @ Ohio State, Sept. 11
Nebraska @ Oklahoma, Sept. 18
Oklahoma State @ ****Boise State****, Sept. 18
2022
Oklahoma @ Nebraska, Sept. 17
Ohio State @ Texas, Sept. 17
Penn State @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 17
Michigan State @ ****Boise State****, Sept. 17
West Virginia @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 24
2023
West Virginia @ Penn State, Sept. 2
Texas @ Ohio State, Sept. 16
****Boise State**** @ Michigan State, Sept. 16
Virginia Tech @ Penn State, Sept. 16
****Northern Illinois**** @ Nebraska, Sept. 16
LikeLike
duffman,
“Did not see Notre Dame listed in any year but seems they should be somewhere”
The guy explicitly left out all ND games because they only play OOC games. I noted that in my comment.
“SEC appear in flux and may be due to 9 game schedule issues”
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned schedule strategy as a factor. Not everyone is looking to lock in games for specific dates 10 years from now. That’s why Boise starts showing up in the later years.
LikeLike
See this is where Notre Dame is a hybrid. With contractual games that the Big East never got they are not IND like they were before. Sure they have greater scheduling flexibility than most but in a practical sense the non ACC games should be viewed along the line of OOC games. I have even considered putting them in the ACC when posting just because they are no longer actually IND.
LikeLike
I completely disagree. If anything, it’s their locked rivalries that would be more equivalent to conference games. Since ND can’t ever win the ACC, they clearly aren’t an ACC member.
LikeLike
Completely omitting ND certainly seems silly. Texas and ND aren’t in the same conference, and they don’t play regularly. So why would you include Texas vs. Ohio State, and not Texas vs. Notre Dame? That makes no sense at all.
For the rest of ND’s games, it depends on what question you’re trying to answer. In a way, ND’s series with USC is no different than their series with Michigan: it can be ended by either side whenever the contract allows them to do so. But I can certainly see the argument for omitting games that have been played annually since Forever, and that (as far as we know) are expected to continue indefinitely.
I consider ND’s ACC games to be “non-conference” games. It’s not only in the literal sense that ND cannot win that conference. Some people seem to forget that ND was already playing roughly 3 ACC games a year. Bumping that up to 5 wasn’t such a dramatic shift (although some Michigan fans feel differently).
If you’re trying to point out schools who schedule aggressively, then perhaps you’d omit ND’s ACC games, because those games are no longer voluntary one-offs; instead, they’re assigned by the ACC office. If you’re trying to point out compelling non-conference match-ups, excluding rivalries contested annually, then you’d include them.
LikeLike
If you’re trying to point out schools who schedule aggressively, then perhaps you’d omit ND’s ACC games, because those games are no longer voluntary one-offs; instead, they’re assigned by the ACC office.
Reasonable point
The biggest issue is the Irish are half in / half out (5 games is roughly half of the 8 or 9 games the power conferences play) and they may view themselves with full independence but in practical terms they are not. When I put up the Sagarin comparison numbers every week I have often considered just adding Notre Dame to the ACC group and dropping all the non Big 5 schools from the weekly post. Louisville and Rutgers will self correct next season so it seems a pain in the ass to follow all the non Big 5’s next season just to follow the Irish.
Maybe I am just vocalizing what everybody expects, but next season my guess is any non Big 5 school that goes undefeated will not get an invite to the playoffs. This means an undefeated MAC, MWC, CUSA, or IND will be SOL going forward. BYU may fall out in the future and at some point Notre Dame being the only IND with a playoff shot will be the exception that will over time exert more pressure to join full time somewhere.
LikeLike
Maybe I am just vocalizing what everybody expects, but next season my guess is any non Big 5 school that goes undefeated will not get an invite to the playoffs.
Well, even in the current system it’s fairly uncommon that a mid-major is ranked in the top four by season’s end. Are you saying there’s a conspiracy to exclude them, or are you just pointing out the obvious: that, even when undefeated, those teams usually aren’t good enough?
…at some point Notre Dame being the only IND with a playoff shot will be the exception that will over time exert more pressure to join full time somewhere.
In college athletics, most changes are first talked about for many years before they actually happen. Who are the university presidents, commissioners, and ADs talking about forcing ND into a conference? I don’t see any groundswell for that, except mainly among fans who have no say.
Four of the five power leagues have games scheduled with ND well into the future (all but the SEC). The leagues want those games, because they provide great exposure, since ND vs. anybody is practically always nationally televised. Even Purdue was able to get the ABC/ESPN #1 broadcast crew (Musburger/Herbstreit), solely because they were playing Notre Dame.
If you force ND into a league, they probably join the ACC. In fact, I believe that if they join any league full-time between now and the mid-2020s, they are contractually bound to join the ACC.
Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC wants the ACC to get stronger, because there are teams in the ACC that the other leagues covet. The Pac-12 doesn’t want to force ND into a league, because it’s highly unlikely that the USC and Stanford games would continue as annual affairs. In fact, if ND joins the ACC full-time, I suspect they’d drop every annual game except Navy.
The Big XII doesn’t want to force ND into a league, because Texas and Oklahoma want to keep scheduling the Irish. Besides that, if the ACC gets stronger, then which league becomes the weakest P5 conference? That’s right, the Big XII. (You may argue that the Big XII is weakest even now, but at least it’s arguable. Adding ND full-time to the ACC ends the argument.)
So exactly where would the votes come from, to force ND into a conference?
LikeLike
Well, even in the current system it’s fairly uncommon that a mid-major is ranked in the top four by season’s end. Are you saying there’s a conspiracy to exclude them, or are you just pointing out the obvious: that, even when undefeated, those teams usually aren’t good enough?
Not so much conspiracy just limited value. Advertisers are like Wall Street in that they love the predictable because the income streams are stable. Selling Alabama vs Ohio State is a whole lot easier than selling Fresno State vs Northern Illinois. The other issue is the probability of real blowouts when the matchup involves a Big 5 school and a non Big 5 school. Last year we had Alabama 42 and Notre Date 14 but imagine if it had been Alabama 82 and Northern Illinois 7 (if the Huskies had not lost their opening game to Iowa 17-18) instead. It is not if it can actually happen but if the advertisers fear it can actually happen. Boise State has flirted with the top but has never shown it can sustain a top.
TCU was gangbusters in their old conference but now they are struggling in their new home and they could have looked much worse in score differential when Alan’s Tigers rolled into Dallas earlier this season. Look at TCU over the past few years :
2008 MWC 11-2
2009 MWC 12-1
2010 MWC 13-0
2011 MWC 11-2
2012 Big12 7-6
2013 Big12 3-3
Now imagine if your were an advertising guy betting their job on the viewers of a MNC game. Maybe you are the guy that goes high risk for possible reward but most will go low risk for predictable reward.
.
…
.
In college athletics, most changes are first talked about for many years before they actually happen. Who are the university presidents, commissioners, and ADs talking about forcing ND into a conference? I don’t see any groundswell for that, except mainly among fans who have no say.
I agree with this statement and I am looking at 2025 type period as the next move. Not saying right now about Notre Dame but in 2 – 5 years it would not surprise me in the least to begin to hear rumblings that begin the discussion to no longer have Notre Dame as the only IND in the Big 64.
.
…
.
Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC wants the ACC to get stronger, because there are teams in the ACC that the other leagues covet. The Pac-12 doesn’t want to force ND into a league, because it’s highly unlikely that the USC and Stanford games would continue as annual affairs. In fact, if ND joins the ACC full-time, I suspect they’d drop every annual game except Navy.
I was thinking that early on but now am thinking there is a divergent path between the B1G and SEC and it has everything to do with the media partners. With the B1G tied to FOX, every ACC defection is a pickup for FOX but a loss by ESPN. With the SEC and ESPN now tied together every ACC defection moves a team from the ACC to the SEC. How does that make economic sense for ESPN? If ESPN uses the SEC to firewall the ACC then they can protect 2 franchises and keep FOX out of both. I saw an interview with Skipper (ESPN head and UNC grad) and Slive (SEC head and UVA grad) I should have bookmarked. Both seemed very relaxed and comfortable with each other.
You already have the following ACC and SEC non conference games
+ Florida State vs Florida – in state rival (57 game history)
+ Miami vs Florida – in state rival (54 game history)
+ Clemson vs South Carolina – in state rival (110 game history)
+ Clemson vs Auburn – historic rival (49 game history)
+ Clemson vs Georgia – historic rival (62 game history)
– Duke vs South Carolina – (44 game history, last game 1991)
– Wake Forest vs South Carolina – (56 game history, last game 1987)
+ Georgia Tech vs Georgia – in state rival (107 game history)
+ Georgia Tech vs Auburn – border state rival (92 game history)
– Georgia Tech vs Alabama – dormant rival (52 game history, last game 1984)
– Georgia Tech vs Tennessee – dormant rival (43 game history, last game 1987)
+ Louisville vs Kentucky – in state rival (25 game history beginning in 1990’s)
+ N Carolina vs S Carolina – border state rival (55 game history)
? N Carolina vs Tennessee – border state (32 game history)
+ NC State vs South Carolina – border state (57 game history)
? Virginia has history with Vanderbilt and South Carolina
? Virginia Tech has history with Kentucky and South Carolina
The ACC schedules the SEC in so many cross conference games no other 2 conferences can come close to how intertwined they are with each other. If the SEC stays strong it can continue to cross schedule top draw games without having to feed more members. While the new SEC network may get 1.00 carriage in SEC states they may get .50 cents in ACC states, and .10 cents in all the other states. In looking at all the ACC and SEC schools they have all played each other to some extent.
Remove Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Missouri…
Remove Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College…
Clemson played ALL SEC schools
Georgia Tech played ALL SEC schools
Miami played ALL SEC schools – this surprised me!
Florida State played 10 of 11 SEC schools (no Vanderbilt)
North Carolina played 10 of 11 SEC schools (no MS)
Virginia Tech played 10 of 11 SEC schools (no MS State)
Duke played 9 of 11 SEC schools (no MS or MS State)
NC State played 9 of 11 SEC schools (no LSU or MS)
Wake Forest played 9 of 11 SEC schools (no AL or UK)
Notre Dame played 8 of 11 SEC schools (no Auburn, UK, or MS State)
Louisville played 7 of 11 SEC schools (no GA, LSU, SC, or MS)
Virginia played 7 of 11 SEC schools (no AL, LSU, MS, or MS Sate)
.
In short I can see ESPN having the ACC and SEC stay at 8 conference games and having 1 cross conference game become the 9th “inter conference” game to sell piggy back network carriage. Say in GA, FL, and SC ESPN charges 2.00 carriage and you get both the SEC and ACC (1.25 to SEC network and .75 goes to ACC network) as these 2 conferences seem the only ones with enough crossover to pull this off.
LikeLike
Most of the ACC and the SEC were together in the southern conference before the SEC was formed so its logical that they played.
As for your TCU comment:
Rose Bowl 2010 MWC champ TCU 21 Big 10 champ Wisconsin 19
Had a Bama player not gotten lackadaisical heading into the end zone and let an Auburn player strip him from behind, TCU would have gotten a chance to test Oregon in the MNC game that year.
LikeLike
Most of the ACC and the SEC were together in the southern conference before the SEC was formed so its logical that they played.
I get that point, but what I was looking at was how they still play each other even today. We all think of the core rival games between in state cross conference teams in FL, GA, SC, and KY but looking at say North Carolina games played you get about 175 games – and the Tar Heels never played Mississippi or Texas A&M – so the Tar Heels averaged about 15 games each among the remaining 12 schools. Drop Arkansas and Missouri and that number jumps closer to 20 games per school.
Contrast that with the current B1G schools playing 20 games total all time with the Tar Heels or about 2 games per school on average. Viewed another way the entire total of B1G vs UNC is roughly double the times Kentucky played North Carolina by itself. Another reason for the intertwined games is the crossing of coaches and AD’s between the ACC and the SEC. Spurrier went from Duke to Florida and Cutcliffe went from Ole Miss to Duke. It is like a recurring cycle between the 2 conferences.
LikeLike
FWIW, Michigan hasn’t wrapped up its 2017 non-conference schedule yet. The only game listed on it is the 9 September game with Cincinnati. That leaves two open slots yet to fill.
Chick-Fil-A has been looking at UM as a possible participant in their season opening football game in Atlanta. That would have the Wolverines playing an ACC or SEC team during the Labor Day weekend that year.
The other possibility is a home-and-home for the 2017 and 2022 seasons. Michigan has home-and-home with Arkansas (2018/9) and Virginia Tech (2020/1) on its future slate. Depending on how the two programs develop, Michigan-BYU in 2015 could be a high interesting game as well. We’ll see.
LikeLike
error for 2021 should be :
2021
Texas @ Arkansas, Sept. 11
Michigan @ Virginia Tech, Sept. 11
Oregon @ Ohio State, Sept. 11
Nebraska @ Oklahoma, Sept. 18
Oklahoma State @ ****Boise State****, Sept. 18
LikeLike
Saw this posted on another board. Supports what I have said that the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC have all scheduled very weakly ooc. Hopefully it is starting to change. They posted the ooc for the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC.
AVG sagarin ranking of non-conference opponents past 5 years (Record in those games in parenthesis):
BIG 12
1. Oklahoma – 79.3 (14-3)
2. Iowa State – 80.1 (12-5)
3. TCU – 87.8 (15-3)
4. Texas – 91.9 (14-3)
5. West Virginia – 94.3 (17-4)
6. Oklahoma State – 97.8 (15-2)
7. Baylor – 100.5 (15-2)
8. Kansas – 100.7 (11-6)
9. Kansas State – 105.0 (14-3)
10. Texas Tech – 129.9 (16-1)
AVERAGE – 96.7 (143-32)
BIG TEN
1. Illinois – 82.9 (12-8)
2. Penn State – 90.9 (15-5)
3. Purdue – 91.7 (9-11)
4. Iowa – 97.3 (15-5)
5. Michigan – 97.4 (18-2)
6. Minnesota – 98.3 (13-7)
7. Nebraska – 98.8 (17-3)
8. Michigan State – 99.5 (15-5)
9. Ohio State – 104.7 (18-2)
10. Wisconsin – 106.8 (17-2)
11. Indiana – 119.8 (12-8)
12. Northwestern – 123.1 (18-2)
AVERAGE – 100.9 (179-60)
SEC
1. South Carolina – 78.5 (18-0)
2. Missouri – 83.8 (17-2)
3. Texas A&M – 86.1 (15-3)
4. Florida – 89.4 (15-3)
5. Georgia – 94.4 (14-4)
6. LSU – 99.5 (19-0)
7. Arkansas – 107.7 (17-3)
8. Alabama – 109.7 (19-0)
9. Auburn – 110.5 (17-2)
10. Mississippi – 114.6 (14-4)
11. Tennessee – 115.7 (17-3)
12. Kentucky – 121.4 (14-5)
13. Mississippi State – 124.4 (17-3)
14. Vanderbilt – 125.2 (13-6)
AVERAGE – 104.4 (226-38)
LikeLike
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/university-of-virginia-assessment-report/302/
This is a few months old, but here is UVA’s Strategic Assessment. The report has surprisingly negative feedback especially starting around page 13.
LikeLike
Counter to what was stated above, clearly UVA sees Michigan as a comparable school.
LikeLike
OMG!
Trailing 2-1 in stoppage time, the US scores to enable Mexico to qualify, and deny Panama. And then scores again to win, in Panama!
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Can’t believe that (a) Panama blew yet another game at the end like that after last week’s last minute loss to Mexico and (b) Mexico managed to back into the World Cup almost solely due to the US.
LikeLike
Feel a bit bad for Panama.
Wonder if we’ll get a thank you card from across the Rio Grande?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – The official US Soccer Twitter account (@ussoccer) is openly trolling Mexico right now. It’s hilarious.
LikeLike
Perhaps they’ll buy some treasuries, allow us to pay china…
LikeLike
Mexico still has to beat New Zealand over 2 legs. You would think that El Tri would blow out a minnow like that like ‘Bama would handle NIU, but Mexico has probably performed worse in qualifying than USC has this year (and I think gone through more coaches).
LikeLike
I found this interesting….U Conn’s “peer intituitions” are Missouri, ISU, Georgia….and OSU, Purdue, Minnesota, Iowa, and Rutgers
LikeLike
There doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason to a lot of the “peer institution” lists.
Mizzou just listed every public AAU school.
Michigan seems to have listed every single AAU school, public and private.
Just seems to be whatever the institution feels like listing.
LikeLike
Actually, those lists are pretty reasonable. Michigan thinks of itself as the peer of any excellent school, public or private, so it listed all the AAU institutions.
Missouri knows it can’t claim to be the equal of Harvard without being laughed out of the room, so it has a more modest list, the public AAU schools.
I haven’t seen the full UConn list, but it looks like it’s focusing (generally) on state flagships, whether they’re in the AAU or not (Georgia is not). That’s not a crazy strategy if you’re UConn.
LikeLike
As far as I could tell, that is the full U CONN list…..
I think it’s interesting in that it may give an indication of the direction U CONN wants to go academically…..
I think the schools chosen are somewhat odd for a couple of reasons……first, U Conn presently is kind of a poor man’s Virginia……elite undergraduate, smallish (for a state flagship school), not a huge research school (in comparison to undergrad prestige), relatively small endowment (lower than any current BIG school, much lower than VA’s, which is in turn much lower than Mich”s). That profile would suggest schools such as VA, GT, and private schools such as Miami. Secondly, most of these peer lists feature schools that are higher rated in US News…..as they are kind of an indication of what the schools aspires to….yet U Conn is higher rated in US News than all except OSU…
LikeLike
Elite undergrad?
LikeLike
Maybe for you, Richard, it’s not elite….but going strictly form memory, I think U Conn had something like 30000 applications recently and accepted 44%….and it’s rated 57 in US News….given that there are thousands of colleges from which us heathens may choose, I would suggest that is elite.
LikeLike
Michigan seems to have listed every single AAU school, public and private.
It is an excellent academic school so I can see them listing private schools as well as public ones. If they want to associate with Harvard and the like they have the chops to do so.
I think it’s interesting in that it may give an indication of the direction U CONN wants to go academically…..
I tend to agree. If you aim higher in the process your are by default aiming higher when you get to the finish line.
LikeLike
Look, I’m just saying, if UConn is elite, then what are PSU, Illinois, & Wisconsin? Super-elite? And Michigan, UVa, UNC, UCLA, and Cal are super-super-elite? (Harvard & Stanford must be super-super-duper-elite).
The whole B10 must be elite then, except the B10 schools are very strong in research, which UConn is not.
LikeLike
Academically, UConn is probably closer to UMass and Delaware than it is to UVa.
LikeLike
Haven’t seen any comment on here yet about US News’ 2014 undergrad rankings…….
Not easy to compare 2013 to 2014….seems like US News doesm’t want to promote past ratings……to avoid confusion? Or to limit criticism? Not sure why, but I could only find partial reports from past years.
For 2013, the rankings were tweeked in a way that favored smaller, private schools at the expense of the state flagships….for 2014, the reverse happened……due to pushback?? Who knows, but flagships as a hole fared better in ’14.
Here’s the Big’s ‘4 v. ’13 rankings (’14 first):
NW……12 v. ?
MICH 28 v. 29
PSU 37 v. 46?
ILL 41 v. 46
WIS 41 v. 41
OSU 52 v. 56
MD 62 v. 58
PUR 68 v. 65
RUT 69 v. 68
MN 69 v. 68
MSU 73 v. 71
IOWA 73 v. 72
IU 75 v. 83
NEB 101 v. 101
Some observations: Over the years I’ve watched these, UM, Rut, and MN have trended down a little. Of trad. BIG schools, Wis has lost the most spots over the last 9-10 years. Not sure why. For some reason Maryland has lost a full 10 spots over the last 4-5 years.
PSU and OSU have been the biggest gainers. OSU became for selective in admissions a whoile back… Purdue had been gaining some until the last year or two….
MSU, Iowa, IU, NW, and ILL have been up and down, but are pretty much back where they used to be…..I’ve read a lot over the last few years about ILL’s financial issues and dispute swith the state….so far, those issues aren’t reflected in the rankings.
For ’14, U Conn is at 57, Kan at 101, OK at 101, MO at 97.
LikeLike
NFL explores a New Slate of Thursday Night Games: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303376904579138091683799998
My favorite quote:
“The NFL is disappointed its own cable channel, NFL Network, hasn’t attracted more viewers for the 13 Thursday night games it airs each season, the person said. The league believes that adding a second game to create double-headers on some Thursdays could create more national interest.”
Because the way to increase fan interest in crappy Thursday night NFL games is to double the number of crappy Thursday night NFL games.
Crap + Crap = MOAR KRAP!
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, that was a strange argument from the NFL. To be sure, those crappy games still consistently receive the 2nd highest Age 18-49 rating that advertisers pay for on Thursday, which is the most competitive and expensive advertising night on television (due to movie studios, car companies and retailers buying up spots to spur weekend business). Only The Big Bang Theory scores higher on that evening and that’s the top rated 18-49 show on all of television with the exception of… NFL Sunday Night Football. Even the crappiest games from the NFL still destroy about 99% of everything else on television in terms of viewership.
So, I see the value proposition that the NFL is seeking there. I don’t like it as a fan (I’d much rather have a Monday Night Football doubleheader or a late night Sunday game if the NFL is seeking more timeslots – that spur of the moment late night West Coast game in Oakland a couple of weeks ago due to MLB playoff stadium conflicts was great), but Thursday is where a disproportionate amount of the advertising money lies. That’s why all of the over-the-air networks put so many of their best shows on that evening specifically despite such heavy competition.
LikeLike
Also note that those NFL Thursday Night ratings are dragged down simply by the fact that the NFL Network is in substantially fewer homes than ESPN/TBS/TNT/USA, much less the over-the-air networks. So, the fact that those games are still beating everyone on Thursday other than the #1 18-49 non-NFL program on television shows you how much of a juggernaut the NFL is compared to everything else (whether it’s sports or entertainment in general).
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank:
Oh, I know the lure of Thursday night ad money–its not an accident that NBC’s Must See TV was always Thursday nights–for precisely the reasons you state. I just think its bad football.
Also, from one lawyer to another, go read the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and tell me why the NFL cannot broadcast via Google/Netflix games on Friday nights. The Act states in part:
“The first sentence of section 1291 of this title shall not apply to any joint agreement described in such section which permits the telecasting of all or a substantial part of any professional football game on any Friday after six o’clock postmeridian or on any Saturday during the period beginning on the second Friday in September and ending on the second Saturday in December from any telecasting station located within seventy-five miles of the game site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest scheduled to be played on such a date.”
As I read that, an argument can be made that if games on Google/Netflix are not telecast from a telecasting station, this restriction (15 USC 1293) does not apply, potentially allowing these games on Friday nights and Saturdays.
For those unfamiliar, a quick primer:
Joint agreements among teams to pool TV rights is technically an anti-trust violation, as it is an artificial restraint on each team’s right to negotiate its own TV deal. To get around that, the NFL lobbied congress to pass the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 by promising an expansion franchise in New Orleans). The Act, though, made rural and suburban legislators in states with big time college and high school football nervous, hence the prohibition against pooling rights for professional football games on Friday nights and Saturdays.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Interesting. I thought it was just a tacit live and let live agreement. Prior to the last couple of years they had ceded TH to the colleges.
LikeLike
Just to update my post, ignore the part about promising New Orleans a franchise. That came in 1966, when the NFL needed Congress to approve the NFL-AFL merger, and Speaker of the House Hale Boggs (D-LA) agreed so long as the NFL put a team in New Orleans. Rozelle agreed and, hence, the merger and the Saints.
LikeLike
wainscot – slight correction. Hale Boggs was majority whip at the time. In 1971, He was elected majority leader and killed in a plane crash later that year, while campaigning for a colleague who was running for governor in Alaska. If he had lived, Boggs was in line to be Speaker after Carl Albert’s retirement in 1977, instead of Tip O’Neal. Hale Boggs’ daughter is ABC journalist/pundit Cokie Roberts.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Yes, the NFL argument would be that Google/Netflix aren’t telecasts. It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule on that matter since the concept of broadcasting has changed quite a bit since 1961.
Another way to get around those restrictions is the presence of international teams (i.e. Toronto, London, etc.). The argument there would be that the US law would not be applicable and, even if it did, those teams would presumably be outside of the 75-mile restriction.
LikeLike
Strike my last statement – the 75-mile rule applies to any “telecasting station”. In that case, I wonder if this could even be challenged by a cable network (much less an Internet-based entity). The language of the law is intended for over-the-air broadcast stations that are physically located in and transmitted from local markets. ESPN and other cable channels, though, aren’t structured that way. Maybe cable networks have already tested whether they are considered to be “telecasting stations” under the law, but I’m not sure.
LikeLike
I am sure the FCC regulations would not permit the cable tv providers to do that. Same with satellite broadcasters. Likely because the end result is a game being viewed on a television set.
Also, NFL rules require all cable telecasts to be broadcast over the air in primary markets. The NFL cannot end that practice without angering rural state congressmen and senators, especially when home markets are already thought to be too small.
LikeLike
Just what we need…more prime-time games for the overrated NFC Least (tops in fan bases, the bottom in performance).
LikeLike
Chances are very good that the NFL will not try to risk their anti-trust exemption by broadcasting on Friday or Saturday. Plus, what would they gain, really? Friday night is a worse night for TV than Thursday. Saturday has a ton of college games to compete against.
LikeLike
Oh, I think the NFL on Friday night would do gangbusters. It would kill all comers.
LikeLike
As for Saturday, you are correct. The NFL actually used to have Saturday afternoon games in December, but ended them, because as one insider stated, the games were “a ratings wasteland.” –And that’s without competition from CFB. NFL on Saturday night would likely beat CFB in the ratings, but the cannibalism might not be worth it.
Better question- Why no NFL telecast on Friday after Thanksgiving? The SBA would permit it, so long as the game ends before 6pm. A 12:30pm game, even with OT, would end by then.
LikeLike
They created a market on Monday night. Not sure the same thing happens on Friday. 100% of nothing is still nothing.
LikeLike
Friday is a poor night for TV. The NFL would kill everything, but while Friday night isn’t nothing, it’s very bad for TV. There’s a reason why ESPN puts hardly any good CFB games on Friday night.
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, this is true. There really isn’t a large financial incentive to show games on Friday or Saturday for the NFL, anyway. Frankly, if maximizing dollars is the name of the game, then the NFL would create a separate Wednesday night package. This would work if the NFL made sure that teams playing in those games would have a bye week prior to it. (Or they can just freely ignore injuries and poor quality of play as they do now with the Thursday night games.) The dollars are ultimately made in prime time on weeknights, so a doubleheader on Thursday provides diminishing returns since the 1st game would presumably start earlier than prime time in the Eastern and Central Time Zones while the 2nd game would end well after prime time in those areas, as well.
LikeLike
There’s also some risk. More games not on Sunday potentially diminishes the Sunday watching habit if your team isn’t playing nearly every Sunday.
LikeLike
The NFL denied the WSJ report, but good ol’ Double J says otherwise:
http://deadspin.com/jerry-jones-nfl-could-easily-have-doubleheader-on-thu-1447740714
LikeLike
Big Ten announces its 2018 and 2019 conference football schedules…
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101613aad.html
Maryland closes at Penn State in ’18, at Michigan State in ’19; Rutgers on the road the other way around.
LikeLike
@vp19 – The biggest change is that the Big Ten is now going to have sporadic conference games earlier in the season. 2018 has 1 conference game in each of weeks 1 and 3, while 2019 has 1 conference game in each of weeks 2 and 3.
LikeLike
FWIW, in the working file dated 10-15-13 that was to the Tom Dienhart article on the BIg Ten Network website regarding the conference’s future schedules (which has since been removed, but I downloaded it before they did it), it looks like Big Ten teams still have a number of non-conference commitments in 2020, with fewer in 2021. If the conference wants to start moving up more games into the first three weeks of September, we may have to wait until then.
FWIW, here’s Michigan’s future schedules from that file coupled with what the Eastern Division games would be if the rotation held beyond the published schedules (i.e., from 2020 to 2023).
A couple of things to note. That file lists specifically says “vs Florida”, whereas all the home games listed on it just has the opponent’s name with no words in front of it. That would seem to indicate the game with the Gators could be at a neutral site (Chick-FIl-A Bowl has mentioned they would like to get Michigan in the future and a game against UF would fit the opponent profile they’re seeking.)
The current 2016 Michigan schedule has Ball State on it, but this file puts that game into 2018. The UM 2016 home schedule per that file has the Wolverines playing Hawaii, Central Florida and Colorado before taking a bye week prior to the home conference opener with Wisconsin.
It also looks like that starting in 2018 and going at least through 2023, Michigan will have alternating years of eight and six home games. While the schedules haven’t been finalized (this is a working file), that would make sense given the timing and locations of the home-and-home series with Arkansas,Virginia Tech and UCLA coupled with the 5/4 rotation of Big Ten games.
2017 (6 Home, 6 Away, 1 Neutral)
9/2 – vs Florida (Neutral Site?)
9/9 – CINCINNATI
9/16 – AIR FORCE
9/23 – at Purdue
9/30 – Bye
10/7 – MICHIGAN STATE
10/14 – at Indiana
10/21 – at Penn State
10/28 – RUTGERS
11/4 – MINNESOTA
11/11 – at Maryland
11/18 – at Wisconsin
11/25 – OHIO STATE
2018 (8 Home, 4 Away)
9/1 – ARKANSAS
9/8 – BALL STATE
9/15 – SOUTHERN METHODIST
9/22 – NEBRASKA
9/29 – at Northwestern
10/6 – MARYLAND
10/13 – WISCONSIN
10/20 – at Michigan State
10/27 – Bye
11/3 – PENN STATE
11/10 – at Rutgers
11/17 – INDIANA
11/24 – at Ohio State
2019 (6 Home, 6 Away)
8/31 – at Arkansas
9/7 – HOME TBD
9/14 – HOME TBD
9/21 – at Wisconsin
9/28 – Bye
10/5 – IOWA
10/12 – at Illinois
10/19 – at Penn State
10/26 – RUTGERS
11/2 – at Maryland
11/9 – Bye
11/16 – MICHIGAN STATE
11/23 – at Indiana
11/30 – OHIO STATE
2020 (8 Home, 4 Away)
9/5 – HOME TBD
9/12 – HOME TBD
9/19 – VIRGINIA TECH
Home Eastern Division Games: PENN STATE, MARYLAND, INDIANA
Road Eastern Division Games: at Rutgers, at Michigan State, at Ohio State
2021 (6 Home, 6 Away)
9/4 – HOME TBD
9/11 – HOME TBD
9/18 – at Virginia Tech
Home Eastern Division Games: RUTGERS, MICHIGAN STATE, OHIO STATE
Road Eastern Division Games: at Penn State, at Maryland, at Indiana
2022 (8 Home, 4 Away)
9/3 – HOME TBD
9/10 – UCLA
9/17 – HOME TBD
Home Eastern Division Games: PENN STATE, MARYLAND, INDIANA
Road Eastern Division Games: at Rutgers, at Michigan State, at Ohio State
2023 (6 Home, 6 Road)
9/2 – at UCLA
9/9 – HOME TBD
9/16 – HOME TBD
Home Eastern Division Games: RUTGERS, MICHIGAN STATE, OHIO STATE
Road Eastern Division Games: at Penn State, at Maryland, at Indiana
One more item. Here’s a list of teams from the Big Ten West that are on the schedule starting 2016 and those who are off of it.
2016
On: WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, at Iowa
Off: Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
2017
On: at Purdue, MINNESOTA, at Wisconsin
Off: Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
2018
On: NEBRASKA, at Northwestern, WISCONSIN
Off: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue
2019
On: at Wisconsin, IOWA, at Illinois
Off: Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
It’s interesting to note that Wisconsin will be the one opponent on the schedule each of those four years from the western division.
Wisconsin (4) – 2016 (Home), 2017 (Away), 2018 (Home), 2019 (Away)
Illinois (2) – 2016 (Home), 2019 (Away)
Iowa (2) – 2016 (Away), 2019 (Home)
Minnesota (1) – 2017 (Home)
Nebraska (1) – 2018 (Home)
Northwestern (1) – 2018 (Away)
Purdue (1) – 2017 (Away)
LikeLike
Michigan may price the 6 & 8 home game packages the same, essentially saying that the MSU and OSU home games are worth double a regular home game.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see what David Brandon does with the non-conference schedule when Michigan has six home games in 2019, 2021 and 2023. He knows the three Big Ten Eastern Division home opponents (Ohio State, Michigan State, and Rutgers) and he also knows he’ll get one B1G Western Division team in Ann Arbor (Iowa in 2019, TBD for 2021 & 2023).
To make the home schedule attractive (and to make the tickets really worth it), he’ll really have to work to bring in two relatively compelling teams that are willing to pay for play and no return date. He did schedule two Pac 12 teams (Oregon State, Colorado) for games in Ann Arbor in the 2015 and 2016 seasons, but will he be able to do that going forward? As long as Brigham Young stays independent, I can see them as a possibility (BYU is the Notre Dame “replacement” for UM in 2015 after ND cancelled the series with Michigan). After that, you’re probably looking at willing schools from the American Athletic, Mountain West and Conference USA to fill in the blanks. Recent past and future schools include Air Force, San Diego State, UNLV, SMU, Central Florida, Cincinnati and UConn (although that was a home-and-home series).
Now that Michigan men’s basketball has gotten back to where it’s nationally recognized, I could see him using the possibility of a game with them as an inducement (which is what happened with the deal for the 2017 Cincinnati football game) for a team to send its football team to Ann Arbor without a return date (if necessary).
LikeLike
cutter,
“It’s interesting to note that Wisconsin will be the one opponent on the schedule each of those four years from the western division.”
For OSU it’s NE. I’m guessing that means PSU got IA.
LikeLike
Brian-
You would be correct on Penn State and Iowa playing one another annually from 2016 to 2019.
Here’s the pairings for that time four-year time frame:
Michigan – Wisconsin
Ohio State – Nebraska
Penn State – Iowa
Michigan State – Northwestern
Rutgers – Illinois
Maryland – Minnesota
Since Indiana-Purdue is a protected cross-division rivalry, they play one another each season.
I don’t think it’d surprise anyone to note that Rutgers and Maryland will have either Michigan or Ohio State at home one season, then flip the other. The conference obviously wants to make sure those two schools make at least one trip to those two school’s locations each year. The same goes for Michigan State and Penn State IRT their alternating locations between Rutgers and Maryland. Finally, when Rutgers hosts Maryland or when Maryland hosts Rutgers, those teams then go on the road to Indiana.
If everything holds in terms of conference membership and the B1G scheduling strategy, etc. then for the 2020 to 2023 seasons, I could imagine a scenario where those pairings “flip” so that it’s perhaps Michigan-Nebraska, Ohio State-Wisconsin, Penn State-Northwestern, Michigan State-Iowa, Rutgers-Minnesota and Maryland-Illinois. If PSU emerges from sanctions as a top program again, maybe they would get Nebraska in lieu of Michigan, for example, and UM would get Northwestern.
LikeLike
cutter,
“You would be correct on Penn State and Iowa playing one another annually from 2016 to 2019.
Here’s the pairings for that time four-year time frame:
Michigan – Wisconsin
Ohio State – Nebraska
Penn State – Iowa
Michigan State – Northwestern
Rutgers – Illinois
Maryland – Minnesota
Since Indiana-Purdue is a protected cross-division rivalry, they play one another each season.”
OK, makes sense so far. I think this pattern follows Richard’s script for how the rotation will work. As I recall, he said the top teams would have 1 locked top opponent for 6 years at a time, play the other 2 3 times and play the rest once every 4 years . I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m remembering incorrectly.
18 = 6 locked + 2 * 3 top + 4 * 1.5 bottom
“The same goes for Michigan State and Penn State IRT their alternating locations between Rutgers and Maryland.”
MSU fans are thrilled. I’m sure PSU fans are, too. Are you sure you don’t want to revive the land Grant Trophy game to end the season?
“If everything holds in terms of conference membership and the B1G scheduling strategy, etc. then for the 2020 to 2023 seasons, I could imagine a scenario where those pairings “flip” so that it’s perhaps Michigan-Nebraska, Ohio State-Wisconsin, Penn State-Northwestern, Michigan State-Iowa, Rutgers-Minnesota and Maryland-Illinois. If PSU emerges from sanctions as a top program again, maybe they would get Nebraska in lieu of Michigan, for example, and UM would get Northwestern.”
As Delany described it, OSU/MI/PSU should rotate against NE/WI/IA for the first iteration of the scheduling. After 18 years, they may change it based on recent performance. Likewise, MSU/RU/UMD should rotate against NW/MN/IL.
LikeLike
Before they took the link down, Tom Dienhart’s future schedule analysis from today had an Adobe Acrobat sheet on it with more information on the future schedules.
Michigan had an opening game with Florida listed for 2017. This could possibly be a neutral site game during that Labor Day weekend (Chick-Fil-A in Atlanta?). UM also had a home-and-home with UCLA in 2022/3.
LikeLike
One day after the “Dienhart file” leaked, Michigan and UCLA both announced the home-and-home series scheduled for 2022/3. The dates in the release are the same ones listed in the file. For the Michigan announcement, go to: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/101713aad.html
LikeLike
Illinois has Northwestern, Wisconsin and Nebraska all on the same home and away schedule. That really likely to hurt their value of their season ticket packages when those are all away games.
LikeLike
@frug – Yeah, that sort of blows, although I’d say that Iowa is a bigger ticket draw than Northwestern and we get the Hawkeyes at home when NW/WI/NU are away. I do really wish Nebraska and Wisconsin were on different rotations. The real killer is that Ohio State and Michigan are the biggest draws of them all for us and they’re going to be in Champaign in the same years as NW/WI/NU (2016 and 2019, respectively).
LikeLike
I don’t understand why the Big 10 does such a poor job of this.
LikeLike
Makes sense also in this context:
Any potential B1G expansion announced in 2015-2016 (when conference TV deals are up for renewal) would probably take effect July 1, 2020.
July 1 is the date past expansions/conference moves have taken effect.
LikeLike
The selection committe:
Here are the 13 members, courtesy of reporting by ESPN and the Associated Press:
• Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
* Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long (chairman)
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
• Former Nebraska coach/athletic director Tom Osborne
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
LikeLike
The selection committee:
B1G favorable votes?
• Barry Alvarez – B1G coach
• Michael Gould – Grew up in B1G country
• Tom Jernstedt – Worked in B1G country
* Jeff Long (chairman) – Grew up in OH and worked at UM
• Oliver Luck – Grew up in B1G country
• Tom Osborne – Nebraska is now in the B1G
• Dan Radakovich – Grew up in B1G country
• Tyrone Willingham – played in B1G
PAC favorable votes?
• Michael Gould – Living in PAC media market, might vote with Rice
• Pat Haden – PAC AD
• Tom Jernstedt – Born, raised, and educated in PAC
• Condoleezza Rice – PAC educator
• Tyrone Willingham – coached in PAC
If they work in tandem I can see the B1G and PAC getting at least 2 of the 4 slots every year. The SEC looks to be in the worst spot with only Manning to vote SEC if things get heated between 2 competing schools from 2 conferences. ACC and the Big 12 may be the most at risk of not getting a team in and not having enough core votes to create a voting block. Looks like Delany should be very happy with this gang of 13.
LikeLike
It doesn’t work that way. It will come down to highly scrutinized and publicized decisions with little room for blatant bias (or the whole thing will blow up).
LikeLike
There has been no statement of how transparent this will be. For years the basketball committee worked without full transparency and if the weekly BCS poll is gone what transparency will there be? I think it has already been discussed that they will not use this season as a public “trial run” so we can all get a feel for how it will work next year. Has this stand been changed and I missed it?
The mission of the BCS was simple in just getting #1 to play #2 and we had the weekly BCS poll and shows discussing progress week by week. The word is already out that the public will not have access to how each voter voted nor will the public be privy to what information is used to cast those votes.
From the actual comments :
At the same time, the playoff press release indicated that committee members “will have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions.”
If the new committee really wanted full transparency they should do a trial run for the remaining part of this season as they would for next year but release it after the final BCS this year so as not to influence this year. In essence, do this year what they would next year and secure them so they can not be changed and then release this data say the second or third week of December 2013 for full transparency. It would show how the process worked and it would give outsiders a year to develop models for 2014 similar to all the different computer polls out there.
Any system can be gamed and Delany has a duty to game the system in the favor of the B1G. Unlike everybody else in the process the B1G has lots of eyeballs and ensuring at least 1 B1G school makes a 4 team playoff every year is just good for business. I would love to think this was all about what is best for the game but this is all about the money and who can argue that the B1G does not bring big money to the table? No matter what they say, I am willing to bet that a decade from January 2015 looking back will show a decided slant for teams that make the most money by being in the 4 team playoff. Ohio State, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Alabama bring big money out for a game and another half dozen or so schools are not far behind. Everybody talks Cinderella but it still comes down to lots of fans with fat wallets to fill the stands.
LikeLike
If the new committee really wanted full transparency they should do a trial run for the remaining part of this season as they would for next year but release it after the final BCS this year so as not to influence this year.
If the new committee wanted full transparency . . . they would be transparent when it actually counts. Running a meaningless shadow poll this year would tell you nothing. There are too many variables in a college football season to develop a “model” based on one trial run. That’s why the BCS formula was tweaked so many times during its existence.
The main problem with a trial run is that it would be acutely embarrassing if the committee recommended a different top two teams than the BCS standings did. I don’t think you get enough value out of a trial run to overcome that. And how serious would the committee be, if they were voting on selections that didn’t matter?
I do have concerns about how the committee will work, but I think they were wise to ditch the trial run idea.
What I mainly wonder about, is how conflicts will be dealt with. They’re picking 12 bowl teams. If Wisconsin is a plausible candidate for any one of those slots, how does Barry Alvarez even join the conversation? I assume he wouldn’t blatantly homer for the Badgers. But if Oklahoma State is one of the candidates for a spot, anything he says about them (unless of course it’s positive) is a back-door boost for Wisconsin’s chances.
Much of that committee has similar conflicts, perceived or actual, involving teams that are likely to be in frequent contention. (I don’t take issue with the Air Force guy; the odds that a service academy would reach a major bowl are sufficiently low not to worry about.)
LikeLike
Which in turn will lead to the eventual adoption of an 8-team playoff, with five automatic slots going to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC champions to lessen the bias given to “brand names.”
LikeLike
Which in turn will lead to the eventual adoption of an 8-team playoff, with five automatic slots going to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC champions to lessen the bias given to “brand names.”
An 8-team playoff will happen, but not because of that. I mean, even with 8 teams, the selection of the remaining three is a huge decision, as is the seeding. So you’re not really solving the problem.
What I think is more likely, is that over time the committee will become more transparent. The NCAA basketball committee, for instance, relies (partially) on RPI. There have been some criticisms of this metric, but at least everyone knows what it is.
LikeLike
Much of that committee has similar conflicts, perceived or actual, involving teams that are likely to be in frequent contention. (I don’t take issue with the Air Force guy; the odds that a service academy would reach a major bowl are sufficiently low not to worry about.)
See that is the real core issue. Nobody expects a Service Academy to reach the playoff but it would be foolish to think life experiences will not surface even if it is unintentional. The guy grew up in the B1G so his childhood memories are probably about childhood B1G power schools. He spent time in Washington as did Rice so they have a shared base to draw from. The Service Academies play Notre Dame often enough and his age puts him in the group that remember the good years for the Irish. He has been living out west which means his news will have slants to the B12 and now the PAC.
All these things will color decisions. Even if they are not intentional it would be foolish to say they do not exist. If I am a team in Georgia (Georgia and Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson and S Carolina) , or Florida (Miami, Florida, and Florida State) in the mix with Notre Dame or Stanford and everything else looks equal it would not surprise me if the vote was for the Irish or the Cardinal over the ACC or SEC school.
Which in turn will lead to the eventual adoption of an 8-team playoff, with five automatic slots going to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC champions to lessen the bias given to “brand names.”
This sadly is probably the end game. While 4 teams may be better than 2, if they go to 8 they are just doing it for the money. Nobody would argue Alan’s Tigers played one of the toughest schedules in in recent memory in 2011. We can all debate if they should have played Oklahoma Sate or Alabama till the cows come home, but to say they should have played Arkansas or Oregon again seems foolish. Here were the top 8 in the BCS that season :
1 LSU : Beat #5 Oregon in TX 40-27 : Beat #6 Arkansas 41-17
2 Alabama 11-1 : Only loss was FG game with LSU
3 Oklahoma State 11–1 : Could make argument for Oklahoma State.
4 Stanford 11–1 : Could make argument for Stanford (since not replay like Ducks)
5 Oregon 11–2 = Should not have been in playoff discussion
6 Arkansas 10–2 = Should not have been in playoff discussion
7 Boise State 11–1 = Only played 2 quality teams all season
8 Kansas State 10–2 = Should not have been in playoff discussion
Nobody should argue LSU did not deserve a spot
Nobody should argue Alabama was not in the Top 4 at the end
Nobody should argue Stanford or Oklahoma State had an argument
Since Stanford and Oklahoma State went to OT in the Fiesta Bowl you can at least argue they were evenly matched with each other and may have been interchangeable as the opponent in the game with LSU if Alabama was not in. If either were in at least it would have settled who was the winner between the B12, PAC, and SEC. The argument of Alabama replaying LSU has at least some legs based on the game being close and neither team crossing the goal line with football in hand. Having said all that…
If Arkansas wanted in, then beat LSU the first time or be close
If Oregon wanted in, then beat LSU the first time or be close
If Kansas State wanted in, then beat Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
If Boise State wanted in, then don’t schedule Toledo, Tulsa, and Fresno State
If you argue for more than 4 teams playing for the MNC that season you just devalue the fact LSU was 13-0 – including the SEC CCG – while beating the PAC winner and the Big East winner and was the only undefeated FBS team in the country heading into the bowl season. There was no need for a championship game and there was no need for a playoff based on this point. When you start saying a 2 loss team should get another shot at an undefeated team you start to sound like the “everybody gets a ribbon” or “everybody gets a second chance” crowd.
LikeLike
By your argument, Alabama shouldn’t have an argument. LSU won in Tuscaloosa. Oregon lost in an early season neutral site game dominated by LSU fans in which they outgained LSU (LSU won the turnover battle).
An 8 game playoff that year with champs included would include LSU, Oklahoma St., Oregon, Clemson, Wisconsin and almost certainly Alabama and Stanford. Boise would probably have been #8.
LikeLike
If a non-“brand name” wins one of the five BCS conference titles, they should be in, no matter what; that’s the principal advantage of an 8-team playoff. With a 4-team playoff, or an 8-team playoff without five automatic slots, the likes of Washington State, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Mississippi State and Indiana are behind the 8-ball 99 out of 100 times, even if they win their conference with a good, but not necessarily unbeaten record; they don’t have the margin for error that Southern Cal, Texas, Florida State, Alabama or Michigan do. And for those who bring up the possibility of multiple non-“brand names” winning power conference titles in the same year, well, how often has that happened?
LikeLike
By your argument, Alabama shouldn’t have an argument. LSU won in Tuscaloosa. Oregon lost in an early season neutral site game dominated by LSU fans in which they outgained LSU (LSU won the turnover battle).
I am not making the argument if it should have been Alabama, I am arguing Alabama should have been in the 4 somewhere. LSU and Alabama were close the whole game and it was decided in OT by a FG, so a rematch was within the realm of a rematch. Having LSU replay Arkansas made no sense as Arkansas had 2 losses and the game was done by halftime. So no suspense for a rematch. The same applied to Oregon, as they lost @ HOME to Southern Cal AND their game was over by halftime with LSU so a rematch was pointless. The final score may have been 27-40 (roughly 2 TD spread) but that was only from 2 late scores by the Ducks when the game was well out of hand. Take away those 14 points and the score is 13-40 and nobody is going to get big advertising demand from a rematch.
The Tigers could have played Stanford (new game) or Oklahoma State (new game) over Alabama (close rematch) and I am OK with any of those 3 games but playing the Ducks a second time with that disparity in game play and the 2 losses and I say no way. In essence Arkansas, Oregon, and Kansas State lost their place in line for a MNC run with 2 losses. This is the crux of the issue of the worse team (record) winning their conference but still getting a MNC shot. If you want to play for the MNC win the most games and play a decent schedule!
Probably the best way for that year to play out was :
LSU vs Oklahoma State (angle Les Miles coached both)
Stanford vs Alabama (angle Cardinal vs Crimson only meeting for 3rd time)
Winners play each other for MNC
.
…
.
An 8 game playoff that year with champs included would include LSU, Oklahoma St., Oregon, Clemson, Wisconsin and almost certainly Alabama and Stanford. Boise would probably have been #8.
LSU 13-0 = yes
Oklahoma State 11-1 = yes
Oregon 11-2 = no, 2 losses and lost badly to LSU
Clemson 10-3 = hell no, 3 losses in regular season
Wisconsin 11-2 = no, 2 losses
Alabama 11-1 = yes
Stanford 11-1 = yes
Boise State 11-1 = no, playing only 2 tough teams and losing 1 means NO
The fact you even included Clemson is proof in the pudding why we should NEVER go to an 8 game playoff. Clemson was good but not great so why reward a team not reaching greatness to have a shot at the MNC which is greatness? It is why I watch college football over the pros anymore because EVERY game matters on the path to the MNC. If you start watering that objective down just to play more games for the sole purpose of money then you are killing the golden goose in the long term. The reason for the CCG’s is not to create MNC’s but to create more cash for the conferences. If you want to play for the MNC then play hard every game during the season and outwork the team who does not. Clemson in 2011, SERIOUSLY!?
.
If a non-”brand name” wins one of the five BCS conference titles, they should be in, no matter what; that’s the principal advantage of an 8-team playoff. With a 4-team playoff, or an 8-team playoff without five automatic slots, the likes of Washington State, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Mississippi State and Indiana are behind the 8-ball 99 out of 100 times, even if they win their conference with a good, but not necessarily unbeaten record; they don’t have the margin for error that Southern Cal, Texas, Florida State, Alabama or Michigan do. And for those who bring up the possibility of multiple non-”brand names” winning power conference titles in the same year, well, how often has that happened?
I agree, with the stipulation that undefeated (or fewest losses) are the rule with no exceptions. If Indiana goes 12-0, then wins the B1G CCG (what heaven must be like) then yes they should get a slot in a 4 team playoff. However, if they go 12-0 playing a weak schedule (like Boise State) or if they go 12-0 and do not have to play the 13th game (like Baylor) then you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. If Indiana goes 10 – 2 and then wins the B1G CCG, then no they should not get to a playoff game. They should not get to the top for good performance but only get to the top for GREAT performance.
If the playoff possibilities were ranked, it may look like this :
Go 12-0 + schedule well + win CCG 1-0 = 13-0 or 4 team playoff gold
Go 12-0 + schedule well = 12-0 or 4 team playoff silver
Go 12-0 + poor schedule (-1 penalty) = 11-1 or 4 team playoff bronze
How many years has the BCS era existed?
How many years has the BCS MNC game existed? 1998 – 2013 = 15 years?
How many years in the BCS era did we have 4 undefeated teams?
As long as you have 1 undefeated team every season you have the guideline for all the other teams under them. The issue then becomes what happens if there are no undefeated teams (after the CCG’s) but prior to the bowls / play offs. At that point you are just placing the 1 loss teams and the same principles apply :
Go 11-1 + schedule well + win CCG 1-0 = 12-1 or 4 team playoff gold
Go 11-1 + schedule well = 11-1 or 4 team playoff silver
Go 11-1 + poor schedule (-1 penalty) = 10-2 or 4 team playoff bronze
If you have 2 losses or more during the regular season and you do not win your CCG, and you play a weak schedule you do not get into the 4 team playoff. Simple as that! Everybody wants a MNC but they want to leave a loophole for their team if they are not in it. This is human nature and easy to understand but it is still treating the A- or B+ teams like A+ teams when their play does not reflect it. I do not want my MNC based on the curve, I want my MNC to be the best of the best by playing and beating the best.
Screw the 8 team playoffs as pure advocacy for mediocrity!
LikeLike
I am waiting for the controversy when the #4 team in the polls is passed over by the committee members using the eyeball test because of key injuries in the final game that reduce the likelihood of the team doing well in the playoff.
For example, Texas A&M wins the SEC Championship Game, is ranked #3 but is passed over because of injuries to Manziel and another key player suffered in the title game.
LikeLike
Good thought. Does key injuries mean you get discounted? Or only get the benefit of a key injury contributing to a bad performance in a particular game? Does Texas get the 2009 BCS title since Case McCoy got injured early in the 1st quarter with a lead?
LikeLike
Injuries already influence. How else does an unnamed team leapfrog Cal while on a bye and one loss Cal (17-23, @ 13-0 USC) wins a mud game at Southern Miss in spite of losing star RB early?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmancave.com/big-xii-mulls-expansion-decides-to-wait/
Dude says no Big XII expansion until GOR expires unless it needs to add a CCG to avoid facing discrimination from the playoff committee.
LikeLike
Frug, these comment speaks volumes to Dude’s credibility.
“Once the Big XII is solidified by being one of the only five conferences in the new division it can survive any coming defections.”
“What I’m certain of is that in 12 years when the Big XII’s grant of rights expires it will lose at least four members and perhaps as many as five or six. If that happens then the door opens wide for several deserving schools to join the party.”
In other words, if Texas and Oklahoma left the Big XII, lets say for the PAC (with Texas Tech and Oklahoma State), and they get replaced by some combination of Boise State, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, and South Florida, the BIG XII would survive THAT? Under that scenario, I could actually see Boise remaining with, and BYU joining the Mountain West. Thus, becoming a bigger Conference than the AAC oops Big XII, and then how fast would Kansas pack their Hoop Program and head straight for the B10?
LikeLike
I was going to post something similar, but I needed to stop laughing before I could.
Thanks for adding levity to the day frug.
LikeLike
To fair, he doesn’t who he thinks will leave and the conference could survive the defection of anyone except for Texas and Oklahoma (and maybe Kansas). The problem I’m having is finding four Big XII members that other conferences would be interested without UT or OU.
LikeLike
He may envision the B12 name surviving since it’s the bigger brand while the conference is basically a merger of the B12 remnants and the best of the MWC or the AAC.
LikeLike
David Brown:
“…and then how fast would Kansas pack their Hoop Program and head straight for the B10?”
Wouldn’t they need an invite?
LikeLike
CcRider, trust me the Jayhawks with their AAU membership, location (Next to Nebraska), and Basketball Legacy would be welcomed with open arms by the B10, because they exponentially strengthen the level, coverage and value of BTN’s Winter Programming Lineup. Lets be honest, I am one of the biggest Penn State Homers on this Board, but the spread between Kansas Hoops> Penn State hoops is > than Penn State Football >Kansas Football. You might even get BTN coverage in all 50 States (and this is from someone who puts Basketball FOURTH behind Football, Hockey & Baseball). I would bet the only reason they are not in the B10 now, is because they cannot free themselves of Kansas State. But if you have a Conference that has no Oklahoma, or Texas, and of course, Missouri & Nebraska, that job becomes a whole lot easier.
LikeLike
@David Brown:
While I agree that KU is a potential option for the Big Ten, and a very good option at that, I think its a bit of a stretch to say that KU hoops would potentially lead to BTN coverage in all 50 states. Presumably, you meant in all 50 states on the basic tier cable package. I don’t see KU hoops having nearly that level of impact–if it did, the definitely would have been invited already.
I do agree though that the gap between KU hoops and PSU hoops is greater than the gap between the schools football programs. But again, if hoops mattered nearly as much as football, then KU would not have had to sweat out the potential implosion of the B12 a few years back with the threat of becoming homeless, and KU would have long ago moved to another conference.
LikeLike
It’s a stretch to say that Kansas “would be welcomed with open arms,” given that the Big Ten could have had Kansas at any time (prior to the Big XII GOR), and as far as we know, it wasn’t seriously pursued.
If the Big Ten would take them at all, obviously it would have to be with someone else, so you’d have to evaluate a pair of schools, not KU alone. I can envision scenarios where it would happen, but it’s not a slam dunk.
LikeLike
There are issues with Kansas.
First, if added they’d essentially be tied for last in the league with NEB in terms of academics….the last 3 schools added included two academic middleweights and one lightweight…..schools like UM, NW, ILL, and WIS would prefer schools like VA, UNC, GT or even U Conn. Also, KU is a relatively small school…….in terms of enrollment, somewhere between NEB and MO.
Second, the football product has already been weakened by adding MD….KU is another IU in football. This is an especially big problem because the other obvious prospect, other than MO, is U Conn, with it’s 40000 seat stadium and mediocre football history.
Unless the BIG is really desperate for those 15th and 16th teams, I’m just not feelin’ KU.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“There are issues with Kansas.
First, if added they’d essentially be tied for last in the league with NEB in terms of academics….the last 3 schools added included two academic middleweights and one lightweight…..schools like UM, NW, ILL, and WIS would prefer schools like VA, UNC, GT or even U Conn.”
Since when is UConn considered a better school than KU by the B10? KU is AAU and UConn isn’t close. They are ranked similarly by THE and ARWU, but AAU status is a clear separator.
LikeLike
Actually, the Dude is talking sense for about the first half of the piece. He’s explaining why the Big XII does not want to expand (financially), and that he doesn’t think the playoff committee will “penalize” worthy Big XII teams who don’t have to face a CCG.
He runs off the rails in the last part of it, where he’s not citing any source and just making stuff up.
LikeLike
Its when he tries to reason about these things that its clear he doesn’t understand. Based on who he’s had on his radio show, he really does have some good connections. But I don’t think he has a filter.
LikeLike
I guess it presumably comes down to how SOS is weighted, and how much a CCG increases it. Not sure we can know until it is put into action and results can be measured, which will require a number of years unless they announce a bold, rigid SOS methodology.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I guess it presumably comes down to how SOS is weighted, and how much a CCG increases it. Not sure we can know until it is put into action and results can be measured, which will require a number of years unless they announce a bold, rigid SOS methodology.”
Exactly. And they won’t have a rigid method, or else computers could do it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/10/16/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-criteria/2995953/
Unlike during the BCS era, the committee will have the “flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions” rather than relying upon polls and computer rankings, the playoff said in a statement.
To come to a consensus, the committee will use factors like a team’s win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and conference standing. Hancock also said injuries will be factored into the committee’s decision, adding that no team “ends the season with the same team it started with.”
…
The committee will meet several times in person during the year to evaluate teams in contention for the four spots in the playoff format. Four or five times each year, beginning midseason – roughly when the BCS rankings come out currently, Hancock said – the committee will release a list of its top-25 teams; it will then meet during “selection weekend” to announce the playoff pairings.
The goal of the midseason poll – one that will serve only as a primer for the final selections – is to provide “a frame of reference,” Hancock said. The top-25 list will be compiled by the committee; the playoff will not publicize any individual ballots of committee members.
Beyond deciding the four playoff teams, the committee will also determine the pairings for the three “contract bowls” – the Orange, Sugar and Rose Bowl – and the three “host bowls” – the Fiesta, Chick-Fil-A and Cotton Bowl. The national semifinals will rotate among these six bowls each year.
In the future, members will serve three-year terms. The terms for the initial 13-person group will be staggered, however, so as to form a rotating panel of members.
LikeLike
Also, the coaches are pushing for SOS to matter.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/10/15/college-football-playoff-coaches-on-selection-committee-criteria/2989567/
As the playoff prepares to formally introduce its initial committee members Wednesday, several coaches across the five power conferences say a team’s strength of schedule, the best measurement of the team’s road through the regular season, should be among the selection committee’s deciding components when selecting the four playoff-bound teams.
“I would like to see the component of strength of schedule so we can go back to seeing great teams playing each other out of conference across the country,” Texas coach Mack Brown said. “I’ve always felt like that we need to get something in place that just doesn’t have to do with a conference champion from a weaker conference or doesn’t have to do with money. It has to do with pitting the best teams at the end of the year against each other.”
To coaches, this would force would-be contending teams to schedule marquee opponents during non-conference play; in turn, this would help create a more clear picture of which teams belong in the playoff conversation – or, better yet, which teams do not.
…
Relying on the strength of a team’s schedule – its 12- or 13-game résumé, in essence – could help the committee ignore “a political agenda” or outside influences like “the media or some relative statistic,” Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio said, and “instead look at who’s playing against who.”
“I guess I would like to see them use the win-loss percentage against teams that they played, so value the opponents but also the skill level that’s on the field,” he said.
Bolstering the non-conference schedule with one marquee game against a program from another power league takes on added importance with the near-universal shift toward a nine-game conference schedule. The Pac-12 and Big 12 have already adopted the in-season format; the Big Ten and the SEC have alluded to a similar shift in the near future.
Colorado coach Mike MacIntyre advocated for a strength of schedule component “like they do in basketball” and alluded to the “fine line” that the committee could face in weighing a team with a better record against weaker opponents against a team with a weaker record against better opponents.
Having an FBS standard on conference games – having each major league play nine games, for example, and play three out-of-conference games – would give the selection committee the sort of empirical data it would need to settle on a final four teams, Stanford coach David Shaw said.
LikeLike
The overwhelming question, in my mind, is how the Committee will put a value on “good losses”.
Look at the current AP poll. All of the top five are undefeated, but they’ve all played one softie, and some have played two. Three of Ohio State’s six wins have come against non-BCS competition.
Then you have one-loss A&M and LSU, but both have lost to top-15 teams; A&M to the #1. Both A&M and LSU have a considerably stronger SOS than Ohio State. After those two, four of the next five teams in the AP poll are undefeated, and again, some of them with extremely soft schedules, e.g., Louisville with the #125 schedule.
Now, I only point this out because many of the people on the committee are the same types of people that have voted in polls in the past. There is just an overwhelming tendency to favor the undefeated team over the team with a “good” loss. That tendency can be overcome, at times, but it’s difficult.
By the way, if the playoff started tomorrow and Sagarin were deciding, the top four would be Oregon, Alabama, FSU, and LSU. In fact, according to Sagarin, Ohio State wouldn’t get picked even if it were an 8-team playoff.
(This isn’t an anti-OSU rant. My Michigan Wolverines were ranked until they lost to Penn State, but according to Sagarin, and I agree, they should have dropped out of the top 25 after they very nearly lost to Akron.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The overwhelming question, in my mind, is how the Committee will put a value on “good losses”.”
Yes, how they actually value SOS is key. I think they’ll do better than the AP and Coaches poll at doing it, but probably not quite as good as the computers.
“Look at the current AP poll. All of the top five are undefeated, but they’ve all played one softie, and some have played two. Three of Ohio State’s six wins have come against non-BCS competition.”
There is something to be said for winning all your games. Even if you have a 90% chance of winning each game, that’s only a 53% chance of being 6-0. OSU is now 18-0. Even at a 95% chance of winning each game the odds of that are less than 40%.
I will fully agree OSU’s OOC schedule was soft, but will mention two factors in mitigation. Cal was a much better program when OSU scheduled them, and Vandy bailed out last November leading to the SDSU game. So OSU intended to play one really good OOC team, a mediocre AQ team, a MAC team and a I-AA. I offer zero defense of the I-AA game, especially the choice of team.
“Then you have one-loss A&M and LSU, but both have lost to top-15 teams; A&M to the #1. Both A&M and LSU have a considerably stronger SOS than Ohio State.”
But what are the SOS’s of their wins? Playing good teams and losing doesn’t prove you are good. LSU’s top win is over #22 UF, a team with tons of injuries on offense, and they also beat #24 Auburn. TAMU hasn’t beaten anyone getting even a single vote in the AP poll. OSU has beaten #25 WI and NW is also receiving votes. OSU’s cupcakes may have been worse, but the main SOS differences are the games those two lost. Would you value OSU more if they lost to Stanford OOC instead of beating Cal?
“After those two, four of the next five teams in the AP poll are undefeated, and again, some of them with extremely soft schedules, e.g., Louisville with the #125 schedule.”
UL and Baylor have played easy schedules, but they’ve also been blowing people out. Would the Patriots not be the best CFB team whether they played in the SEC or in the AAC? The schedule doesn’t prove how good you are necessarily, it proves what you have accomplished.
“Now, I only point this out because many of the people on the committee are the same types of people that have voted in polls in the past. There is just an overwhelming tendency to favor the undefeated team over the team with a “good” loss. That tendency can be overcome, at times, but it’s difficult.”
At this point in the season, we don’t really know which losses are good ones. And like I said above, it’s really hard to stay unbeaten even against an easy schedule. If you lose your toughest game, haven’t you just shown a potential ceiling for how good you are? Wins establish a floor for how good you are.
“By the way, if the playoff started tomorrow and Sagarin were deciding, the top four would be Oregon, Alabama, FSU, and LSU. In fact, according to Sagarin, Ohio State wouldn’t get picked even if it were an 8-team playoff.”
Yes, but all computer systems are really designed to be the most accurate only at the end of the year. More data increases their accuracy. 6 games per team really isn’t enough to settle the rankings down.
LikeLike
Since we’re bringing up the West By Gawd bloggers, MHver has some interesting tweets today where he claims to have attended a workshop on the direction of college football. His summation is that the folks doing the presentation think that conferences will weigh CCG as much as OOC SOS when determining who goes to the playoff.
Take that what you will but that’s what he says.
LikeLike
He’s saying a lot of things.
Oliver Luck has a 90% chance of being offered the UT AD job, apparently. FWIW, he says Luck would be totally against UT leaving the B12.
Conference games may count more than OOC games. It’s 8/9 vs 4/3 – does he mean it’ll be more slanted than that?
A CCG gets as much weight as the entire OOC SOS? In some ways that makes sense, as most teams only play 1 good OOC game and the other 2-3 games are easy wins. That definitely would hurt the B12, though.
An important one – the B12 can expand to 12 at any time and keep the same payout per school. Fox told them this 2 years ago. Thus, if the CCG really is important to the committee, they have no good reason not to go to 12. If this is true, of course.
LikeLike
An important one – the B12 can expand to 12 at any time and keep the same payout per school. Fox told them this 2 years ago. Thus, if the CCG really is important to the committee, they have no good reason not to go to 12. If this is true, of course.
If it is true, there will be plenty of cheering in Cincinnati, Storrs, Orlando and Tampa…although two of them ultimately would be disappointed. In a post-Dodds Big 12, expansion appears more likely — especially if Luck moves from Morgantown to Austin. His vote (or at least his powers of persuasion) could leave WVU stranded on less of an island.
As for my percentages of whom might get the golden tickets of regular trips to Lubbock, Stillwater and Ames…
Cincinnati — 95%. By now a fairly proven product in football, especially with Tuberville at the helm, a solid performer in basketball, and a large if not overwhelming market that should be receptive to a move to a top-tier conference a la Louisville with the ACC (while UC’s program admittedly is currently not as strong as UL’s).
Connecticut — 55%. Hasn’t done much in football post-Edsall (to be fair, until this season Edsall hadn’t much post UConn, either), and the Calhoun sanctions still resonate. Plus, there’s a sense of resentment towards the Huskies from the college sports establishment, and I think many would like to isolate them in the American. Not great recruiting grounds, either.
Central Florida, South Florida — 25% each. The Big 12 wouldn’t mind getting a foothold in recruiting-rich Florida (a possible replacement for Texas for schools such as Iowa State), but which gets the nod? USF has a slightly better tradition thanks to its years in the Big East, but UCF is coming on strong and may be growing faster than its in-state rival. I’d give an imperceptible edge to Central.
LikeLike
If the Big XII expanded, I think it would almost certainly be Cincinnati and a Florida school. It’s not that there is any resentment towards UConn. It comes down to what it usually does, money. UConn doesn’t add enough value in football, and the XII is a football-first league.
But I think the regular-season schedule format is a huge problem for the Big XII. Add any two schools, and try to come up with acceptable divisions. Oklahoma and Texas don’t want to split up, but if they’re together the divisions are ridiculously unbalanced. Even when they had Nebraska, the South team won 11 out of the 15 championship games played. Of the four the South didn’t win, three were taken by teams no longer in the league (Nebraska and Colorado).
If you split Oklahoma and Texas, there’s a pretty good chance that the CCG will often be a Red River Rivalry re-match. And beyond that, the schools not in UT’s division would be signing up for a worse schedule, since they’d no longer have two games in the state of Texas every year.
For those reasons, I can see only two reasons for the Big XII to expand. One would be if the TV payout were much better; it can’t be merely a push. The other would be if there is a very substantial detriment to getting into the playoff. Both of those seem to me unlikely.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard:
Agree on Cincy if B12 expands. Disagree on taking one Florida school, as none easily available would do much by themselves.
I would expect Cincy and a MWC school (or BYU).
LikeLike
The unwritten “three time zone” rule might work against a Mountain West team joining. Brigham Young is a somewhat different case.
LikeLike
I was assuming that BYU would prefer to remain independent. If they’re available, then yes, I would take them over UCF or USF.
But I am not seeing a Mountain West team, even Boise, that would be preferable to one of the Florida schools, even if you’re only getting the 4th-best Florida school.
LikeLike
@vp19 and Marc Shepard:
The B12 was rumored to have approached Air Force and AF said no.
“We were approached by the Big 12, and I told them we’re not a good fit for that conference. In the Big 12, geography makes sense, the economics make sense, but recruiting makes no sense for us. I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State,” [Air Force AD Hans] Mueh said.
“That’s why I turned down the Big 12. I can’t do that to my kids, because they’ll get beat up. I’d love the extra $12 million or whatever it would be per year from the TV money. And I know how I’d spend the money. I’d build a new soccer stadium, and I’d build a new baseball facility, all in one year. But I can’t do that.”
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19073868
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20111010-why-air-force-didn-t-join-big-12-falcons-didn-t-want-to-get-beat-up.ece
Perhaps a slice of an even larger pie can make the AFA reconsider?
LikeLike
Approached is not the same as invited. There’s no question Missouri was approached by the Big 10, but they didn’t get invited.
LikeLike
Approached is not the same as invited, so that the conference can say it did not invite someone who would reject them. There would be no reason for the B12 to approach AFA if there was not serious interest in inviting them. Waste of time and a potential story to get leaked.
Plus, I do not recall reading that the Big Ten approached Mizzou, but that it was the other way around.
LikeLike
frug,
Regardless of the Dude’s standing, it brings up a couple of good points.
First, how the committee will act is an unknown right now that is very important to the decisions of several conferences. How important will SOS be? The B10 has bet on it being important, but what of it isn’t? Do they go back to weak OOC schedules? Does anyone consider dropping back to 8 conference games from 9? Does the B10 never actually implement 9 games? Does it force the SEC to go to 9 games sooner than they had planned?
On a related note, how will they define SOS? Will all games count equally (simple average)? Will they weight certain games more highly? Some people weight the middle more since those games are more typical of the schedule, some weight the best and worst games more figuring everyone plays those middle level games and some people weight only the top end more. Will OOC games count more or less than conference games? How will they factor in location (true neutral vs pseudo-home/pseudo-away vs home/away)? How much will playing a I-AA hurt you? What about the timing of bye weeks? Does when you lose matter?
Current championship methods:
B12 – 9 games, no CCG
ACC, B10, SEC – 8 games + CCG
P12 – 9 games + CCG
Future B10 (and probably SEC) – 9 games + CCG
Will the P12 champ benefit from playing 10 P12 games plus at least 1 AQ OOC game? Will the B10 and SEC also benefit in the future? If so, do the ACC and B12 feel forced to change their systems? Will the top teams feel forced to drop I-AAs?
The other issue is that B12 expansion has to be financially driven, and few options present themselves to bolster that league. Without a network, they can’t chase markets. They need brands and large fan bases. To me, their best hopes might be BYU and Boise for FB only. BYU has a national brand and fan base (ND lite) and is a credible FB program. Likewise, Boise has a brand that could provide some valuable games for their TV deals. Add in the money from a CCG and it might work, especially if the CCG helps them get more playoff teams. I’m sure they’ve looked at the numbers, so they may be waiting to see if a CCG is important enough to the committee to justify expansion.
Besides that, I think he’s right that not much is likely to happen until the GOR expires.
LikeLike
I’ve heard the TV people are pushing the 9 conference games more than anyone. They want better inventory. If you look at ratings you will see why. Good matchups draw dramatically better.
LikeLike
I’m sure they are. But if the committee allies with them in pushing it, it’s more likely to happen quickly. If the committee doesn’t really support it, people might try to hold out on the basis that winning more games will make them more valuable, too.
LikeLike
Kudos to whomever said they thought the Big Ten would go with semi-locked rivals with teams having 4 straight years with one opponent before switching up. I thought the idea was insane given it seemed to go against the idea of avoiding locked crossovers to begin with (and still do think that way). Apparently, I was wrong. Very good job at reading the evidence.
LikeLike
6 straight years, actually, and that was me.
Thanks.
What’s more, the next 6 years after that will likely still be parity-based:
OSU-Wisconsin
Michigan-UNL
PSU-Northwestern
MSU-Iowa
RU-Minny
UMD-Illinois
LikeLike
Richard,
“What’s more, the next 6 years after that will likely still be parity-based:
OSU-Wisconsin
Michigan-UNL
PSU-Northwestern
MSU-Iowa
RU-Minny
UMD-Illinois”
This remains to be seen. Delany’s initial comments implied that the tiers of OSU/MI/PSU vs NE/WI/IA and MSU/RU/UMD vs NW/MN/IL would last for 18 years. I don’t know when they plan to reevaluate the tiers, but every 18 years wouldn’t surprise me. That gets a full schedule rotation and gives them enough data to justify promoting/relegating teams. Your plan would mean they do that every 6 years, which could be problematic.
LikeLike
Actually, it would be every 12 years with 3 tiers (1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, etc, then 1 vs. 2, 3 vs 4, & 5 vs. 6). Or they could be going with a full 36-year rotation, but frontloaded with top match-ups, due to the belief that the B10 will not stay at 14 for 36 years.
That would not surprise me at all.
LikeLike
I’m just going by what he said. He mentioned 18 years, and named the top tier as OSU/MI/PSU vs NE/WI/IA. That implies a lower tier of 6, plus IN and PU as special cases.
Locked opponent:
Years 1-6: 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc
Years 7-12: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, etc
Years 13-18: 1 vs 3, 2 vs 1, etc
Other members of the same tier alternate on your schedule.
The rest rotate through equally.
3 crossovers = 1 locked + 1 same tier + 1 other
LikeLike
I wouldn’t mind that as a Northwestern fan. Much easier schedule . Much easier for the other low-tier schools as well, but I doubt it’s enough to let MSU, RU, or UMD to catch OSU (and jump over Michigan and PSU) in the East. I doubt Minny and Illinois would take advantage in the west.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I wouldn’t mind that as a Northwestern fan. Much easier schedule . Much easier for the other low-tier schools as well,”
Which was always my issue with the parity-based scheduling. Teams should get equal schedules over time and move up or down on their own merits.
“but I doubt it’s enough to let MSU, RU, or UMD to catch OSU (and jump over Michigan and PSU) in the East. I doubt Minny and Illinois would take advantage in the west.”
This desire to chase money punishes the top teams and helps the lower teams. This is especially true for a pair of schools like IA and NW, for example. The difference in schedule could really impact the future success of those 2 programs.
LikeLike
“The difference in schedule could really impact the future success of those 2 programs.”
The first 6 years, NU gets MSU while Iowa gets a PSU squad that will still be weakened by sanctions at least part of that time.
Virtually no difference.
After that (assuming the B10 is divided in to 2 tiers as you project), the difference is one game a year vs. OSU/Michigan rather than UMD/RU. That’s a difference, but at most of one extra loss a year, and if one extra loss a year really impacts the future success of iowa, then the Hawkeyes have much bigger problems to deal with than scheduling.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an 18-year rotation written in pencil. The odds of them sticking to it are very low. It’s just too long an interval for anyone to confidently predict.
LikeLike
Richard, I would not count on that. There is always the possibility of Expansion, and Programs getting better or worse. I would rather have seen Schools have the option of a “Locked Rival” such as Michigan/Minnesota, and Ohio State/Illinois (from a Penn State perspective (EITHER Nebraska or Wisconsin would work)), or parity. If you get Expansion (say Kansas and Oklahoma), they can shift Purdue East, and do just that.
LikeLike
Obviously, this whole rotation is thrown out if there is expansion. If no expansion, though, I think this 36-year cycle of a locked rival for 6 years will be in place.
LikeLike
Even without expansion, get real. What are the odds that anybody could go 36 years, without some desired improvement occurring to them?
For one thing: by then, totally different people will be in place, who will have no loyalty to this system. The merits of the schedule rotation are sufficiently arguable that, when you change the people deciding, they’re going to want to try something else.
But beyond that, at least some of the underlying assumptions are liable to be proven wrong long before that. Nobody’s that good, that they can forecast 3 1/2 decades in advance, and not make some mistakes.
LikeLike
Huh? Over 36 years, all schools in the opposing division (besides the IN schools) would have rotated through, so if anything, if new schools do rise up, this system would likely better accomodate that than a new scheduling framework.
LikeLike
Just tell me when was the last time any league kept the same scheduling pattern for 36 years.
LikeLike
Maybe I should have added the caveat of the number of football games (and thus conference games) allowed being held constant. I’m not sure that that has occurred over 36 years, but I believe the ACC, SWC, Big8, and Pac10 did not change their scheduling philosophy from when 11 regular season games were instituted (or went to 10 conference members, in the case of the Pac) until those conferences expanded to 12, died, merged, and went to 9 conference games, respectively. That meant the same scheduling philosophy for decades.
The B10 likely will have expanded or gone to 10 conference games before the 36 years are up, so stop worrying your little head, Mark.
LikeLike
It takes a lot more than that to worry me. Just pointing out that anyone who thinks they can forecast 36 years out is a rather poor history student.
LikeLike
6 years. Forgot you said that. Call me not a fan. I’d have preferred no parity scheduling. The whole point of no crossovers to me was to play everyone frequently and keep this feeling like a conference. If we were going with that though, split it up better than 6 years at a time. You could have the same amount of games and never play more than 2 years in a row.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Call me not a fan. I’d have preferred no parity scheduling.”
I’m with you. It’s a money grab with negative unintended side effects.
“The whole point of no crossovers to me was to play everyone frequently and keep this feeling like a conference.”
But why would we want to play our rivalry/second most frequent opponent historically (IL) more since we get RU and UMD annually? Surely playing IA a lot more often makes up for missing IL, right?
“If we were going with that though, split it up better than 6 years at a time. You could have the same amount of games and never play more than 2 years in a row.”
I don’t like this plan, but maybe they found it to be the simplest way to do the schedule rotation after deciding on parity-based scheduling.
LikeLike
However, to compensate, it seems that the 2014 and 2015 schedules were a sop to the king programs.
In the west, Northwestern gets Michigan and PSU while UNL gets MSU and RU, Wisconsin gets UMD and RU, and Iowa gets IU and UMD.
In the east, OSU gets Illinois and Minny and Michigan gets Minny and Northwestern while MSU gets UNL and PU.
So Urban will have an easier time running the table for a couple more years.
LikeLike
Also, those secondary rivalries (LBJ and Illibuck games) will be played HaH one last time.
LikeLike
Thursday NFL to Google or Netflix?
http://flicksided.com/2013/10/16/netflix-google-play-land-nfl-games-part-new-thursday-night-package-bid/
LikeLike
Good stuff in Bill Cunningham’s new book, “The Texas Way” on what happened with the SWC (UT President or Chancellor during that time frame). Contradicts some things that are accepted, reinforces others. Just skimmed the chapter so far.
A few points:
Texas and A&M agreed on Texas going to the Pac 10 and A&M going to the SEC in 1990. There were a lot of rumours about that time of UH & A&M to the SEC and and Texas and Texas Tech to the Pac 10. Cunningham doesn’t mention UH or Tech. Pac 10 revoked an offer to Texas because the Stanford President changed his mind and voted no. Admission had to be unanimous. A&M agreed to pull back from going to the SEC after that. Conferences had agreed to maintain the Thanksgiving Day game between the two.
In 1994 Big 10 wasn’t ready to expand and Pac 10 had already said no, so Texas was looking at Big 8 schools. Contradicts KSU President’s story that UT and A&M abandoned the other 6. He says Big 8 only wanted 4. Mentions famous meeting in Lt. Governor Bob Bullock’s office. Texas was already on board. A&M’s president was on board. But some of their regents still wanted SEC. A&M’s delegation had a private meeting with Bullock and were apparently read the riot act by Bullock.
LikeLike
UH makes sense in the context of 1990, at the height of the school’s run-and-shoot fueled popularity.
LikeLike
We’re #1!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2013/10/16/20-best-party-colleges-photos.html#ca1de14d-3f56-464c-8593-390e4eb3c666
LikeLike
I should add they also have Illinois as the 11th sexiest school in the country so we got that going for us too which is nice.
LikeLike
An Illinois’ girl’s safe word is “Zuppke!”
LikeLike
The north features pretty prominently on that list:
1. IL
3. Miami (OH)
4. Colgate
6. UMass
7. WV
8. WI
9. Syracuse
10. IN
12. IA
13. Ohio
14. PSU
16. RU
19. DE
13 of 20 (8 of the top 10) are northern.
B10 – 6 of 20
SEC – 4
ACC – 2
LikeLike
The Big Ten also did incredibly well in Trojan’s Sexual Health Report Card (which I stumbled across while clicking through the Daily Beast rankings).
http://www.trojancondoms.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleId=28
Big Ten has three schools in the top 10 (including #1 Illinois) and six (including Rutgers) in the top 15.
LikeLike
Great….one more thing IU’s mediocre at………..
Andy’s pissed that Missouri is “underneath” Rutgers and Maryland……
LikeLike
Speaking of partying, this has been making the rounds (no pun intended) over the internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3qYPGeoA7w
LikeLike
The ACC is holding together. This thread might have held some merit 6 months ago. No more. The B1G blew it.
LikeLike
How did they blow it? What could they have done that would have persuaded desirable schools that wanted no part in moving to take a deal? Of course, it’s possible that some schools that would have been acceptable were rejected and then those jilted schools would say that they turned it down to save face.
Or maybe Delany, being a UNC alum, knows that institution quite well and has some idea which way they were going.
The one big irony that no one has yet mentioned is that UNC is now stuck in the ACC. Yes, I said stuck. They have had to cede power and influence to Florida State and the other football schools in order to save their conference and its position in it. Remember that the ACC was going to replace Maryland with Connecticut before the football schools started making noise and the focus switched to Louisville. While the ACC is still better known for basketball, now the football schools have a greater say in the direction of the conference.
I wonder what happens to UNC/Duke come 2026? Will they still be happy when FSU, UL, VT, Miami and Clemson carry the big stick in conference matters, while they just focus on basketball, or would some of the elites in those institutions start getting resentful in the loss of relative power and influence and Syracuse, Pitt and BC are just happy for the ride? How would the Notre Dame deal be looked back upon when it gets close to ending? Let’s remember that the addition of Florida State was done over the objections of Maryland and Duke. We all know what eventually happened with Maryland. What is unmentioned is how them leaving affected the internal politics of the ACC. They were one of the bluebloods, even though they were increasingly feeling like an outcast. Yes, Pitt brings them comparable academics but Pitt is not a state flagship like Maryland is. That’s very important to the old core schools.
LikeLike
I agree with @Transic: The B1G had no opportunity (that we know of) that they failed to grasp.
The one big irony that no one has yet mentioned is that UNC is now stuck in the ACC.
They’re not stuck. UNC wants the ACC to survive. It’s true that the football schools pushed for Louisville, but the Cardinals are the reigning NCAA basketball champions. Even viewed through a hoops lens, Louisville was a better choice, or at least, certainly not worse.
I wonder what happens to UNC/Duke come 2026? Will they still be happy when FSU, UL, VT, Miami and Clemson carry the big stick in conference matters…
UNC/Duke yielded to the football schools on one decision. In any partnership, you’ve got to give the minority something. The basketball schools still have the keys to the car.
And the basketball schools have one other trump card: the football schools have nowhere to go. None of them want to be in the Big XII, and right now the Big Ten is not interested. And if the Big Ten was interested, how many of the football schools would get a bid? Certainly not Louisville or Clemson; probably not VT; probably no more than one Florida school, if that.
So although the football schools want to make sure the ACC isn’t just a basketball league, they also want to make sure the league remains intact, because for a majority of them, the world without the ACC is a worse place to be.
Yes, Pitt brings them comparable academics but Pitt is not a state flagship like Maryland is.
Only two ACC schools are state flagships, UVA and UNC. It goes without saying that they’d have rather kept Maryland, but the ACC is arguably a stronger sports league with Louisville, which is better at both basketball and football than the Terps.
Of the two power leagues who had to recover from losses, the ACC is the only one that arguably improved its lot, compared to where it was before. Nothing the Big XII did, or can do, makes up for losing Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Texas A&M.
How would the Notre Dame deal be looked back upon when it gets close to ending?
I see nothing but upside in the Notre Dame deal. I realize that some ACC members might not have preferred to give ND a sweetheart deal, but now that it’s done, what exactly is there not to like?
No one ever minds having ND on their schedule (a lot of these teams played the Irish frequently over the years), and the ACC is undoubtedly stronger with ND in the fold, even as a partial member. Plus, if ND ever joins a conference full-time, it is going to be the ACC, and if that ever happened the ACC would be golden.
For the old-timers, it was probably a tough pill to swallow that they’d become the 98-pound weaklings of power conferences, and had to take ND on less favorable terms. But having now done it, where’s the downside? I don’t see it.
LikeLike
Sorry…before anyone jumps on me, the Big XII didn’t lose Utah; it lost Missouri!
LikeLike
Losing Maryland was a big blow for the ACC. Louisville does not come close to matching what Maryland brings. Recent results on the field do not equal university worth. If results on the field really mattered, the BIG would be a very poor conference.
LikeLike
Trouble brewing for the Pac12-Fox relationship?
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/10/17/pac-12-football-night-games-exposure-issues-and-the-fox-sports-1-dilemma/
I am sure Delany & Co are monitoring this situation, and the Fox ratings vs. ABC/ESPN in the run up to the new TV rights deals coming in 2016. Regardless, I don’t see how the Big Ten parts with ESPN/ABC, because of ESPN’s overall prestige and promotional muscle.
Case in point: I don’t think Northwestern vs. OSU, if it had been on Fox, matches the 4.8 it got on ABC without the buildup from ESPN Gameday, Mike & Mike, and other similar promotional efforts from the WWL.
Fox will bid heavily for, and get some of, the B1G package, but I’d expect ESPN/ABC to retain a sizeable chunk of what it has now. Remember, if B1G leaves the WWL, it can easily backfill the vacant timeslots with SEC games (or even select ACC games involving FSU or Clemson) that might actually beat the B1G in the ratings if head to head.
LikeLike
Are they really complaining? Looks like they get more viewers late.
Pulled from another article:
The networks love the games aired on prime time. And believe it or not, they like a game that begins at 10 or 10:30 p.m. for their east-coast markets.
“That’s been big value for ESPN in particular,” Weiberg says. Network officials “feel it allows them to have college football programming throughout the entire day, including the late-night east-coast time frame. Based on the viewership numbers, the games have been well-received.”
The Pac-12 won’t divulge ratings numbers, but Weiberg indicate the late games have been successful.
“Two of ESPN’s games — Wisconsin-Arizona State and Washington-Stanford — were the highest-rated games on the network that day,” he says. “The night window has held up well.”
LikeLike
Big Ten Future Non-Conference Football Schedules Leaked; Penn State-LSU and Florida-Michigan?
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/10/big-ten-future-non-conference-football-schedules-leaked-penn-state-lsu-florida-michigan/
Apparently, someone saved the leaked PDF file of the B1G’s latest OOC schedule for 2014-19 (and some games through 2025) and put it up on another website.
LikeLike
Transic – that’s news to me. I could see an LSU Penn State game in Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta, though I’d prefer a home and home. In 2020, LSU only has a game scheduled in Raleigh with NC State.
LikeLike
If neutral site, PSU will almost certainly insist on an East Coast site as opposed to one in TX.
I wonder if the B10, SEC, and ChickFilA worked out a deal where the B10 gets TV rights to one of UM-UF or PSU-LSU while the SEC/ChickFilA gets the other.
LikeLike
Richard – my understanding of neutral site TV rights is that they are outside the scope of existing conference contracts, so the host negotiates the TV rights for that game and gives a set fee to each participating team. That’s how the participating teams receive enough money to justify not playing a home and home.
LikeLike
That’s how they have worked up to now, but the B10 has been intent on capturing TV rights for at least half the major matchups its schools participate in. Thus why LSU is playing Wisconsin in Green Bay as well as Houston & why Delany did not want B10 schools to play neutral site games before. I would be a bit surprised if the B10 did not get TV rights to one of UM-UF or PSU-LSU. In any case, they should be able to sell enough tickets to pay out an amount equal the revenue from half a home game to each school (and thus justify playing neutral site).
LikeLike
I believe the PAC has required the conferences ok for future neutral sight games.
LikeLike
Alan,
From the article:
Penn State
– A possible neutral site game against LSU is listed for Sept. 5, 2020 (Note: Both schools acknowledged Wednesday that talks about a game have taken place but declined to give any specifics).
– LSU told us that they have “had discussions with many teams about future games including Penn St.”
LikeLike
I hope this is a sign of a future partnership between the SEC and BIG.
LikeLike
I hope this is a sign of a future partnership between the SEC and BIG.
It’s not as if they’re not working together already. A number of SEC teams have future games against Big Ten opponents (LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, and likely Florida), but the schools are negotiating independently. Except for Florida, these schools don’t have an annual non-conference rivalry, so they’re more free to schedule these types of games.
I don’t see that changing. Let’s say the SEC goes to nine conference games. Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina have their annual tilts with the ACC. Most years, they’ll probably schedule two guarantee games, to give themselves a seven-game home schedule.
A few other SEC teams (Auburn, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State) don’t seem to leave the South very often. Vandy tends to schedule soft, to give themselves a shot at a winning season. Texas A&M’s future OOC schedule is not fleshed out very much, but they have a future home & home vs. Oregon, so perhaps their long-term plan is to schedule more like LSU, Alabama, and Tennessee.
Anyhow, the point being that they all have different objectives, so I doubt you’re going to see a coordinated partnership. The games will happen when the schools find them mutually beneficial.
LikeLike
You know the ironic thing is that even though the SEC and B1G are generally rivals, the two leagues could gain a lot by forging a partnership. They are the 2 richest and most powerful in college sports. Why not maximize your advantages by working with each other?
LikeLike
AllTideUp,
“You know the ironic thing is that even though the SEC and B1G are generally rivals, the two leagues could gain a lot by forging a partnership. They are the 2 richest and most powerful in college sports. Why not maximize your advantages by working with each other?”
They do work together on some legislative things where their interests align. The B10 and SEC have very different cultures and often fundamentally disagree on major issues related to athletics, academics and their intersection. Unless that changes, they can’t really work together effectively. The B10 and P12 get along much better on those topics, thus the long term relationship.
LikeLike
Brian,
Oh I understand they have differences and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon. What I meant is that the leagues could partner in more athletic endeavors…scheduling more regular season games…scheduling match-ups in other sports…made for TV sorts of events. They could possibly create and co-own bowl games like the SEC and Big 12 are now doing with the Sugar Bowl.
There’s a myriad of ways for the leagues to maximize revenue and exposure by increasing cooperation, but that would assume they aren’t primarily interested in competing with one another for top dog status.
LikeLike
AllTideUp,
“Oh I understand they have differences and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon. What I meant is that the leagues could partner in more athletic endeavors…scheduling more regular season games…scheduling match-ups in other sports…made for TV sorts of events. They could possibly create and co-own bowl games like the SEC and Big 12 are now doing with the Sugar Bowl.”
What I’m saying is that the B10 considers those differences when deciding who to work with. The Rose Bowl agreement first came together just because the B10 and P10 agreed on some issues and others didn’t. The only other agreements I know of are with Hockey East and the ACC in hoops.
As for other sports, the travel distance makes it impractical for most sports. The disparity in sports played eliminates others (like hockey, lacrosse or wrestling). The disparity in interest and weather takes baseball off the table from playing more. B10 teams do go south in winter for games, but I doubt the SEC is looking to play B10 teams much more often (bad for SOS). The B10/ACC Challenge takes hoops off the table for a conference-wide deal (individual schools do play). UK dropped their series with IN, which was the most valuable possible series. So what other sports did you have in mind, and what kind of events?
The refusal of some SEC teams to travel north (UF, now UGA, etc) makes it harder in football. So does Vandy bailing at the last minute on two games this year. As for bowls, don’t we play enough already? If you want to replace those bowls with ones the leagues co-own, that’s fine but I don’t see much momentum for that. What else do you want? A kickoff game? Who’s willing to play it up north instead of in Dallas or Atlanta? Who would pay enough to justify OSU/MI/PSU being in it? You’ll note that OSU has consistently avoided neutral sites due to lost revenue, and only Dallas could pay what MI needed.
“There’s a myriad of ways for the leagues to maximize revenue and exposure by increasing cooperation, but that would assume they aren’t primarily interested in competing with one another for top dog status.”
You need to make a business case for both sides, and that’s the problem. The interests of the schools vary widely and they are competitors.
LikeLike
Brian,
“The B10/ACC Challenge takes hoops off the table for a conference-wide deal (individual schools do play).”
I don’t see why it should though. The OOC basketball season is large enough to accommodate a variety of scheduling options. If the B1G wants to insure one game for each school against the ACC then that’s fine and it make sense for both conferences. Why not do the same with the SEC? There are plenty of cupcake games to be replaced if the conferences sat down and worked it out.
And that is my main point. I understand the conferences are rivals, but they don’t have to be. It’s an issue of will, not ability to work together. The two leagues have the biggest fan bases in college sports so scheduling more events in common only solidifies the market advantages that the two leagues have. Up until now, they’ve had no real desire to do it. They’ve preferred to beat each other to the top. There’s no immutable reason it has to remain that way.
“As for bowls, don’t we play enough already? If you want to replace those bowls with ones the leagues co-own, that’s fine but I don’t see much momentum for that.”
Yes, replace the current bowl match-ups with games the conferences co-own. It’s the wave of the future most likely and the two leagues may not be working on it right now, but they SHOULD be…that’s my point. The SEC and Big 12 will split the revenue from the Sugar Bowl now equally after the network gets a cut. That means no more middlemen profiting off of the schools while doing none of the heavy lifting. The SEC/Big12 decided where the game was going to be, when it was going to be, and they get to decide who is going to be in the game. It’s really a no-brainer. If two conferences are interested in playing one another then it makes all the sense in the world for the leagues to co-own the game. The SEC and B1G already play 3 bowl games against each other. They wouldn’t necessarily have to replace all 3 at first, but they could maximize their common interests by doing so. I wouldn’t even mind playing a game in B1G country if that’s what they wanted although the B1G would probably still want the games in the Sun Belt for recruiting purposes.
“You need to make a business case for both sides, and that’s the problem. The interests of the schools vary widely and they are competitors.”
When it comes to revenue, the interests are the same. All parties want more than they are getting. Right now, there is no cooperative effort to schedule early season games(whether its neutral-site or home and home) so it’s purely up to the individual schools. As with the bowl games, if the leagues wanted to create their own early season games without the middlemen of the Chick-fil-A Kickoff or the Cowboy Classic then it’s not an insurmountable barrier.
LikeLike
AllTideUp,
“I don’t see why it should though. The OOC basketball season is large enough to accommodate a variety of scheduling options.”
Coaches are really protective of their schedules. They cherry pick certain opponents for SOS and recruiting purposes, while the AD needs a bunch of home games to pay the bills. I don’t think either group wants to relinquish control of yet another game to the B10 HQ. Also, where’s the upside for the B10? B10 hoops is generally considerably better, B10 attendance is better and the north is great for hoops recruiting. In addition, I think UK dropping IN probably rubbed the B10 the wrong way. B10/ACC has more value.
“If the B1G wants to insure one game for each school against the ACC then that’s fine and it make sense for both conferences. Why not do the same with the SEC?”
Because the SEC has lots of terrible hoops programs in terrible recruiting locations. There isn’t a major benefit to the B10.
“And that is my main point. I understand the conferences are rivals, but they don’t have to be.”
They work together when it makes sense for both sides. That’s really only true for postseason football. In almost every other sport, one conference is much better than the other.
“Yes, replace the current bowl match-ups with games the conferences co-own. It’s the wave of the future most likely and the two leagues may not be working on it right now, but they SHOULD be…that’s my point.”
But that’s not a net change the fans would notice. It’s just a slight financial difference once it’s spread out to 14 teams.
“The SEC and Big 12 will split the revenue from the Sugar Bowl now equally after the network gets a cut.”
And the B10/P12 have a similar deal with the Rose. The next tier of bowls aren’t nearly as valuable.
“I wouldn’t even mind playing a game in B1G country if that’s what they wanted although the B1G would probably still want the games in the Sun Belt for recruiting purposes.”
It’s not for recruiting, it’s for the alumni and a desirable destination to visit. 80,000 fans don’t want to travel to Detroit in January.
“When it comes to revenue, the interests are the same. All parties want more than they are getting.”
They also want to maintain any current advantages. Staying ahead by $3M may be more valuable than letting both sides increase their total by $5M.
“Right now, there is no cooperative effort to schedule early season games(whether its neutral-site or home and home) so it’s purely up to the individual schools.”
That’s because schools don’t agree on OOC philosophy. AL loves neutral site games. UF won’t leave FL. OSU won’t play neutral site games. On top of that, once schools have 9 conference games and a locked rivalry on top of that, they need control of their remaining games.
“As with the bowl games, if the leagues wanted to create their own early season games without the middlemen of the Chick-fil-A Kickoff or the Cowboy Classic then it’s not an insurmountable barrier.”
I doubt the work is worth the money. You need a local partner for neutral site games anyway.
LikeLike
If anyone was wondering what happened to the PSU-Syracuse games, Penn State is likely unwilling to have 8 home games in 2020 and 6 home games in 2021. I had expected the AD to work with Syracuse to swap home dates; if that doesn’t work out, the series may be postponed.
Here’s to hoping PSU-LSU happens, home-and-home or not.
LikeLike
Starting date is a date selected when Ohio St. would do well (2002-now), but its interesting numbers. Notable are 22. Penn St., 25. Notre Dame, 39. Nebraska
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/10/ohio_state_tops_ap_poll_boise.html
LikeLike
All B10 schools:
1 OSU
15 Michigan
17 Wisconsin
18 Iowa
22 PSU
39 UNL
41 MSU
44 UMD
53 Rutgers
57 Northwestern
58 PU
64 Illinois
64 Minny
(IU never ranked)
The East is definitely over-represented at the top but that’s due almost solely to OSU. Take out OSU and the divisions are close to balanced. Granted, OSU in the East is a big deal when it comes to SOS. At least B10 East teams shouldn’t have to worry about SOS when it comes to the selection committee.
As a comparison, here are the rankings of the SEC East:
East:
7 UGa
10 UF
27 SCarolina
29 Mizzou
33 Tenn
71 Vandy
(UK never ranked)
Going down the list:
OSU > UGa
UM SCarolina
MSU < Mizzou
UMD Vandy
. . . so fairly equal, and I really doubt anyone would say that a 1-loss team from the SEC East that wins the conference should not get in to a 4-team playoff because their SOS is too weak.
LikeLike
Richard,
“All B10 schools:
1 OSU
15 Michigan
17 Wisconsin
18 Iowa
22 PSU
39 UNL
41 MSU
44 UMD
53 Rutgers
57 Northwestern
58 PU
64 Illinois
64 Minny
(IU never ranked)”
Let me rearrange those.
East:
1 OSU
15 Michigan
22 PSU
41 MSU
44 UMD
53 Rutgers
XX Indiana
West:
17 Wisconsin
18 Iowa
39 UNL
57 Northwestern
58 PU
64 Illinois
64 Minny
“The East is definitely over-represented at the top but that’s due almost solely to OSU. Take out OSU and the divisions are close to balanced.”
I get your point, but OSU is there and the divisions are poorly balanced. The East has 6 of the top 9 plus #14. The West has 4 of the bottom 5.
1. #1 vs #17 – adv. E
2. #15 vs #18 – tossup
3. #22 vs #39 – adv. E
4. #41 vs #57 – adv. E
5. #44 vs #58 – adv. E
6. #53 vs #64 – adv. E
7. #XX vs #64 – adv. W
Yes, if OSU was replaced with a team like IL things would be balanced. As is, the East has a huge edge.
On the bright side, past performance is not always a good predictor for future success. Some of the teams in the East will slip as they face a harder schedule while some in the West will rise. The quality of the teams will also fluctuate over time.
“Granted, OSU in the East is a big deal when it comes to SOS. At least B10 East teams shouldn’t have to worry about SOS when it comes to the selection committee.”
Well, all but OSU perhaps. But they’ve done fairly well at getting a good OOC game each year in the future.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/college-football-playoff-selection-committee/?sct=cf_t2_a1
Some more about the playoff committee and how it will operate.
• Remember the hubbub last year over whether the four-team playoff field should be limited solely to teams that win their conference? The commissioners ultimately nixed that idea, but came up with a list of five principles the committee will use to “distinguish among otherwise comparable teams.” That list includes conference championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and “other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely would affect its postseason performance.”
Whether the members actually stick to those principles remains to be seen. But on paper, it’s hard to argue those are anything but sound factors to consider. That’s particularly true for the last part, which acknowledges that teams are not exactly the same in early December as they were in early September.
Most importantly, by simply writing down these criteria, the playoff already has more clearly defined parameters than the sport’s past 77 years of poll-selected champions.
• The voting process will be conducted by “a series of ballots through which the committee members first select a pool of teams to be considered, then rank those teams.” This is the exact same process used by the NCAA basketball committee, and which SI.com used in its mock selection exercise last season. It’s much more intuitive than trying to rank 25 teams at once, as it allows members to first hone in and compare a small number of teams to each other before comparing them with a larger group.
• “Committee members directly associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team, and will not participate in any votes involving that team.” This means that Barry Alvarez, for example, will have no say in determining Wisconsin’s fate. This rule may sound obvious, but it’s important, and on a conference call on Wednesday, committee chair Jeff Long said the group will consider whether to implement further recusals. (For instance, should Oliver Luck recuse himself when discussing Stanford?)
• “No one single metric will be identified as paramount over all other data.” In other words, this committee will not have an equivalent to RPI, an outdated system that remains a centerpiece of the basketball selection process. This is a good thing, too, provided the committee members to subscribe to some sort of hard data to supplement simply watching the games.
• The committee will meet in person several times, beginning in midseason, before sitting down during the final weekend to devise the official pairings, both for the semifinals and the other Big Six bowls. This will be particularly important during the first year, when members go through this process for the first time. They’ll be more comfortable with both the process and each other by the time they sit down to do the real thing.
LikeLike
…comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
This is one of the things the BCS got wrong. At some point, they feared that coaches were running up scores, so they took MOV out of all the computer polls. Everyone with a pulse agrees that when you take that out, the computer rankings get worse. What this appears to be saying is that the committee can consider MOV “up to a point” (whatever that may ultimately mean).
Barry Alvarez, for example, will have no say in determining Wisconsin’s fate. This rule may sound obvious, but it’s important, and on a conference call on Wednesday, committee chair Jeff Long said the group will consider whether to implement further recusals. (For instance, should Oliver Luck recuse himself when discussing Stanford?)
Alvarez can recuse himself for the Wisconsin discussion. But anything he says about the others (unless it’s positive) is really a back-door endorsement of the Badgers . . . isn’t it?
LikeLike
They took out margin of victory when it appeared a non-BCS school might get in. W/O margin of victory, their weaker schedule kills them. The excuse was running up the scores, but the timing was that it was aimed at keeping out non-BCS schools.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This is one of the things the BCS got wrong. At some point, they feared that coaches were running up scores, so they took MOV out of all the computer polls.”
It wasn’t a baseless fear. Coaches were running up the score against cupcakes. The reaction was wrong, though. They should have capped MOV or given it diminishing returns (most models already did one or the other anyway). Knowing whether a team won by 3 or 21 is useful. The difference between winning by 21 and 41 probably is worthless.
“Everyone with a pulse agrees that when you take that out, the computer rankings get worse. What this appears to be saying is that the committee can consider MOV “up to a point” (whatever that may ultimately mean).”
I think these people are smart enough to work in shades of gray. They won’t be on forced deadlines to make a rapid decision like the poll voters currently are.
“Alvarez can recuse himself for the Wisconsin discussion. But anything he says about the others (unless it’s positive) is really a back-door endorsement of the Badgers . . . isn’t it?”
Give these people credit for being smart enough to know that and factor it in. The hoops tourney has dealt with this issue the same way and has never had bias issues. With ballots secret from the public, I don’t think these people will play favorites intentionally. The concern for me are the unconscious biases people have (SEC is the greatest, B10 is terrible, etc). Nobody can leave those thoughts at the door.
Having each member focused on a specific conference that they aren’t tied to will help level things out. If Alvarez is focused on the SEC, he’s unlikely to be able to favor WI or the B10 much in the discussions anyway.
LikeLike
Coaches do have different philosophies on running it up. You have the Spurrier school (Spurrier, Stoops, Leach) who try to run it up whenever possible. The other school of thought figures you will face those teams again and runs out the clock.
LikeLike
The hoops tourney has dealt with this issue the same way and has never had bias issues.
The big difference with the hoops tourney is that any team with the slightest plausible argument for being there, gets in. The worst seed ever to win it all was #8 Villanova in 1985, and that has happened only once.
The structure of the tourney is such that, if you’re an 8th seed or better, then you aren’t sweating whether you get in. If you’re sweating whether you’ll get in, you’re practically a sure loser anyway, should you happen to make it.
LikeLike
Brian: “It wasn’t a baseless fear. Coaches were running up the score against cupcakes. The reaction was wrong, though. They should have capped MOV or given it diminishing returns (most models already did one or the other anyway). Knowing whether a team won by 3 or 21 is useful. The difference between winning by 21 and 41 probably is worthless.”
Yes. It may be more useful to do an ordinal measure ~ a close win for less than a TD, a dominant win for more than two touchdowns and more than twice the score, a solid win for everything in between.
LikeLike
Talk about out of touch with reality. This group doesn’t understand what everyone is talking about. They want an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA and then have the NCAA take over the football playoff and cap certain expenditures. Surprising with Donna Lopiano on this. Strong advocate for women’s athletics and former Women’s AD and women’s bb coach at Texas. You would think she would know better.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/11/academics-propose-federal-legislation-restructuring-ncaa
But this is the type of thing that triggers the P5’s desire for restructuring.
LikeLike
Those elitists aren’t going to give up power that easily. I would prefer an open system, along with some promotion and relegation. That isn’t going to happen right now. However, let’s have some honesty and drop the pretense of “student-athletes”.
LikeLike
Go watch the NFL.
College sports generate and spend a lot of money, but it is still students participating. Professionals are coaching, teaching, administering, etc. just like throughout the rest of the universities.
LikeLike
The NFL is an example of a closed league.
LikeLike
There is no pratical way college football players can be paid, other than going to the full cost of attendance or a stipend. First of all, Title 9 will not be interpreted to permit colleges to pay male FB or BB players and not female rowers or tennis players. Even if there was a way around that, what kind of pay scale could conceivably be adopted that would be fair to redshirt frshmen OL and to senior QBs? What if the vet happens to suck, ala the guy at MSU? And what if you have a stud, like OSU does, who’s a back-up? How much less would Indiana players get than those at OSU?
People who talk about paying college athletes haven’t thought about it for over 10 minutes.
LikeLike
I do think it approprite that college athletes who sustain permanent injuries get compensated for the injury, ala “permanent impairment” cases in workmen\’s comp situations…unfortunately, there’s no way such asystem could exist without lawyers, who I want to keep as far away from college athletics as possible……..
Does anyone know if/how the kids who were paralyzed at Rutgers and elsewhere were compensated?
LikeLike
Transic,
“I would prefer an open system, along with some promotion and relegation. That isn’t going to happen right now.”
It will never happen. There is zero incentive for anyone to implement a relegation system.
“However, let’s have some honesty and drop the pretense of “student-athletes”.”
No, let’s not. Most of the players really are student-athletes. Don’t let a few bad apples cloud your view.
LikeLike
Miami just scrapped out a victory at a high cost. They lose Duke Johnson and Philip Dorsett to on-the-field injuries. No word how long they’re out.
LikeLike
Tonight, the Terrapin basketball teams return to one of the most iconic arenas in America, a venue that in its time ranked with the Palestra, Pauley Pavilion, Reynolds Coliseum or either Big Ten Assembly Hall as a classic setting for college basketball. Maryland’s men and women make their way back to Cole Field House, and this story will give you a feel for what the atmosphere was like (and may be again): http://www.diamondbackonline.com/sports/men_basketball/article_2eeff2c8-3787-11e3-b2b7-0019bb30f31a.html.
LikeLike
Good stuff vp……..you can thank Mike Davis for that NC. I hated that guy.
For what purposes is Cole used for now?
The old fieldhouses for IU and Purdue also still exist. Wildermuth(?) at IU is used for PE and intramurals…it was IU’s basketball home until the late 50s or early 60s….The “new” fieldhouse is attached to Assembly Hall, and still used for track.
At Purdue, Lambert Hall(?) is adjacent to Mackey, which was built in the mid-60s. It is still used for track.
LikeLike
Cole is used for intramural sports; a pair of artificial turf soccer fields have been installed. There are also several classrooms in the building, unlike Comcast, which doesn’t have any academic areas that I know of. There has been talk of having Cole host one men’s and women’s games a year, probably a non-conference game against a lower-tier team after exams.
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been posted before but interesting read for those advocating a playoff structure that goes past 4 teams. Going past 4 is just picking the 5th best team in FBS football, not #1 or #2. Past 4 teams and you really are watering down the pool of who is #1.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/10/14/4837090/college-football-playoff-selection-committee/in/2187481
I am fully on board that 4 and no more is the correct playoff number. Here was the breakdown from 1998 – 2012:
1998 : Obvious Playoff teams = One Tennessee
(= 4) Tennessee (12-0) / Florida State (11-1) / Kansas State (11-1) / Ohio State (10-1)
(> 4) UCLA (10-1) / Texas A&M (11-2) / Tulane (11-0)
1999 : Obvious Playoff teams = Two Florida State and Virginia Tech
(= 4) Florida State (11-0) / Virginia Tech (11-0) / Nebraska (11-1) / Alabama (10-2)
(> 4) Kansas State (10-1) / Tennessee (9-2) / Marshall (12-0)
2000 : Obvious Playoff teams = One Oklahoma
(= 4) Oklahoma (12-0) / Florida State (11-1) / Miami (10-1) / Washington (10-1)
(> 4) Virginia Tech (10-1) / Oregon State (10-1)
2001 : Obvious Playoff teams = One Miami
(= 4) Miami (11-0) / Nebraska (11-1) / Oregon (10-1) / Colorado (10-2)
(> 4) Maryland (10-1) / Illinois (10-1) / Tennessee (10-2) / Florida (9-2)
2002 : Obvious Playoff teams = Two Ohio State and Miami
(= 4) Ohio State (13-0) / Miami (12-0) / Georgia (12-1) / Iowa (11-1)
(> 4) Southern Cal (10-2) / Washington State (10-2) / Oklahoma (11-2)
2003 : Obvious Playoff teams = Three Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and LSU
(= 4) Southern Cal (11-1) / LSU (12-1) / Oklahoma (12-1) / Miami (10-2)
(> 4) Florida State (10-2) / Texas (10-2) / Ohio State (11-2) / Michigan (10-2)
2004 : Obvious Playoff teams = Three Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and Auburn
(= 4) Southern Cal (12-0) / Oklahoma (12-0) / Auburn (12-0) / Utah (11-0)
(> 4) Boise State (11-0) / Cal (10-1) / Louisville (11-1) / Texas (10-1)
2005 : Obvious Playoff teams = Two Texas and Southern Cal
(= 4) Texas (12-0) / Southern Cal (12-0) / Penn State (10-1) / West Virginia (10-1)
(> 4) Virginia Tech (10-2) / Ohio State (9-2) / Oregon (10-1) / LSU (10-2) / Notre Dame (9-2)
2006 : Obvious Playoff teams = One Ohio State
(= 4) Ohio State (12-0) / Michigan (11-1) / Florida (12-1) / Boise State (12-0)
(> 4) Louisville (11-1) / Southern Cal (10-2) / LSU (10-2) / Oklahoma (11-2) / Wisconsin (11-1)
2007 : Obvious Playoff teams = None
(= 4) Ohio State (11-1) / LSU (11-2) / Georgia (10-2) / Hawaii (12-0)
(> 4) Virginia Tech (11-2) / Oklahoma (11-2) / Southern Cal (10-2) / West Virginia (10-2)
2008 : Obvious Playoff teams = None
(= 4) Florida (12-1) / Oklahoma (12-1) / Utah (12-0) / Boise State (12-0)
(> 4) Alabama (12-1) / Penn State (11-1) / Texas (11-1) / Southern Cal (11-1)
2009 : Obvious Playoff teams = Three Texas, Alabama, and Cincinnati?
(= 4) Texas (13-0) / Alabama (13-0) / Boise State (13-0) / Cincinnati (12-0)
(> 4) TCU (12-0) / Florida (12-1) / Ohio State (10-2) / Oregon (10-2) / Iowa (10-2)
2010 : Obvious Playoff teams = Two Auburn and Oregon
(= 4) Auburn (13-0) / Oregon (12-0) / Ohio State (11-1) / TCU (12-0)
(> 4) Michigan St (11-1) / Stanford (11-1) / Arkansas (10-2) / Oklahoma (11-2) / LSU (10-2)
2011 : Obvious Playoff teams = One LSU
(= 4) LSU (13-0) / Oklahoma State (11-1) / Alabama (11-1) / Stanford (11-1)
(> 4) Arkansas (10-2) / Oregon (11-2) / Wisconsin (11-2) / South Carolina (10-2)
2012 : Obvious Playoff teams = One Notre Dame
(= 4) Notre Dame (12-0) / Alabama (12-1) / Oregon (11-1) / Kansas State (11-1)
(> 4) Georgia (11-2) / Stanford (11-2) / Florida State (11-2) / Louisville (10-2)
(> 8) LSU (10-2) / Clemson (10-2) / Texas A&M (10-2) / Oklahoma (10-2)
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been posted before but interesting read for those advocating a playoff structure that goes past 4 teams. Going past 4 is just picking the 5th best team in FBS football, not #1 or #2. Past 4 teams and you really are watering down the pool of who is #1.
I am fine with four right now, but it’s worth noting: some version of your argument has been used every time any sport increased the size of its playoffs.
As I noted upthread, I can still remember the argument that adding the LCS in baseball, in 1969, was watering down the postseason. And then I remember the argument that the LCS was fine, but adding the Division Series was watering it down. And so on.
I do realize that CFB has certain traditions, but those are malleable. The BCS has been around only since 1998, so it’s hardly sacred.
LikeLike
Those were good arguments. The WS has been seriously watered down, as has the MLB regular deason.
LikeLike
I am fine with four right now, but it’s worth noting: some version of your argument has been used every time any sport increased the size of its playoffs.
The difference being the games played in a season. Basketball, Hockey, and Baseball all have multiple games in a week, multiple post season games, and regular seasons exceeding 80 games (at the pro level)
NCAA basketball panders to the lowest common sports denominator to generate the greatest number of viewers to make advertisers happy. Empty seats in the early rounds, blowouts, and devaluing the regular season (as evidenced by falling live numbers and falling TV numbers) is the price to be paid so folks who never follow college basketball the entire rest of the season can put a buck in the office pool and feel like a roundball expert for about 2 weeks out of the year.
Hooray for dumbing it down for the masses and promoting “blue ribbon” teams
I do realize that CFB has certain traditions, but those are malleable.
Going undefeated is a tradition going back to the earliest roots of the game and this is a standard that should not be malleable. Letting a 2 loss team in at the end when the other team is undefeated is clearly dumbing down the game. It is saying lose games and you get a second chance over a team who already did it right the first time.
LikeLike
Duffman, your problem is you make “obvious playoff teams” virtually synonymous with “brand names.”
LikeLike
Vincent, except for the year where there were no undefeated teams 2007 and the year the 2 undefeated teams played terrible schedules, every other year Obvious = Undefeated so are you saying that only “brand names” are likely to go undefeated in any give season?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/bruce-feldman/24102968/harris-poll-voter-on-why-he-feels-college-footballs-moving-to-a-worse-system
A Harris Poll voter explains why he thinks the new playoff is worse than the BCS.
Q: This is the final year of the BCS. Is the sport moving to a better system or worse and why?
Walters: Worse. I stress that this is an opinion and that there is no objective truth here.
First, I prefer the idea that every game, every week, matters. What the “Death to the BCS” crowd fails to appreciate is how difficult it is for an undefeated team to keep winning as the season moves into its final month. The pressure builds, the motivation for the opponent, even a subpar one, is tremendous (see, Oklahoma State at Iowa State, 2011).
The “Death to the BCS” crowd, I find, is populated by a lot of media who are actually bigger college basketball fans. They love March Madness and consciously or unconsciously want to create one for football, too. Where I find them disingenuous, or just plain illogical, is that they point to the corruption in bowl games to illustrate the flaw in the BCS system and then say that we need a better system that crowns a true champion.
My counter-argument is this: the NCAA basketball final rarely showcases the two best teams over the course of a season. It does showcase a pair of teams who, over the course of a 35-game plus season, put together a five-game win streak. The BCS Championship Game, at worst, showcases two of the three or four best teams in the land.
You want to make the argument that it doesn’t give an undefeated MAC team a chance to win the championship? I’ve got news for you: That MAC team still doesn’t play in a 4-team playoff and, moreover, it’s NOT one of the four best teams.
Finally, that MAC school and its similar non-AQ brethren could break off and form a league for schools their size, but they choose not to because they covet the TV money. So I’m not about to weep for them.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link – a few comments on his main points:
1. He seems to equate best team with fewest losses, which I strongly disagree with. Teams evolve over the course of the season and sometime a loss is the best thing that can happen to a team in terms of learning and motivation. August and Sept are long forgotten by the time the playoff is picked. I like a system that rewards the best team at the end of the year, which is what playoff systems find. Winning 5 games in the NCAA tournament makes you the best team, since you survived and the rest lost.
2. The cult of undefeated teams leads to terrible OOC schedules which is bad for the fans.
3. College football needs to allow all teams to have a chance at the championship. No other sports eliminates large numbers of teams before the season starts – that is why you play the games. Stating that MAC will allows suck is dishonest and wrong. If you don’t want the MAC to have a chance, then be honest about it and kick them out.
4. Glad he admits the bowl game corruption. Maybe logic is starting to prevail.
LikeLike
Mark,
“1. He seems to equate best team with fewest losses, which I strongly disagree with.”
While it isn’t a strict correlation, the best teams don’t tend to lose very much. Obviously you have to consider SOS, but they only play 12 games. You can’t really be the best team with 3 losses.
“Teams evolve over the course of the season and sometime a loss is the best thing that can happen to a team in terms of learning and motivation. August and Sept are long forgotten by the time the playoff is picked.”
That’s true, but the best team wouldn’t need that loss for motivation and learning, would it?
“I like a system that rewards the best team at the end of the year, which is what playoff systems find.”
I could not possibly disagree more. The best team should be the best team over the entirety of the season, not the one that’s good enough to make a playoff and then gets hot. I despise wildcards and how often they win pro titles. It’s one reason I don’t watch pro sports much.
“Winning 5 games in the NCAA tournament makes you the best team, since you survived and the rest lost.”
No, it makes you the hottest team in March that did enough to get into the touney. Very rarely does the best team in the country win the tournament. This is why so few people watch the regular season.
“2. The cult of undefeated teams leads to terrible OOC schedules which is bad for the fans.”
Blindly ranking by record is wrong, but so is not punishing losses. Wins and losses should be weighted by SOS, but losses put a ceiling on how good a team is.
“3. College football needs to allow all teams to have a chance at the championship.”
They all have a chance. It’s a slim chance for some because they are in a weak conference, giving them a weak SOS. They may only play 1 good team all year. They may be the best team (highly unlikely) but they certainly aren’t one of the most deserving of a chance at a small playoff in most years. If they go undefeated, they have a chance to make it. That’s all they deserve. They could always support a new division and have yet another division with a big playoff so they can play in it.
“No other sports eliminates large numbers of teams before the season starts”
They aren’t eliminated in I-A, they just have a small chance at the title. Besides, no other sport has such a large disparity among teams, limited seasoan length and a high number of teams. The apples and oranges comparison to other sports is pointless.
“Stating that MAC will allows suck is dishonest and wrong.”
No, it really isn’t. The MAC will always suck. The B10 gets all the better players from the area and has much more money. Even that next level of school (AAC/CUSA) takes better players. A MAC team may have a great year, but the MAC overall will always suck.
“If you don’t want the MAC to have a chance, then be honest about it and kick them out.”
They still have a chance. It’s just not as big of a chance as the power schools have. Of course, many power schools also have little chance. It’s like 125 schools are fioghting for 2 or 4 spots.
“4. Glad he admits the bowl game corruption. Maybe logic is starting to prevail.”
People have always known the bowls had issues. Many/most people just don’t really care. Everything is corrupt anymore.
LikeLike
There is no settling the “best team at the time” and “best team over the season” argument. Its a matter of preference, and there will always be three camps ~ one always for the best team at the time, one always for the best team over the season, and one always for whichever best suits the team they root for that year.
I’d say I’m a “best team at the time” guy, but then again I’m a Buckeye’s fan and I’m hoping that the defense can still improve to championship caliber over the coming month, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
I think there may be a built in bias in sports media for “best team at the time”, because Underdog / Cinderella stories are good for business.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“There is no settling the “best team at the time” and “best team over the season” argument. Its a matter of preference,”
I agree 100%. I would point out that CFB has a long tradition of honoring the best team over the whole season, though. Other sports don’t, I realize, but CFB does. I think the author of the article did a good job of pointing out that many of the harshest BCS critics are people from the other camp that want a tournament champ rather than honoring the best season.
“I’d say I’m a “best team at the time” guy, but then again I’m a Buckeye’s fan and I’m hoping that the defense can still improve to championship caliber over the coming month, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?”
I’m clearly a best season person, regardless of how that impacts OSU.
“I think there may be a built in bias in sports media for “best team at the time”, because Underdog / Cinderella stories are good for business.”
That and many of them cover a multitude of sports, and most other sports honor the team of the moment. That didn’t used to be true, but the allure of money has driven all the pros to add large playoffs rather than respecting the season.
LikeLike
@Brian – There’s some bias in the media for the best team at the time, but their biggest general concern (and I think it’s a valid one) is the sense that a team that’s legitimately deserving didn’t get a shot. We’re not talking about including auto bids for the MAC here. It’s when teams like 2011 Oklahoma State get left out or when multiple teams have the same record and only one gets through due to seemingly arbitrary reasons (or if they happened to be ranked higher in the preseason) that get the media (and to be sure, many fans) much more hot and bothered than looking for a Cinderella story. That’s where the pushback with the “every week matters” argument. A loss late in the season usually means much more than a loss earlier in the year, so there is some built in bias for the “best team of the moment” in the human polls.
I don’t think there’s a big push to see every single conference champ involved in a playoff unless you’re a fan of a Group of Five school. However, there is definitely a feeling that everyone that legitimately should have a shot at the national championship still isn’t included and that much of the system is arbitrary, and that bothers the media and many fans much more than the thought of allowing a supposedly undeserving team into the playoff.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Brian – There’s some bias in the media for the best team at the time, but their biggest general concern (and I think it’s a valid one) is the sense that a team that’s legitimately deserving didn’t get a shot.”
More teams had a shot under the bowl system, and they didn’t support that. The media will take any angle that gets them clicks/readers/etc.
“We’re not talking about including auto bids for the MAC here. It’s when teams like 2011 Oklahoma State get left out or when multiple teams have the same record and only one gets through due to seemingly arbitrary reasons”
No matter how many teams get in, someone will complain. If one 1-loss team gets in, why not all of them? If one 2-loss teams gets in, why not the rest? There’s no end unless you have objective criteria. We can always stage a 128 team double elimination tournament to avoid missing someone.
“That’s where the pushback with the “every week matters” argument. A loss late in the season usually means much more than a loss earlier in the year,”
Well, talking about how to select the teams is a little different than discussing how many to select. I’m not a BCS fan and you know it. I say improve the process rather than just expanding to accomodate a faulty process.
“so there is some built in bias for the “best team of the moment” in the human polls.”
Part of that is because pressure builds during the season and you’re playing conference foes and rivals in November. Those games are legitmately harder to win. But I’ve railed against recency bias before, so I’m not supporting the human poll method.
“I don’t think there’s a big push to see every single conference champ involved in a playoff unless you’re a fan of a Group of Five school. However, there is definitely a feeling that everyone that legitimately should have a shot at the national championship still isn’t included and that much of the system is arbitrary, and that bothers the media and many fans much more than the thought of allowing a supposedly undeserving team into the playoff.”
They complain that things are abitrary, but they threw much bigger fits when the computers had more power since the computers dared to disagree with the humans.
I think it goes back to the two camps of thought and how many teams each believes deserve a shot. I think any 1-loss team loses the ability to really complain if they are left out. Tournament fans disagree. I do think conference championships should be valued, and I think this new system will be an improvement because of that. Hopefully they also truly value SOS, especially OOC.
LikeLike
No matter how many teams get in, someone will complain. If one 1-loss team gets in, why not all of them? If one 2-loss teams gets in, why not the rest? There’s no end unless you have objective criteria. We can always stage a 128 team double elimination tournament to avoid missing someone.
You make some good arguments, but this is one of the poorer ones; actually, not valid at all.
As I pointed out upthread, in basketball the #8 team is the lowest that has ever won (Villanova 1985), and that has happened only once. So when teams complain about getting left out of a 68-team tournament, they’re not complaining that they had a legitimate shot at winning it all. They’re just saying that they might’ve survived a round or two longer than some of the tourney’s bottom-feeders.
There’s an ample body of evidence that, no matter how you do it, in some years there are more than two teams with a legitimate argument that they’re in the top two. That doesn’t mean there are 128 of them.
Obviously, even in an 8-team playoff, there’d always be a #9 that just barely failed to qualify. It would be a terrible system if we were trying to answer the question, “Who’s #8?” Likewise, a 128-team playoff is terrible at answering the question, “Who’s #128?” But that’s not the question.
LikeLike
Sorry….in baseketball, a #8 seed, not a #8 team, is the lowest that has ever won.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There’s an ample body of evidence that, no matter how you do it, in some years there are more than two teams with a legitimate argument that they’re in the top two. That doesn’t mean there are 128 of them.”
Nor does it mean there are 4 or 8 or any other number. Why should I care? What is the great harm that befalls the world if someone is left out? Will the Earth spin off its axis or something? Why is it vital to include too many teams regularly on the off chance that the best team might get left out otherwise? I’d rather occasionally crown #2 than ever give an undeserving #7 a shot.
“Obviously, even in an 8-team playoff, there’d always be a #9 that just barely failed to qualify. It would be a terrible system if we were trying to answer the question, “Who’s #8?” Likewise, a 128-team playoff is terrible at answering the question, “Who’s #128?” But that’s not the question.”
There is no eviednce that an 8-team playoff would actually find #1 more often than a 4-team playoff. #2-8 would likely win as often or more often than #1 would be left out of the smaller system.
LikeLike
Why should I care? What is the great harm that befalls the world if someone is left out? Will the Earth spin off its axis or something?
It’s only a game that people watch (and at least allegedly, play) for fun, so let’s not lose perspective.
It wasn’t all that long ago that polls decided #1, with no game at all. Within my lifetime, the polls ended after the regular season, and occasionally the so-called “national champion” lost its bowl game. What kind of champion is that?
They fixed that problem, but it took decades to get #1 and #2 into the same bowl game, except if it occurred by sheer coincidence. The present system exists only since 1998, so as college football traditions go, it’s pretty recent.
It’s a system dominated by human voters, and it often produces controversial results, e.g., the much-disputed Alabama-LSU re-match. You could keep the BCS and tweak the formula so that that couldn’t happen again, but then it would just fail some other way, since it has regularly failed so often in the past.
I don’t know of any other sport where the champion is so frequently controversial. No other sport works that way, and only argument against changing it is “tradition”, but the idea of a tradition is really a myth. The mechanism for deciding the national champion has changed so often that there really is no tradition.
LikeLike
If you leave out a team that could be the best team, that is a failed championship system in my mind.
The best “tradition” argument for keeping it I’ve heard was one expressed when some of us (either here or on a Texas board) were discussing the implication of UGA’s upset of Texas in the Cotton Bowl which was followed by Miami’s upset of Nebraska and Miami’s 1st MNC. “Here it is nearly 30 years later and we are still discussing it!”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“They fixed that problem, but it took decades to get #1 and #2 into the same bowl game, except if it occurred by sheer coincidence.”
That was a mistake. The bowl system was much better than the BCS. It provided a chance ot more teams, too.
“I don’t know of any other sport where the champion is so frequently controversial.”
Depends what you mean by controversial, I suppose. Many fans don’t believe the best team that year usually wins March Madness, the Super Bowl, the World Series, etc. But for an easy one, how about boxing? Fixed matches, ducking opponents, bad judges, etc all cause continuous controversy. Olympic figure skating? Pretty much any other sport that determines the champ by human decision?
Prove that the controversy is bad for CFB. Then prove that a playoff prevents it. Everyone claimed the BCS would fix the issue, and it clearly didn’t. Why should anyone believe this will be any different?
LikeLike
bullet,
“If you leave out a team that could be the best team, that is a failed championship system in my mind.”
Every sport does that. The bets athlete may not even qualify for the Olympics, or the US Open, etc. The team that would have won the playoffs (Super Bowl, World Series, etc) may not earn a wildcard. The only way to avoid it is to literally include everyone. On any given Saturday, etc, etc.
“The best “tradition” argument for keeping it I’ve heard was one expressed when some of us (either here or on a Texas board) were discussing the implication of UGA’s upset of Texas in the Cotton Bowl which was followed by Miami’s upset of Nebraska and Miami’s 1st MNC. “Here it is nearly 30 years later and we are still discussing it!””
Exactly. Unless your team won, people tend to forget the champs in other sports pretty quickly. Who won the national Title in 1997? The Super Bowl in 1997? The controversy makes CFB much more memorable.
LikeLike
Noone but the commissioners claimed the BCS would “fix” the issue.
LikeLike
Unless your team won, people tend to forget the champs in other sports pretty quickly. Who won the national Title in 1997? The Super Bowl in 1997? The controversy makes CFB much more memorable.
I’d be shocked if more people didn’t know that Denver won the ’97 Super Bowl than knew about the UNL-UM split from that year.
LikeLike
Also, for the talk about controversy making the game more memorable, the TV ratings prove that people are just more interested in games when there is an undisputed (or close to it) #1 vs. #2 matchup which is simply far common with the BCS than it was under the old system.
LikeLike
Is that the goal? How to draw the biggest ratings? How to make the most money? I thought we were discussing the best way to determine a champion. Those are very different discussions.
LikeLike
You were talking about controversy making the game more memorable, I was just pointing out that the data refutes that opinion (more people watching means more people to remember the game)
LikeLike
frug,
“You were talking about controversy making the game more memorable, I was just pointing out that the data refutes that opinion (more people watching means more people to remember the game)”
I’d disagree with your conclusion. Lots of people watch the Olympics, but very few remember the results. Heck, many people remember the ads more than the game with the Super Bowl. I’d say the measure of being memorable is what percentage of people that saw it remember it later, not the total number of people who remember it anyway.
LikeLike
I still think in 20 years more people are going to be talking about UT-USC in the Rose Bowl than the ’97 title split, but that is just my opinion.
LikeLike
@frug – Yeah, the only way that the ’97 split title is memorable to most sports fans is pointing to it as a “Thank goodness that’s never going to happen again” moment. Debating whether LeBron James would have beaten Michael Jordan 1-on-1 in his prime is fun (or at least a worthy debate) for most sports fans. Debating whether ’97 Michigan would have beaten ’97 Nebraska is generally infuriating outside of hard core college football fans because most sports fans don’t believe that such a debate should even exist. I sympathize with the tradition of the bowls (which is why I always include the bowls in any of my college football playoff proposals). However, the romanticism attached to a lack of a clear champion in college football is controversy that’s completely manufactured (much more so than the complaints of a playoff being a manufactured way of determining a champ). It’s controversy that doesn’t have to exist.
Separately, what makes a particular game memorable inherently can’t be predicted (because something predictable wouldn’t be memorable in the first place). Few people remember the 1991 basketball national championship game, but we’ve seen the Christian Laetner shot to send Duke to the Final Four that year countless times. The 2003 World Series is a footnote compared to how much people remember the Steve Bartman game.
That being said, the average sports fan is more likely going to remember a “normal” Super Bowl compared to a “normal” college football national championship game simply because he/she is more likely to have watched it.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@frug – Yeah, the only way that the ’97 split title is memorable to most sports fans is pointing to it as a “Thank goodness that’s never going to happen again” moment.”
Memorable is memorable. It doesn’t matter why.
“Debating whether ’97 Michigan would have beaten ’97 Nebraska is generally infuriating outside of hard core college football fans”
I strongly disagree. Lots of fans have debated that over the years. They aren’t all or even mostly hard core (or maybe we really disagree on what a hard core fan is).
“because most sports fans don’t believe that such a debate should even exist.”
The fly diet argument is never useful.
“However, the romanticism attached to a lack of a clear champion in college football is controversy that’s completely manufactured”
It’s not romanticizing the lack of a clear champ. Nobody rooted to have a split title every year. It was the acknowledgment that sometimes more than 1 team deserved to be considered the best. If you really think 2 teams might split a 10 games series 5-5, why should only 1 get the title? Especially in a sport with so few games, where there is insufficient data to clearly know which team is best.
“(much more so than the complaints of a playoff being a manufactured way of determining a champ).”
Except it is a completely manufactured method designed solely to be a money grab. The original concept (the champs of 2 separate but roughly equal leagues play) was interesting, but wildcards and multi-round playoffs have no basis in actually trying to find the best team.
“It’s controversy that doesn’t have to exist.”
Almost nothing has to exist. And to act like a playoff removes all controversy is silly. It just changes the controversy.
“Separately, what makes a particular game memorable inherently can’t be predicted (because something predictable wouldn’t be memorable in the first place). Few people remember the 1991 basketball national championship game, but we’ve seen the Christian Laetner shot to send Duke to the Final Four that year countless times. The 2003 World Series is a footnote compared to how much people remember the Steve Bartman game.
“That being said, the average sports fan is more likely going to remember a “normal” Super Bowl compared to a “normal” college football national championship game simply because he/she is more likely to have watched it.”
Nobody debated that point. But how does the NCG that didn’t exist before the BCS compare to the NCG that will be played in terms of being memorable? I’d simply point out that big games very rarely live up to the hype, so the mythical games all tend to stay elevated while the actual games often lose their power once actually witnessed.
Remember, there have only been 11 split titles in the 63 years with 2 major polls, and most of those were back before more games were shown on TV. Only 5 have happened in the last 35 years. It’s not like there’s an argument every year, and some of the split titles get more discussion than others (usually when both were undefeated, not both blemished). When a #4 seed wins the title, don’t you think #5 will raise a fuss?
LikeLike
Some of that voter’s comments are dubious, to say the least: I prefer the idea that every game, every week, matters.
That will continue to be the case. The only sure thing is that, in a four-team playoff, a major-conference undefeated team will almost certainly make it. There is no such certainty with one loss. And even in the current system, a loss sometimes does not matter. Alabama got a re-match with LSU in the NCG, and on another occasion LSU reached that game, and won it, with two losses.
Moving onto some of Mark’s comments: The cult of undefeated teams leads to terrible OOC schedules which is bad for the fans.
In all fairness, most of the major powers schedule a major non-conference game every year. The last two seasons, Alabama played Penn State and Michigan. They did not catch either program at its best, but the Tide didn’t know that when the games were scheduled.
But even in a four-team playoff, access won’t be plentiful enough that you can afford to risk multiple losses. In most years, I think a second loss will be fatal unless you’re a very strong SEC team.
College football needs to allow all teams to have a chance at the championship. No other sports eliminates large numbers of teams before the season starts – that is why you play the games. Stating that MAC will always suck is dishonest and wrong. If you don’t want the MAC to have a chance, then be honest about it and kick them out.</em.
The MAC's destiny is in its own hands. All of the MAC programs play power schools on the first part of their schedule. The problem is that they usually lose, and often quite badly. Even when a MAC team runs the table, as Northern Illinois did last year, they're beating a lot of weak teams. NIU's performance in the Orange Bowl (a 31-10 drubbing at the hands of FSU) showed the competitive gap. NIU has a great season going again this year, but their two Big Ten wins came against two of the league's worst teams, Iowa and Purdue.
There's no conceivable playoff that could give everyone a chance. Even an 8-team playoff could not, would not, and should not, give auto-bids to all of the mid-major conference champions. If those leagues want to qualify, they've got to prove it on the field. The rules aren't stopping them.
LikeLike
An eight-team playoff would almost certainly be the Power 5 champions, the best of the Group of Five champions, and two at-large picks … for the same reasons, including both political and legal cover against anti-trust challenges, that the “best” of the Group of Five champions are getting into the Six Big Bowls system.
LikeLike
Such a format described above would also ensure geographic diversity among the entrants, If it diminishes the chances of two teams from the same conference meeting for the championship, that’s good for national interest. (That’s the primary danger SEC domination represents — it threatens to regionalize the sport.)
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24103115/early-enrollees-recruiting-rules-update-early-enrollees-may-sign-as-early-as-aug-1
The NCAA backdoors an early signing period for FB into the rules. Players who will enroll in January can now sign starting 8/1 of their senior year.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/10/27350/ohio-state-football-abc-espn2-coverage-map-for-saturdays-iowa-game
The ABC/ESPN2 map for OSU/IA. ABC goes to the northeast quadrant of the US, basically, from VA to KY to MO to NE to ND to ME. It also includes Tampa and the FL panhandle. A large part of western NE isn’t included, so that’s at least 5 people lost.
Just thought it was a little interesting what places are and aren’t included.
LikeLike
I live in Sarasota, and it makes complete sense to me that ABC would choose to air the Ohio State game on the Gulf Coast. There is a huge number of Big 10 alums in Sarasota and Naples, especially from Ohio State. I see more Ohio State stickers, license plates, flags, t-shirts, etc., than any other school besides the five most popular in-state teams (UF, FSU, Miami, USF, and UCF), and it’s not really close.
LikeLike
Note that a lopsided B10 matchup will be broadcast to roughly the same population (maybe more?) as a Pac game that features 2 top 15 teams.
LikeLike
Ah, but thanks to the holes in the OSU defense, it wasn’t lopsided ~ and absent two consecutive pieces of individual talent by OSU’s best running backs (Miller and Hyde) it could have been still closer.
LikeLike
I’ve driven in that part of Nebraska that got the PAC-12 game, where they cannot afford to include shoulders on their roads … the outside lane paint is right on the edge of the road. It could have been as many as a dozen lost for a Big Ten game including a western school other than UNL, but five is a reasonable guess.
LikeLike
So I decided to determine just how unbalanced B10 cross-over scheduling has been/will be in the West (in the 3 seasons of the 12-school era and first 8 seasons of the 14-school era), looking only at teams that I think will contend for the title in the West. I didn’t look at the East because when we get to 14 schools, I expect OSU and Michigan to win that division 90% of the time (especially since PSU won’t be at full strength yet for part of that time) as the gap in recruiting between OSU/UM and the rest of the division is so vast that 1 game on the schedule won’t make a big enough difference, and those 2 got roughly the same schedule strengths.
I assigned 5 points to a game vs. OSU, 4 points to a game vs. Michigan, 3 points to a game vs. PSU or Wisconsin, 2 points to a game vs. MSU, and 1 point to a game vs. the rest (IU, PU, UMD, RU, & UofI). This is roughly because I thought that a western team that is good enough to contend for the division is 5 times more likely to lose to OSU than to IU/PU/UMD/RU/UofI on average, 4 times as likely to lose to Michigan as IU/PU/UMD/RU/UofI, etc. (If a school isn’t good enough to contend for the division; that is, win the vast majority of it’s divisional games, then interdivisional schedule strength wouldn’t matter all that much). If you want to put in percentages, you could say that a school that wins the west or loses out solely due to schedule strength may lose to OSU 60% of the time, lost to Michigan 48% of the time, lose to PSU or Wisconsin (when Wisconsin is in the opposite division) 36% of the time, lose to MSU 24% of the time, and lose to IU/PU/UMD/RU/UofI 12% of the time.
Here’s what I came up with:
2011-2012
Nebraska: OSU, Wisconsin, PSU = 3.667
Iowa: PSU, IU, PU = 1.667
Northwestern: PSU, IU, UofI = 1.667
Michigan: OSU, UofI, PU = 2.333
MSU: OSU, Wisconsin, IU = 3
2013
Nebraska: PSU, UofI, PU = 1.667
Iowa: OSU, Wisconsin, PU = 3
Northwestern: OSU, Wisconsin, UofI = 3
Michigan: OSU, PSU, IU = 3
MSU: PU, IU, UofI = 1
So on average, in the West in the 12-school era:
Nebraska: 3
Iowa: 2.111
Northwestern: 2.111
Michigan: 2.556
MSU: 2.333
Over 3 years, UNL got the toughest schedule while NU and Iowa got the easiest. If you say that 1 point is worth a 12% loss probability a game, the difference in schedule strength between UNL and Iowa & NU is still well less than half a game a year on average, however.
2014-2015
Nebraska: MSU, RU = 1.5
Iowa: IU, UMD = 1
Northwestern: Michigan, PSU = 3.5
Wisconsin: UMD, RU = 1
2016 & 2019
Nebraska: OSU, UMD, IU = 2.333
Iowa: Michigan, PSU, RU = 2.667
Northwestern: OSU, MSU, IU = 2.667
Wisconsin: OSU, Michigan, MSU = 3.667
2017 & 2020
Nebraska: OSU, PSU, RU = 3
Iowa: OSU, PSU, MSU = 3.333
Northwestern: PSU, MSU, UMD = 2
Wisconsin: Michigan, UMD, IU = 2
2018 & 2021
Nebraska: OSU, Michigan, MSU = 3.667
Iowa: PSU, IU, UMD = 1.667
Northwestern: Michigan, MSU, RU = 2.333
Wisconsin: Michigan, PSU, RU = 2.667
Before doing the average over 8 years, I just want to point out that in 2014-2015, all the contenders in the west get super-easy cross-over games except for Northwestern, which has far harder cross-overs.
On average:
Nebraska: 2.625
Iowa: 2.167
Northwestern: 2.625
Wisconsin: 2.333
NU and UNL actually have the toughest crossover schedules in the first 8 years (Northwestern due solely to 2014-2015), so it seems that the B10 managed to make the cross-over schedules
relatively balanced (for the Western contenders) over the near-term future while still maximizing the number of highly appealing games in the new TV contract.
Biggest imbalances:
UNL 2 points (using my estimate, 0.72 losses) harder than Iowa and Northwestern in 2011-2012
Northwestern 2 to 2.5 points (0.48 or 0.54 losses) harder than all 3 other contenders in the West in 2014-2015.
UNL 2 points (0.72 losses) harder than Iowa in 2018 & 2021
LikeLike
And another ranked team goes down. UCF rallied to defeat Louisville 38-35. Houston remains undefeated in the season.
LikeLike
Louisville remembered it’s becoming a member of the ACC, where it’s not fashionable to get too good in football. 🙂
LikeLike
UCF is a pretty good team but I hope this will be a reminder to the ACC fans proclaiming the conference is way better off with Louisville instead of Maryland because of the Cardinals recent success in football. Once these lower league schools get into a top 5 conference, they usually fall back to earth real quick. If they cant win the AAC, they will be a middle of the road program in the ACC much like Maryland, except without the larger enrollment and state flagship status.
LikeLike
PSU Hockey, I agree with you as far as Louisville is concerned (although to be fair they have a great hoops program). The perfect comparison might be our old “friend” the Pitt Panthers. They are like Louisville, are the number two school in the State (the Cardinals to Kentucky and Pitt to us), and their recruiting class only ranks 7th in the ACC (interestingly enough, Maryland and former Big East Schools Syracuse and Boston College (dead last) are behind them, and the Orange may go lower, because Jason Cabinda might flip from Syracuse to us, and they had only six recruits for the Clemson Game). The key to Louisville will be keeping Charlie Strong. There will be some big openings coming up in both the NFL (NY Giants, Atlanta, Tampa Bay & Houston come to mind) and College (I could see USC, Texas, and maybe even Michigan opening up (Hoke is no fan favorite)). Any of those jobs are better than Louisville.
LikeLike
I hope this will be a reminder to the ACC fans proclaiming the conference is way better off with Louisville instead of Maryland because of the Cardinals recent success in football.
I think it’s a typical reaction that when a school leaves, the fans say, “Good riddance. Who needed them?” There’s no doubt that the ACC would have preferred to keep Maryland, regardless of what the fans might say.
I agree that the jury is out as to whether Louisville’s recent football success is sustainable, but their elite status in basketball is certainly not a mirage.
LikeLike
@ Richard:
I apologize if you answered this, but I missed it. You said above that you think the B1G conference schedule is based on 6 year mini-cycles and a 36-year macro-cycle.
Why do you think it is a six year cycle?
It seems to me that a 4 year cycle works very well.
I agree that it certainly seems like the B1G is trying to have teams play one team from each tier and “locking” a parity team.
So for 2016-19:
Tier 1:
tOSU-Nebraska
MI-Wiscy
Tier 2:
PSU-Iowa
MSU-Northwestern
Tier 3:
IL-Rut
Minny-MD.
Which would then switch for the next cycle.
OSU-Wisconsin
Michigan-UNL
PSU-Northwestern
MSU-Iowa
RU-Minny
UMD-Illinois
In a four year cycle, a given team plays all the cross division teams at least once.
In 2016, MI gets Wiscy-Iowa-IL. One from each tier.
2017: Wiscy-Purdue-Minny. One tier 1 and two tier 3s.
2018: Wiscy-Neb-NU. Making up for the easy 2017, MI gets 2 tier 1s and a tier 2.
2019: Wiscy-Iowa-IL again. Back to one per tier.
MI ends up playing all seven teams from the West. This satisfies a principle that the B1G wanted.
It seems to me that the first mini-cycle should end in 2019.
Then, if you switch out teams for each tier, the schedule for 2020-23 writes itself.
2020: Neb-NU-Minny
2021: Neb-Purdue-IL
2022: Neb-Wiscy-Iowa
2023: Neb-NU-Minny (repeating 2020).
In an eight year span, MI gets the following teams in the following number of times:
Neb – 5
Wiscy – 5
IL, Iowa, NU & Minny – 3
Purdue – 2
Then, for the 3rd 4-year cycle, either re-work the tiers or “lock” teams across tiers giving you tOSU-Iowa; MI-NU; PSU-Neb and MSU-Wiscy.
Over a 16 year span, that is a lot of good games between the top 8 teams in the Conference.
Six-year segments seem too long and will mess up the principle of play-every-team-every-4-years. And a 36-year macro-cycle seems way too long. A 16-year macro-cycle seems much more reasonable.
LikeLike
Let me add:
Assuming that in the second 8 year span, the “locked” teams are across tiers, then, over a 16 year span, Michigan would play the following teams the following number of times:
Neb, Wiscy, Iowa & NU – 8 times
IL, Minny – 6
Purdue – 4
I think the B1G has to “lock” the teams across tiers because, otherwise, PSU will be very unhappy. I don’t think PSU will accept playing Nebraska substantially less often than MI plays Nebraska.
BTW, the B1G was not consistent in giving a team a team from each tier. For example, PSU has:
2016: Iowa-Minny-Purdue. That is 1 tier 2 and a pair of tier 3s.
2017: Iowa-Neb-NU. 1 tier 2 and a pair of tier 2s.
2018: Iowa-IL-Wiscy. One from each tier.
2019: Iowa-Minny-Purdue. repeat 2016.
Assuming the next four years mirrors the first, you get:
2020: NU-Iowa-IL
2021: NU-Wiscy-Purdue
2022: NU-Minny-Neb
2023: NU-Iowa-IL
Over an 8 year span, PSU gets
Iowa – 6
NU – 5
Minny, Purdue, IL – 3
Neb & Wiscy – 2
PSU won’t be happy with that. Thus, the B1G should rectify that in the next cycles with something like this:
2024: Neb-NU-?
2025: Neb-?-?
2026: Neb-Wiscy-?
2027: Neb-NU
2028: Wiscy-Iowa-?
2029: Wiscy-?-?
2030: Wiscy-Neb-?
2031: Wiscy-Iowa-?
If this is the case, then PSU will play Nebraska 7 times, while tOSU and MI will have placed Nebraska 8 times.
LikeLike
I don’t think PSU will accept playing Nebraska substantially less often than MI plays Nebraska.
Beyond PSU being unhappy (they could be outvoted, after all), the rest of the Big Ten shouldn’t want that either.
LikeLike
I understand why the Schedules were set up the way they were, which is to get Michigan and Ohio State as many National Games as possible ( I have to assume that in The B10 line of thinking Ohio State is 1, Michigan is 2, Nebraska is 3 and Penn State and Wisconsin are either 4 or 5), and the purpose is to get the biggest TV contract as possible. I also know that of current B10 Schools there is only one School that prefers playing us to Michigan and Ohio State ( Nebraska), I would even bet the Minnesota’s of the World would prefer Sparty to us.That said I do not like the Schedule ( no surprise there), because It includes playing Minnesota and Purdue more than Wisconsin and Nebraska. That is even worse than ending the Season at home against Sparty ( rather play Maryland or Rutgers on the road). The only hopes are Minnesota is better ( possible but unlikely), Purdue is better ( dream on), or we add some additional teams such as Oklahoma, then OU can play OSU, Michigan play Wisconsin and at least we can get Nebraska more.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I understand why the Schedules were set up the way they were, which is to get Michigan and Ohio State as many National Games as possible”
I know I’m biased, but I think you greatly overestimate the B10’s bias. The plan is to get more brand versus brand games. They picked OSU, MI, PSU, NE, IA and WI as the top 3 brands in each division. I don’t think any of the 6 will be treated differently.
“( I have to assume that in The B10 line of thinking Ohio State is 1, Michigan is 2, Nebraska is 3 and Penn State and Wisconsin are either 4 or 5),”
Based on things like revenue, fan base, TV ratings and similar measures, I think the ordered list would be:
1. OSU
2. MI
3. PSU – maybe not right now with the sanctions, but I’m talking overall
4. NE
5. WI
Fans according to Nate Silver (national rank):
1. OSU – 3.2M
2. MI – 2.9M
3. PSU – 2.6M
12. WI – 1.4M
15. IA – 1.3M
18. NE – 1.2M
20. MSU – 1.1M
I think we all roughly know where they stand by history, football accomplishments and such. My point it, I think you undersell how highly the B10 values PSU. They added two eastern partners in part to keep you happy. They locked MI on your schedule for your first 10 years in the B10 despite MI not officially being one of your locked partners (OSU,and MSU).
“and the purpose is to get the biggest TV contract as possible.”
Presumably, but that’s good for everyone, right? In fact, it helps the lesser programs more than the big boys who have more revenue streams.
“I also know that of current B10 Schools there is only one School that prefers playing us to Michigan and Ohio State ( Nebraska),”
Why shouldn’t they prefer it? PSU is much farther away and has only been around for 20 years. If Pitt was in the B10, they’d favor PSU. UMD and RU will favor PSU. Proximity and history are big factors.
“I would even bet the Minnesota’s of the World would prefer Sparty to us.”
I don’t know, the Victory Bell is pretty important. Actually, I expect that MN would prefer PSU because it’s a bigger brand and might sell more tickets.
“That said I do not like the Schedule ( no surprise there), because It includes playing Minnesota and Purdue more than Wisconsin and Nebraska.”
I don’t think that will be the case long term. Unless Delany misspoke, you should end up playing NE, WI and IA the most over the next 18 years.
LikeLike
“That said I do not like the Schedule ( no surprise there), because It includes playing Minnesota and Purdue more than Wisconsin and Nebraska.”
What the heck are you talking about? In the first 6 years, PSU will play Wisconsin and UNL as often as they play Minny and PU. In the next 6 years, it’s very likely that UNL or Wisconsin will be PSU’s semi-permanent crossover.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I apologize if you answered this, but I missed it. You said above that you think the B1G conference schedule is based on 6 year mini-cycles and a 36-year macro-cycle.
Why do you think it is a six year cycle?”
To be fair, he said this before any of the schedules came out. He developed a model based on Delany’s comments. I’m sure he can expound on the thinking behind it.
“It seems to me that a 4 year cycle works very well.”
Well, at first all we had was Delany saying 18 years and defing the top tier as OSU/MI/PSU and NE/WI/IA as well as knowing that IN/PU was locked. 18 years means cycles of 2, 3, 6, 9 or 18 years. Since we now have 4 years of the schedule to look at, I think we’ve eliminated 2 and 3 year rotations from consideration. Based on the data available now, I think 6 years is all that really fits Delany’s statements.
“I agree that it certainly seems like the B1G is trying to have teams play one team from each tier and “locking” a parity team.
So for 2016-19:
Tier 1:
tOSU-Nebraska
MI-Wiscy
Tier 2:
PSU-Iowa
MSU-Northwestern
Tier 3:
IL-Rut
Minny-MD.”
Unfortunately for you, Delany defined the top tier publicly and it’s 3 teams from each side. The obvious conclusion is that there is a matching lower tier plus IN and PU as special cases.
“Six-year segments seem too long and will mess up the principle of play-every-team-every-4-years.”
No it doesn’t. Lock 1 same tier crossover, rotate the other 2, and rotate equally through the opther 4 teams:
3 = 1 * 100% + 2 * 50% + 4 * 25%
So for OSU, it could be NE locked for 6 years, plus WI or IA, and then 1 of NW, MN, IL and PU.
LikeLike
Brian you just made my point about everything for TV, and Penn State losing with this: “So for OSU, it could be NE locked for 6 years, plus WI or IA.” Why else should Michigan have Nebraska then Ohio State except for TV? Ohio State certainly would like to have more than one of Illinois (Illini-Buck). I bet if I did a Poll in Columbus which is who would you prefer to play Nebraska or Illinois? I bet it would be about 80% Illini. Same question Ann Arbor: Nebraska or Minnesota… Same result.. State College: Nebraska or either Illinois or Minnesota… 99% Huskers (I am sure there are people on campus who are from one of those States). Finally you claim “They added two eastern partners (Maryland & Rutgers) in part to keep you happy.” I do not think there is a Penn State fan on Planet Earth, who thinks those are teams we care about. Teams I (and about 95% of Penn State fans) dislike more: 1: Ohio State. 2: Pitt. 3: Notre Dame. 4: Michigan. 5: Alabama. 6: Nebraska. 7: USC. 8: Iowa. 9: Wisconsin. 10: Michigan State. You can debate that order, but not the teams on it.
LikeLike
David Brown,
Brian you just made my point about everything for TV, and Penn State losing with this: “So for OSU, it could be NE locked for 6 years, plus WI or IA.”
I never denied it was all for TV money, and I’ve never supported the parity-based scheduling. I’d much rather have an equal rotation and a little less money.
Why else should Michigan have Nebraska then Ohio State except for TV?
I didn’t say they should have that, but it would happen every so often under any rotation.
Based on these 4 schedules, it looks like a 3 year rotation with 1 locked opponent repeated to get home and homes in years 4-6.
3 = 1 locked same tier opponent + 2 others rotated equally
My guess is the locked opponent will rotate equally amongst the 3 teams in each tier.
18 year totals for OSU/MI/PSU (54 crossover games):
NE, WI, IA – 10 each
NW, MN, IL, PU – 6 each
18 year totals for MSU/RU/UMD (54 crossover games):
NW, MN, IL – 10 each
NE, WI, IA, PU – 6 each
For the West, just swap the teams in each tier.
3 * 10 + 4 * 6 = 30 + 24 = 54
Let’s look at the Eastern kings in particular.
PSU:
2016 – IA, MN, PU
2017 – IA, NE, NW
2018 – IA, WI, IL
IA – 3
rest – 1 each
2019 – IA, MN, PU
OSU:
2016 – NE, WI, NW
2017 – NE, IA, IL
2018 – NE, MN, PU
NE – 3
rest – 1 each
2019 – NE, WI, NW
MI:
2016 – WI, IA, IL
2017 – WI, MN, PU
2018 – WI, NE, NW
WI – 3
rest – 1 each
2019 – WI, IA, IL
All three East kings got the same deal. Someone had to start with IA first and it happened to be PSU, perhaps because of the sanctions so the B10 thought it would be more fair.
Ohio State certainly would like to have more than one of Illinois (Illini-Buck). I bet if I did a Poll in Columbus which is who would you prefer to play Nebraska or Illinois? I bet it would be about 80% Illini.
I think you’re dead wrong. While I’d rather play IL for tradition’s sake, most OSU fans would list teams in this order roughly: 1. MI, 2. PSU, 3. NE, 4. WI.
Same question Ann Arbor: Nebraska or Minnesota… Same result..
Yes, I think most of their fans would pick NE, too.
Finally you claim “They added two eastern partners (Maryland & Rutgers) in part to keep you happy.” I do not think there is a Penn State fan on Planet Earth, who thinks those are teams we care about.
And yet PSU schedules those and/or similar old eastern foes over and over OOC. Nobody claimed the B10 thought those were your top rivals. They were the best available additions for the B10 that also happened to be eastern neighbors of PSU. Many of your alumni were still happy about getting some more games in the east rather than the midwest, and said so online in many places.
Teams I (and about 95% of Penn State fans) dislike more: 1: Ohio State. 2: Pitt. 3: Notre Dame. 4: Michigan. 5: Alabama. 6: Nebraska. 7: USC. 8: Iowa. 9: Wisconsin. 10: Michigan State. You can debate that order, but not the teams on it.
6 of those teams are already in the B10 and 3 others have no desire to join. Pitt was a non-candidate due to their inability to add TV households. Try giving me the list of realistic B10 candidates that PSU cares more about than RU and UMD. Syracuse and who else?
LikeLike
I never said, Alabama, Notre Dame, Pitt or USC would join the B10, I am just mentioning those are Schools we like seeing more than Maryland & Rutgers (I would throw in Northwestern (I do not dislike NW and will root for them against every B10 School but Penn State), West Virginia and as you mentioned Syracuse into the list of Schools we view more highly than Maryland & Rutgers). As far as scheduling those schools, over and over, we have not played Maryland since 1993 and Rutgers since 1995. If the issue for the B10 was keeping Penn State fans happy, and NOT TV it would have been Pitt and not Rutgers. For me our biggest rival is the Panthers (Beyond that if we are smart and make the series more than two games, West Virginia could be Rival 1a). Not Maryland, Rutgers, Sparty, Michigan, Nebraska (who I have constantly argued for), or even Ohio State, it is Pitt.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I never said, Alabama, Notre Dame, Pitt or USC would join the B10, I am just mentioning those are Schools we like seeing more than Maryland & Rutgers”
Everyone would put a bunch of kings high on their list. That doesn’t mean there’s anything the B10 could do about it. PSU can schedule those schools OOC. What the B10 could do is add schools that were good for the conference (in their view) and also good for PSU. UMD and RU were near the top of the list of schools that could do both. The B10 might have considered MO and KU when NE came in instead, for example.
“If the issue for the B10 was keeping Penn State fans happy,”
It’s never about the fans, it’s about the school. PSU wanted some eastern companions and got them.
“NOT TV it would have been Pitt and not Rutgers.”
Even PSU wouldn’t want the B10 to add Pitt. Pitt would dilute the B10 payout since they add so little. PSU wouldn’t want to lose millions per year just to play Pitt more often. Fans don’t have to consider things like that which is why TPTB ignore them.
LikeLike
“Neb – 5
Wiscy – 5
IL, Iowa, NU & Minny – 3
Purdue – 2”
Playing PU less often than everyone else would be a problem. The beauty of the 6-year cycle setup is that you play 6 of the teams in the opposite division the same number of times in 6 years.
“Six-year segments seem too long and will mess up the principle of play-every-team-every-4-years.”
1. 6 years may be too long for you, but because it makes scheduling easier and more fair, I’m very certain that’s what the B10 chose.
2. No it wouldn’t. If you play a school in either years 1&4, 2&5, or 3&6, you’ll face every school at least once in 4 years.
LikeLike
Yes, their 6 year plan is pretty simple. You play 4 schools once every 3 years (33%). The 3 teams in your own tier you play once every 3 years for 12 of 18 years and annually for the other 6 years. That’s 10 games in 18 years (56%) for those 3 teams. PU and IN play each other annually and everyone else once every 3 years.
My biggest complaint (other than fairness) is that I wish they only locked a team for 3 years at a time. The rest of the rotation would work just fine but you wouldn’t ever deal with 1 school for 6 straight years and 7 of 9 years.
For OSU:
Years 1-3:
NE – 3
rest – 1
Years 4-6:
WI – 3
rest – 1
Years 7-9:
IA – 3
rest – 1
And repeat. It would take 18 years to balance the home and homes, but the rotation would feel more equal.
Years 1-9 totaled:
NE, WI, IA – 5 (instead of being 7, 5 and 3, then 3, 5 and 7)
rest – 3
LikeLike
I guess they really care about balancing the home and home. Or maybe someone thinks semi-permanent series are a feature, not a bug. Personally, I don’t mind it so much.
LikeLike
I think locking in the less interesting teams in each tier for 6 years is a mistake. Few schools want to play RU or UMD or MN every year for 6 years. If the end result is the same number of games, I fail to see the net advantage of doing it this way. You already can see an upset PSU fan because they get IA for 6 years while MI and OSU get WI and NE respectively. Reducing that to 3 years would reduce the anger I think.
LikeLike
Good point. I guess the B10 schedule makers didn’t put as much thought in to it as we all would have liked.
Speaking of which, have you see the number of schools who currently have the first week open in 2016 & 2017? Granted, many still have an OOC game or 2 to fill, but IU in 2016 already has 3 OOC opponents and week 1 unfilled (IU-MSU could be moved to to week 1 to solve that problem but the schedulemakers didn’t do that). Likewise, in 2017, PU & MSU already have 3 OOC games and an open week 1.
I suppose these schools can always move some of their OOC games up to week 1.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Good point. I guess the B10 schedule makers didn’t put as much thought in to it as we all would have liked.”
Normally I’d say they’re paid professionals that spend a lot more time on this sort of stuff than we do, but I’m not sure that’s really true. Most of their time is spent on actually scheduling the games. Since we only do big picture analysis, I think we might spend more time thinking about some of these things. We also get immediate feedback from a variety of fans while I think the B10 HQ is pretty isolated from the fans. They deal with presidents, ADs and the super powerful, but not us regular folks.
I think it’s similar to expansion in that sense. They get so focused on their issues that they forget that fans have a very different experience.
“Speaking of which, have you see the number of schools who currently have the first week open in 2016 & 2017?”
I hadn’t really looked, actually. Games are so fluid that I don’t worry about it until the year before. See Vandy dumping OSU and NW for one easy example.
“Granted, many still have an OOC game or 2 to fill, but IU in 2016 already has 3 OOC opponents and week 1 unfilled (IU-MSU could be moved to to week 1 to solve that problem but the schedulemakers didn’t do that). Likewise, in 2017, PU & MSU already have 3 OOC games and an open week 1.
I suppose these schools can always move some of their OOC games up to week 1.”
You’d have to think they would. Why use up your bye on Week 1?
LikeLike
As a follow up, look at the parity scheduling.
I think many fans view the teams very differently while the B10 views the top 6 teams they chose equally. I’d guess the B10 would be shocked to hear that some PSU fans are upset about getting IA for 6 straight years.
I’m guessing they also would be surprised that many fans would rather play teams equally than receive a slightly larger paycheck for this scheduling method.
In addition, I don’t think the B10 understands the anger of some fans at not being included in the top tier. Is IA clealry a level above NW?
As another point, I don’t think the B10 understanbds how much confusion they cause by announcing this new scheduling method and then refusing to explain it. Having seen 4 years worth of schedules, the plan seems fairly simple. So right after Delany announced they were doing this, why didn’t they give a press release/conference that explained how the system works? Why leave fans in the dark about something that can’t be kept secret anyway? Where is the upside to that?
Remember, these are the people that thought L****** and L****** were a good idea and were shocked at the reception they recived. I don’t think they realize how little faith many fans have in their decisions. They seem to assume we blindly trust them to have our best interests at heart.
LikeLike
There’s no interference between a six year segment and play every team every THREE years, as long as a team has three cross-over schools that it plays on a 1H-2A-3H-1A-2H-3A cycle … that is the cross division school with a locked rival (Indiana or Purdue) and a pair of other schools. The the other four schools can be played two years on, two years off.
Looking at three hypothetical “four years in twelve” schools, allowing it to stretch to one in four years for two of schools (three years in twelve) allows the third to be promoted to home and away in alternate years (six years in twelve), and a school sees 5/7 of the other division half the time, and 2/7 once in a blue moon.
The 36 year macro-cycle is so they can have unbalanced scheduling and pretend that it all balances out in the end, by having all the balancing that is not good for TV revenues happening in years 19-36. Well before the Big Ten gets to year 19, there’ll be some pretext for doing a schedule shuffle.
LikeLike
Yeah, Brian stated that.
LikeLike
Good analysis in Athlon Sports of BCS polls throughout the 15 year history
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/2013-bcs-standings-historic-and-statistical-analysis
Breaking down the analysis by conferences tells a lot about how conferences compete:
BIG
Most BCS Poll Appearances: OSU-#7 all time, MI-8, WI 12, NE-14 & PSU-18
Least BCS Poll Appearances: IN-#1/never ranked, IL-15, MD-17, RU-18, NW-19, Pur-20 & MN-22
Tweener Schools (not in Most or Least categories): MSU & IA
Conclusion…conference relies on the brand programs, top tier schools dominate the weaker schools
SEC
Most: FL-2, LSU-4, GA-11, AL-16, TN-17, Aub-24 & TAM-25
Least: Vandy-1, KY-5, MS-12, MSU-24
Tweeners: Ark, MO, SC
Conclusion…it’s very competitive at the top; being a doormat program will be difficult to reverse
PAC
Most: OR-6 & USC-10
Least: CO-13, WA-22 & ASU-23
Tweeners: AZ, Cal, OSU, Stan, UCLA, UT, WSU
Conclusion…it’s a very balanced conference, with fewer outliers
ACC
Most: VT-4, FSU-9, Mia-15 & GT-25
Least: Duke-1, UNC-6, NCSt-7, Syr-8, WF-11, MD-17 & Pitt-25
Tweeners: BC, Clem & UVa
Conclusion…similar model as the B1G; although the MD/UL swap will make more like the PAC
B12
Most: UT-1, OK-2, OSU-18, TCU-20, KSU-21 & WV-23
Least: ISU-4, Bay-9 & KS-10
Tweener: TT
Conclusion…similar model as the SEC
If the B12 does need to expand because the CCG adds important SOS influence, then the BCS poll ranking history suggests that they should offer Boise State & BYU football-only membership. They could then balance the conference similarly to ACC (Atlantic v Coastal) or B1G (Leaders v Legends) to create…Have/Have-not: UT, OK, ISU, Bay, KS & TT versus the Want-to-be: OSU, TCU, KSU, WV, BSU & BYU
LikeLike
Don’t like the idea of football-only members in a P5 conference. This isn’t the old Big East, C-USA or the American.
LikeLike
I don’t see a problem with it.
LikeLike
@Frank
Grambling might make an interesting article. Their “strike” probably sends chills through the P5 ADs and commissioners.
LikeLike
I doubt they are all that scared. The top schools have waiting lists of players that want to play there. Besides, th eplayers are complaining about things like no soap in the showers, mold in the locker room, bussing to too many games, etc. I doubt those are issues at a power school.
LikeLike
Article on the financial mess Grambling’s AD finds itself in
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131018/grambling-football/?sct=hp_t11_a2
LikeLike
This goes on to explain the financial problems of the university as a whole
http://deadspin.com/whats-behind-the-grambling-football-teams-protest-1447273282
In 2009, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal turned down stimulus money from the federal government. That same year, Jindal cut $219 million in state funds for higher education, including $5 million that would have been earmarked for Grambling. In January 2012, Jindal announced an additional mid-year budget cut of $50 million for higher education, with Grambling losing out on nearly $1 million of that total. This is not chump change.
It gets worse. According to a 2011 university financial report, Grambling’s share of funding from the state of Louisiana was projected to decrease nearly 40 percent by the 2011-12 school year from its peak in 2007-08. According to Frank Pogue, the university president, that figure is now up to more than 50 percent in the last eight years.
Someone in comments section also noted that Grambling’s endowment is down to $4.5 million.
LikeLike
After Katrina, when Jindal got elected, Louisiana was virtually bankrupt. The same is pretty much true for all the universities in the state. I believe ULL and ULM have the two smallest budgets in FBS, below a number of basketball only and FCS Division I schools.
LikeLike
In 2010, they talked about closing as many as 8 of Louisiana’s 14 universities. Instead they kept all of them open.
LikeLike
bullet – I don’t know where you get your information from, but nothing could be further from the truth. When Jindal took office in 2008, Louisiana was flush with money, including federal Katrina money. He cut half a billion in taxes and then the Katrina money dried up. Higher education has been decimated under his direction. Under Kathleen Blanco, higher education was funded at the Southern average. Jindal has cut higher education every year of his governorship. Tuition has skyrocketed. Professors and administrators are leaving in droves. Jindal has done more to damage higher education than any governor in my lifetime.
LikeLike
Yeah, and it’s not just higher ed; Jindal’s voucher program and tenure reform legislation were both declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court and the voucher program ended up resulting nothing but fraud and waste that cost Louisiana public schools desperately needed funding.
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/07/new_living_word_was_a_waste_of.html
LikeLike
I get my info from Louisiana papers on the internet.
Baton Rouge may have been booming, but Louisiana was seriously hurting in 2008. You have more knowledge of Jindal and higher ed, but you must have been on a different planet at the time if you think Louisiana was flush. Fed funds have strings. You can’t spend them anywhere you want.
LikeLike
@frug
Everything I have heard is that the voucher program was an enormous success in New Orleans. It turned around the situation in what was perhaps the worst school system in the nation. You linked the vouchers at one school. If there was fraud at only one school, that is a huge improvement for Lousiana. There are other opinions:
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2013/10/louisiana_voucher_progr.html
LikeLike
bullet – I have worked in and around the Louisiana state government and politics since the mid 80s. I know what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/07/louisiana-supreme-court-rules-school-voucher-funding-unconstitutional/
I’m sure some people like it, but it doesn’t change the facts that
A. The program was unconstitutional
B. The state doesn’t test Louisiana’s private schools (even the ones that receive voucher funding) at anything close to the level they do public schools meaning their is no way to know if the private schools are actually outperforming the public schools (and given that the “good” private schools generally won’t accept voucher students for both financial and academic reasons there is a strong chance many are not). Indeed as the above article notes, Under the Jindal accountability scheme, private schools with fewer than 40 voucher students wouldn’t have to show basic competency among its students in math, reading, social studies and science.
LikeLike
It is a wake-up for institutions to start putting into place plans to make them as close to self-sufficient as possible.
LikeLike
You mean become private?
LikeLike
Maybe not in all cases but I have heard rumors of public institutions with substantial endowment (i.e. Michigan) going the private route. Still, if I were a school administrator I would be long tired of yearly fights at the state house and start planning to depend less on state monies.
LikeLike
Good luck buying all the property and buildings, giving up state tuition support, start paying property taxes, etc.
LikeLike
Michigan was established in the state constitution so I doubt it could go priavte, but there are number of schools that have discussed going private. Pitt and (especially) PSU have repeatedly brought up the possibility (though it should be noted that both are only partially public.) UVA has also considered going private and it was mentioned as possibility in the Strategic Assessment the school recently commissioned (I linked to it above).
LikeLike
That’s the thing:
State support at schools like UVa and Michigan (and PSU) accounts for something like 3% of the budget now; virtually nothing.
I think these schools have decided to stay public solely for political reasons.
LikeLike
Regardless of what they call themselves, however, _in-state_ costs for schools like Michigan, llinois, and Colorado are now comparable to out-of-state costs at Minnesota or cheaper private schools. Out-of-state costs at those schools are comparable to the top privates, so they’re virtually private now, regardless of what they call themselves.
LikeLike
State support at schools like UVa and Michigan (and PSU) accounts for something like 3% of the budget now; virtually nothing.
Does that count the bargain in-state students get on tuition? As one who is currently paying out-of-state tuition for a Michigan student, I can assure you the difference is considerable.
LikeLike
Marc:
Huh?
We’re talking about costs to the university of going private, not staying public. Being able to charge in-state students more would be a benefit, not a cost, if they went private.
LikeLike
BTW, by state, support, I meant the funds that the legislatures give the universities. Nothing at all to do with tuition policy.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/10/27354/in-2013-alabamas-sorority-system-is-still-racially-segregated
Bamatab, can you provide some background and perspective on this? I saw this article about AL still having segregated Greek houses and was curious. How do the students and alumni feel about it? Do you see any movement to end the segregation? Do you see a neeed to end it, or does the system work well for U of A? Don’t pay too much attention to the article I linked (I certainly didn’t), it just made me curious.
LikeLike
I don’t know what kind of perspective I can give. I know that in one of the recent ordeals, the sorority was set to accept the girl, but then the older alumni either used their voting powers to veto it, or threatened to withold donations and other assistance. The current sorority members had no problem accepting her. I’m sure that this latest ordeal will force them to segregate. But in the end, outside of kicking the sororities off campus, I don’t know what all the university can really do. They are still basically private clubs, with members determining who can and can’t join. Plus the Greek system (the political arm of which has been nucknamed “The Machine”) at Bama basically runs the school political system, and has a very strong political pull in the state as a whole. So the university has to be careful of how it deals with the greek system for political reasons.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“I don’t know what kind of perspective I can give.”
I figure you’re more likely to know the whole story than a random blog post, plus I’m sure you’re more aware of U of A’s history and culture than a typical blogger. I’d rather hear the whole story than just one side from a gotcha blog.
“I know that in one of the recent ordeals, the sorority was set to accept the girl, but then the older alumni either used their voting powers to veto it, or threatened to withold donations and other assistance. The current sorority members had no problem accepting her.”
That’s too bad. It’s a shame for the alumni to tell the current sisters they don’t trust their judgment (especially since their decision was to end segregation, not impose it).
“I’m sure that this latest ordeal will force them to segregate.”
Officially, maybe. But while a few while take advantage of the chance to desegregate, I’m guessing most won’t because they won’t have any minority candidates. Who really wants to be the only minority in a system that doesn’t want you?
“But in the end, outside of kicking the sororities off campus, I don’t know what all the university can really do. They are still basically private clubs, with members determining who can and can’t join.”
Location is generally the school’s main power here. They also have the right to exclude the segregated Greek organizations from on campus events I suppose, but only if the group has an official policy of segregation.
“Plus the Greek system (the political arm of which has been nucknamed “The Machine”) at Bama basically runs the school political system, and has a very strong political pull in the state as a whole. So the university has to be careful of how it deals with the greek system for political reasons.”
Yes, that’s true at many schools.
LikeLike
“Yes, that’s true at many schools.”
I don’t think there is an equivalent of The Machine at any other state, where the Greek system of one school dominates the political system of a particular state.
LikeLike
I was referring to his last statement. That said, Greeks often have a disproportionate amount of power and influence in politics and business as the cronyism can be very strong.
LikeLike
That’s the real shame in this story. The fact that the current members of the sororities actually wanted to add the African-Americans but alums came in and mixed them immediately is ridiculous. I didn’t even realize that there were houses that had alums have any say during the rush process.
LikeLike
The positive side of this story is that this entire fiasco came to light because the current sorority sisters were tired of being vetoed behind closed doors so they opened up to the media about the situation. It was actually a pretty brave thing to do.
As far as the alumni holding sway over the rush process, these particular Greek houses(not all at UA) are all exclusively old money clubs. The houses aren’t really social clubs like you might find on other campuses, but exist for the purpose(as much as anything else) of perpetuating an elitist hold on influence and power. So, control over these houses is passed from one generation to another. That being the case, daddy and mommy still control the purse strings if you will and the students are dependent not just personally but collectively on the alumni.
LikeLike
Discrimination by race, religion, sex, and ethnicity is the defacto situation at most Greeks houses on all campuses. A house associated with a B1G campus would never give those reasons for rejection (except for sex discrimination which is open and institutionalized), but if you compare membership with the campus population it is clear that this type of selection is occurring. A lot of it is steering and self-selection, but 90%+ black, 90%+ Jewish, etc. houses indicate selection based on race and religion.
LikeLike
Mack,
“Discrimination by race, religion, sex, and ethnicity is the defacto situation at most Greeks houses on all campuses.”
De facto, yes, but not by official policy.
“A house associated with a B1G campus would never give those reasons for rejection”
I’d hope not.
“(except for sex discrimination which is open and institutionalized), but if you compare membership with the campus population it is clear that this type of selection is occurring. A lot of it is steering and self-selection, but 90%+ black, 90%+ Jewish, etc. houses indicate selection based on race and religion.”
There’s a big difference between 90%+ by choice on both sides and 100% by policy.
LikeLike
Of course no one gave a reason for the sorority black-balling the girl. But her Father was a political activist. You never know if it was political or racial. The girls were just told she wasn’t their type. There was a fair amount of coverage in the Atlanta paper.
LikeLike
There is no official policy. Whether there is an unofficial policy, only they know.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m talking about their internal policy. Almost nobody would be dumb enough to write it down.
LikeLike
It’s not really internal policy either. The current sorority sisters thought they could allow her in. It just so happened that the “old money” alumni of the sorority decided that they didn’t want her, so they exerted their power to nix the current sister’s wishes.
LikeLike
What I enjoy about Mizzou succeeding in the SEC is that a handful teams from the BIG, ACC, or Big12 would likely do the same under such membership.
Mizzou deserves credit for seeing the benefits of joining a conference with outstanding football & recruiting access, across the boards. If I was in charge, I’d keep Mizzou in the SEC for good.
LikeLike
Missouri is ranking 13th or 14th in recruiting in the SEC. They are winning mostly with Big 12 recruits. Manziel was recruited while A&M was in the Big 12 (although they are doing well in recruiting while in the SEC). They lost Swopes, an NFL starter at QB from a middle of the pack Big 12 team. Maybe Missouri and A&M have an easier road in the SEC?
LikeLike
Both are winning with B12 recruits. Count me as somewhat surprised although as a B1G fan I am fully aware that the B1G and SEC are fairly even in bowl victories over the past 20 years. The SEC gets a lot of credit for its top 1 or 2 teams. The rest of the teams are fairly comparable to the schools of the other power conferences. Congrats to Mizzou.
LikeLike
There is some decent chance Nebraska, Missouri and A&M could all win their divisions.
LikeLike
For A&M to win the SEC W, Alabama will need to lose 2 games out of 5 (AR, TN, LSU, MSU, Auburn) with A&M winning out. I do not see a decent probability of that. MO and NE only need to win their games, and MO will lock it up with wins over SC and TN.
LikeLike
Sure enough, but they get also, and I should have stressed this in my original post, play these SEC teams & therefore adjust.
LikeLike
Fvck my grammar on here, I guess I really depend on Internet boards with “edit” options. Bullet, as I attempted to say above, Mizzou gets to play these SEC teams, many at home, & that’s nearly as important as the recruiting & coaching.
LikeLike
Andy got some help in the SEC East today, as Tennessee kicked a field goal with a second left to stun South Carolina and Vanderbilt rallied to upend Georgia.
LikeLike
The East is a mess. MO is unbeaten while SC, UGA, UF and TN all have 2 SEC losses. MO has beaten UGA and UF back to back, plays SC and TN in the next 2 weeks and finishes with TAMU. Next week is basically it for the East. MO hosts SC, UGA and UF play and TN gets AL. The UGA/UF loser is eliminated, and so is TN with the loss. If MO wins, they basically lock the East. If SC wins, they need to beat UF and hope TAMU beats MO. Then SC would win the East.
Every team in the East seems to be ravaged by injuries, too. I’m not giving any of them much chance in the CCG.
LikeLike
If Mizzou beats Carolina next week, they only have to win one out of their final three games to win the SEC East, doesn’t matter which one.
LikeLike
Not mathematically correct. They still have to play Tennessee who only has two conference losses.
LikeLike
And they have 5 games left-SC, TN, UK, Ole Miss, A&M.
LikeLike
My bad. For some reason I thought that they had already played UT.
LikeLike
No, they did beat Vandy.
LikeLike
Mizzou should be favored as South Carolina lost their QB in the Tennessee game.
LikeLike
If all goes according to plan though, UT will have another conference loss next week when they play Bama. MIzzou has a great shot if they beat USC.
LikeLike
What’s happening this year is what I predicted. The top of the SEC’s unprecedented ability to beat up every single week on the bottom half as has been going on for 2 or 3 years has ended. Everyone in the east but Missouri has two conference losses. And Missouri has only played 3 conference games so far. The bottom half of the SEC has really been awful the last couple of years. But Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Missouri all look much improved over last year. So that means more losses for Alabama, LSU, A&M, UGA, S. Carolina and Florida. Kentucky and Arkansas still look pretty bad. Ole Miss, who has been a distant #7 in the conference and MSU should beat some teams.
LikeLike
The SEC is looking more like it typically does. No more strength at the top than anyone else, but a really strong middle class.
LikeLike
Wild one in Houston. BYU 24, UH 21. With 3 minutes to go. In the FIRST quarter. At this pace it would be 120-105 final.
LikeLike
Jesus Christ, if all scores hold in this afternoon current slot, Twilight Zone parity throughout much of CF, albeit OU finally got the lead against KU. But if Auburn, Iowa and CMU all win, that’s 3 major to huge upsets.
It’s starting to appear that the BIG is not as bad as advertised. IU’s loss to Mizzou looks more impressive each week. The fact that Mizzou could do this to Fl w/o their starting QB, he also missed much of the 4th qtr against Ga in Athens, truly underscores how overrated the SEC’s bottom half is this year. They should not have 8 teams in the top 25 – 5-6 max.
UCF’s victory over PSU doesn’t look so bad for the BIG as well. They clearly stayed the course with SCar and got a huge win in Louisville.
If UCLA can beat Stanford and finish with no more than a loss in the Pac12, Neb might get more national love.
I think MSU or UCF will crack the top 25 of next week’s ratings. Kick the Gamecocks & definitely Florida out, Oregon throttled Tenn, just completely destroyed them.
LikeLike
Btw, ouch on Maryland. They got seriously decoded by FSU, injuries as well. They are down big to WF. The Deacons are average.
LikeLike
Goodbye El Paso, hello Annapolis.
LikeLike
Worse, wide receivers Diggs and Long suffered season-ending injuries. Getting that sixth win for bowl eligibility will be difficult now.
LikeLike
Well your loss to FSU wasn’t too embarrassing – Jesus – Clemson was ranked 3rd. FSU is either back or the ACC is not as strong as advertised.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Well your loss to FSU wasn’t too embarrassing – Jesus – Clemson was ranked 3rd. FSU is either back or the ACC is not as strong as advertised.”
The ACC was never that strong to being with. They had Clemson and FSU, with Miami a step behind and then VT (lost 35-10 to AL). Everyone else already has 2+ losses.
VT has no good wins. Miami beat UF, but that looks less impressive every week. Clemson beat UGA, and that also looks less impressive every week. FSU also has no good OOC wins.
I think FSU is really good and Clemson is pretty good. I’m not sold on VT or Miami right now.
LikeLike
Maryland has three more reasonable chances to procure that elusive sixth win — Nov. 9 at home against up-and-down Syracuse; Nov. 23 at home vs. Boston College; and Nov. 30 at N.C. State.
LikeLike
In all fairness, we all tend to overlook the impact of injuries unless it is specifically our team. As vp stated, the Terps are in bad shape in this department. Ga and SCar have also been bitten hard by the injury bug, esp Ga. So I’m not exactly on the overrated train when it comes to these two teams. But Fl was overrated this year.
LikeLike
As usual, most upsets fail to happen. Still, a tough weekend for the top 25.
Thursday:
#10 Miami lucky to beat UNC
Friday:
#8 UL loses to UCF
Saturday:
#4 OSU struggled with IA for much of the game
#7 TAMU lost to #24 Auburn
#9 UCLA lost to #13 Stanford
#11 SC lost to TN
#14 MO beat #22 UF
#15 UGA lost to Vandy
#16 TT came back to barely beat WV
#18 OU struggled with KU
#21 OkSU struggled with TCU
#23 NIU struggled until deep in the 4th with CMU
Late games:
#1 AL is crushing AR
#3 Clemson is playing #5 FSU
#6 LSU trails MS at half 10-0
#12 Baylor is crushing ISU
#20 is getting whipped by ASU 39-17 after 3 qtrs
#25 WI is crushing IL
#2 OR plays WSU
#17 Fresno plays UNLV
That’s losses for #7, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 22 so far with #6 and #20 in trouble.
Next poll:
1. AL
2. OR
3. Clemson/FSU winner
4. OSU
5. LSU (if they come back to win)
6. Miami
7. Clemson/FSU loser (if it’s close)
8. Baylor
9. MO
10. Stanford
LikeLike
Weird game in Cavs country: UVa took a 22-0 lead late in the first half, but couldn’t convert a single third down in the second half and lose to Duke 35-22. The Blue Devils have beaten Virginia in five of their past six meetings.
LikeLike
Great offense in first half…horrible in the second. London’s days must be numbered
LikeLike
The Ducks look like pink gumball machines.
LikeLike
Alan,
What was Miles thinking not calling his last TO with 20+ seconds left? Don’t you have to save time for a chance to score?
LikeLike
The problem with that question is that it is based on the assumption that Les Miles thinks before he makes a decision. Many of his actions would suggest that is not always the case.
LikeLike
Who knows?
Its been a crazy day in the SEC.
LikeLike
Yes it has. The 4 year streak of no upsets is clearly over. Welcome back to the world of mortals, SEC.
LikeLike
It’s not a bad day to be a Florida State fan.
The season is far from over, though. Home vs. Miami on November 2, on the road at Florida on November 30, likely ACC championship game vs. Miami or Va. Tech. Heck, I’m at least as worried about other games FSU has managed in the past to screw up like NC State, Wake Forest, and Syracuse as I am about the remaining big games on the schedule.
But what a great performance tonight against the #3 Clemson Tigers.
LikeLike
A great week of upsets or worse.
The casualty list includes:
Louisville, aTm, LSU, South Carolina, Clemson, UCLA (though not surprising), Georgia & Washington
Near upsets:
Miami (a matter of time before someone besides FSU beats them down)
I’d hate to be from the following state list:
South Carolina
LikeLike
Add Illinois and Iowa next to South Carolina.
LikeLike
At least if you live in SC you have the schadenfreude of your rival also getting upset so there will be less smack talk.
LikeLike
ESPN is projecting the top 6 of the BCS standings tomorrow to be 1) Alabama, 2) Oregon, 3) Florida State, 4) Ohio State, 5) Missouri, 6) Stanford.
Mizzou should be favored in their next 4 games against a Connor Shaw-less SC in MO, Tennessee in MO, at a very weak Kentucky, and at Ole Miss. Ole Miss should be pretty tough, but Mizzou should still be favored. If they win all the games they’re favored in they’d be 11-0 when Texas A&M comes to Columbia.
LikeLike
Glad to see Missouri doing so well in the SEC. The B1G heads must be kicking themselves for not adding the tigers back when- I had a feeling that was a mistake back then and now it’s even more obvious.
LikeLike
Bjork,
“The B1G heads must be kicking themselves for not adding the tigers back when”
Why?
For taking NE instead, or for not expanding to 14+ at once? Who was willing and able to be #14+ then? Was the B10 ready to integrate 3+ new teams at once after the poor experience they had with PSU?
How did Mizzou help solve the issues that the B10 wanted to resolve via expansion?
MD/DC and MO are about the same size, but MD is growing faster and the new media market is bigger. The B10 has a large alumni presence in the east. UMD also ties in with PSU very well while NE already has IA and others. Finally, UMD is better academically.
As for RU, NJ is much bigger than MO. It provides proximity to NYC and all the media there. It works well with PSU and the other eastern alumni. It’s also better academically.
As a pair, UMD and RU work well together. They work with PSU to provide a large chunk of the eastern seaboard to the B10 (DC, Baltimore, Philly, Newark). From a competition standpoint, they break up the east coast footprint the ACC was developing. They provide access to a lot of alumni and a large number of major media outlets. They are growing and will provide many B10 students in the future. They are also good recruiting grounds.
While they might not be much help on the football field for a while, I don’t think the B10 is at all concerned about it. That wasn’t why they were added. The B10 made a conscious choice to develop the east and I doubt they’ve changed their minds already.
LikeLike
… but Nebraska was added for football, right? All the reasons you mentioned for MD and RUT being added (alumni base, academics, media markets) would’ve made MO the better 12th addition. Neither of us could possibly argue with that. Thrown in geographic proximity and it’s a moot point.
LikeLike
Bjork,
“… but Nebraska was added for football, right?”
Yes, because the B10 needed 12 for a CCG. NE provided a national fan base and a great brand. When they came available, that trumped all the reasons the B10 had announced for examining expansion. You don’t turn down a king that fits your conference when you need a school.
“All the reasons you mentioned for MD and RUT being added (alumni base, academics, media
markets) would’ve made MO the better 12th addition. Neither of us could possibly argue with that.”
Yes, I most definitely can and will argue with that. NE has much better history and a much bigger brand than MO. Their academics were very similar to MO’s. NE has lots of fans in KC, and IL gives the B10 some STL access, so the media market argument is weaker. It probably wasn’t even a close decision for the B10 to choose NE over MO.
The upside of the B10’s latest expansion is that RU and UMD complement NE so well. They provide everything that NE doesn’t while NE provides what they don’t.
If you want to make an argument for MO, it would have to be that NE wasn’t available or that MO was part of a move to 14+.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t have made much sense from a Big Ten perspective if, say, Maryland had been added as #12, then followed by Nebraska and Rutgers. The conference needed the best football brand available for a 12th member and a CCG, while #13-14 had different criteria for selection. Would Missouri have been a credible candidate for those latter slots were it still available? Possibly. But Mizzou wouldn’t have had the geographic synergy to complement whichever the Big Ten chose to pair it with.
LikeLike
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. NE might have a better brand than MO, but the MO brand is above and beyond RUT or MD. MO also carries the entire state (unlike Kansas with KU and KState or Iowa with Iowa and IowaState), so with one team you get all of the markets there (MO carries KC and STL- Illinois is barely covered in the STL newspaper, and NE isn’t covered at all in the KC one). I also didn’t mention AAU status, which MO has and NE does not, and again you can’t discredit geographic proximity (MO is much closer to the B1G “core” around Chicago than NE, RUT, or MD. A 12-team expansion w/ MO would’ve been a bit “neater” than 14 teams w/ NE, RUT, and MD IMHO.
LikeLike
Bjork,
“NE might have a better brand than MO,”
Might?
“but the MO brand is above and beyond RUT or MD.”
1. That’s irrelevant since you said the B10 should have taken MO instead of NE.
2. In FB, MO is a better brand than RU and UMD. Nobody really disputes that. But MO wasn’t available when they were added, so that’s also irrelevant.
” also didn’t mention AAU status, which MO has and NE does not”
Both had it at the time, and MO is not considered a significantly better school than NE except by MO fans.
“and again you can’t discredit geographic proximity (MO is much closer to the B1G “core” around Chicago than NE, RUT, or MD.”
If that’s what the B10 was looking for, that’d be great. But the B10 was actively looking to grow into new areas and did with the second expansion.
“A 12-team expansion w/ MO would’ve been a bit “neater” than 14 teams w/ NE, RUT, and MD IMHO.”
And how does the B10 make more revenue based on neatness?
LikeLike
Interesting you say that. When the SEC was discussing adding Mizzou, I recall one SEC fan site complaining about it because as a state, it seemed too pro-sports oriented, unlike other SEC states (the comment derived from seeing Cardinals/Rams/Blues/Royals/Chiefs items in gift shops at the St. Louis and Kansas City airports, and nothing at all for Mizzou). Rutgers was a choice made on potential as much as anything else — its big-time history is relatively minimal — but Maryland has fielded a nationally competitive sports program since the late 1940s, with as much or more success across the board than Missouri.
LikeLike
vp that’s a total lie. I go through both the KC and STL airports all the time. There’s Mizzou stuff everywhere. Why would you even say that?
LikeLike
And if by “accross the board” you mean stuff like lacrosse and men’s soccer, then sure.
If you’re talking revenue sports I’ve demonstrated about a dozen times that Maryland is at best tied with Missouri and probably a bit behind. Also, significantly behind in fan support.
LikeLike
Haha- I feel like we’re splitting hairs here, so I have no more to argue. My original point was that the SEC is reaping the benefits of picking up MO (which was a risk) and TA&M- both are doing well on the field and added some great new territory. I hope that RUT and MD do just as well for the B1G when they come aboard.
LikeLike
Bjork,
“My original point was that the SEC is reaping the benefits of picking up MO (which was a risk) and TA&M- both are doing well on the field and added some great new territory. I hope that RUT and MD do just as well for the B1G when they come aboard.”
Well, that isn’t what you said. You said the B10 was kicking itself and that not taking MO was the wrong choice.
I agree with your sentiment above, and I think the decisions made were the best for both conferences. MO was more valuable to the SEC than to the B10 and the B10 needed NE more than MO.
LikeLike
Nebraska has a great history, but how’s their future?
Mizzou has a much higher enrollment, a much more populous state, AAU status, better academics, a pretty good basketball program, and a football program on the rise.
It may well be that 20 years from now the B1G will be kicking themselves for taking Nebraska instead of Missouri.
LikeLike
Glad to see Missouri doing so well in the SEC. The B1G heads must be kicking themselves for not adding the tigers back when- I had a feeling that was a mistake back then and now it’s even more obvious.
Conference re-alignment moves are multi-decade decisions. If the Big Ten should’ve taken Missouri, that would need to be proven over many, many years, not one season. Even this board’s #1 Missouri homer, Andy, concedes that Nebraska was the better choice for #12, given that most re-alignment decisions are for football, as this one clearly was.
For the Big Ten to have taken Missouri when it had the chance, it would have needed to jump to 14 immediately, and I’m pretty sure the only plausible partners would’ve been Rutgers or Kansas, as Maryland wasn’t ready to make a move at that time.
I doubt that they are kicking themselves for NOT making a move like that.
LikeLike
Conference re-alignment moves are multi-decade decisions.
Something coach K fails to understand when he lambastes Maryland for its upcoming move to the Big Ten. It’s being done to benefit the university long after Maryland-Duke basketball games are forgotten.
LikeLike
I never conceded Nebraska was the “better” choice. I just conceded that they weren’t worse.
Missouri has the better market, better academics, better basketball, and pretty good football.
Nebraska, by being a traditional football king, makes up for all that and is about even wtih Missouri overall so I can’t fault he B1G for taking them.
I think Mizzou is a much better pick than Rutgers. Much better. And with Maryland Mizzou is better in most everything except academics. I can’t fault the B1G for wanting a better academic school, but then Mizzou is AAU so they were good enough.
Anyway, I’d say Mizzou would have been a good addition to the B1G but they waited too long and lost out.
LikeLike
Sigh…
They didn’t wait at all. They selected UNL.
LikeLike
They waited to expand to 14 until after Mizzou wasn’t available anymore. Had they moved more quickly the could have had Mizzou instead of Rutgers.
When Mizzou was available they were still chasing schools like Notre Dame, Texas, and UNC. None of those schools panned out so they lost out on Mizzou and ended up with Rutgers instead.
LikeLike
I agree, if you assume location didn’t matter. But after UNL the focus turned to the east, or a king, or both.
LikeLike
says who? that was all speculation. It wouldn’t make sense to pick the lesser school based purely on geography. When has a conference ever done that?
LikeLike
It’s not a lesser school relative to the stated goals of the conference, to increase presence in the central Atlantic region.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t make sense to pick the lesser school based purely on geography. When has a conference ever done that?
The SEC taking Missouri over FSU?
LikeLike
cc: they stated the goal of increasing presence on the east coast AS they picked up Rutgers. Before that they never said that it was their only option. They were looking at Nebraska and Notre Dame and Texas and Missouri etc and none of those are east coast schools.
frug, sure, the SEC decided not to take two schools from one state, that’s true. But I don’t see how that’s the same thing.
LikeLike
frug, sure, the SEC decided not to take two schools from one state, that’s true. But I don’t see how that’s the same thing.
Actually, it’s exactly the same thing; FSU had more absolute value than Missouri but because of its geographic location it had less marginal value to the SEC.
LikeLike
Missouri looks like it will likely win 10 or more games for the 4th time in 7 seasons. How many schools can even say that? So it’s not like Mizzou is some kind of nobody in football like Rutgers. Also, Missouri has a very solid basketball program. Also, Missouri is an AAU school. FSU is not. And Mizzou is THE flagship school and only D1 school in their state. FSU is a distant second in their state that they share with over half a dozen other D1 schools.
But most of all, if expansion is about expanding to new markets, then the difference between Missouri and FSU is 0 new population vs 6M+. Not the same as the difference between Missouri/New Jersey.
Also, Missouri outranks FSU in apparel sales and isn’t all that far behind in attendance ranking (19th vs 24th). And over the last 7 seasons: FSU: 59 wins, Missouri: 60 wins. And Missouri did it in tougher leagues.
LikeLike
They waited to expand to 14 until after Mizzou wasn’t available anymore. Had they moved more quickly the could have had Mizzou instead of Rutgers.
When Mizzou was available they were still chasing schools like Notre Dame, Texas, and UNC. None of those schools panned out so they lost out on Mizzou and ended up with Rutgers instead.
You used the key word: chasing. When Missouri was still available, there was no credible partner. By the time there was a credible partner, there was no Missouri.
You can’t say “they blew it” unless you can tell me what option they realistically had.
LikeLike
fair enough.
LikeLike
@Andy
So what you are saying is that Missouri was selected over FSU for the SEC because it had more new TV households and better academics. In other words, exactly the same advantages Rutgers has over Missouri.
LikeLike
Also Missouri was not a duplicate market and had a somewhat comparable number of fans according to attendance and apparel sales. Also Missouri has more wins than FSU over the last 7 years. All three of of those things are what are different than the Rutgers/Missouri comparison.
LikeLike
I think Mizzou is a much better pick than Rutgers. Much better.
I think even the Big Ten might’ve agreed with you there, but at the time they wanted #14, Rutgers was the best name on the board.
LikeLike
I think straight up Missouri is certainly more valuable than Rutgers, but if the Big Ten is serious about an East Coast strategy then Rutgers could have more marginal value to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Missouri would clearly be more valuable to the Big 12 or SEC and probably the ACC. I suspect Rutgers is more valuable to the Big 10. Different conferences have different needs. Missouri would be adding more of what the Big 10 already had. Rutgers adds thing the Big 10 needs or wants.
LikeLike
Plus, as we’ve discussed multiple times, MO wasn’t available when RU was chosen so it’s a false comparison.
LikeLike
bullet, Rutgers is a risky investment that might pay off but probably won’t. Missouri was a sure thing.
So yeah, maybe some day many years from now Rutgers will be the better pick, but probably not.
Rutgers got into the B1G because Mizzou wasn’t available at the time of expansion.
LikeLike
I doubt Rutgers will ever be a better athletic add than Missouri, but I don’t think that is what this expansion was about.
Rutgers probably is a better TV $ investment than Missouri because they do bring New Jersey which has more people and is growing faster. New York is a long shot and not necessary for Rutgers to do better.
Rutgers is good because of what they bring outside of athletics and TV. Missouri brings none of that. Rutgers complements the Big 10 while Missouri is more of the same.
LikeLike
Yeah, OK, New Jersey has 30% more people than Missouri. So there’s that. But how many of those people are Rutgers fans? Barely any.
Rutgers’s academics are better than Missouri’s, but not world’s better. Rutgers ranks about 11th or so in the B1G academically, Missouri would rank around 12th.
If you want to say it’s intrinsically good that Rutgers sticks out like a sore thumb in the B1G and is different geographically, culturally etc than the rest of the B1G while it’s intrinsically bad that Missouri would have fit in with the B1G because they would be “more of the same”, then I guess you are free to feel that way. You were probably in favor of the WVU to the Big 12 move as well.
LikeLike
Most of Missouri are Cards and Royals fans. Just like Texas would be even more valuable if Houston and DFW weren’t such pro sports markets and instead, were more like Atlanta. So Missouri has a higher % interested than Rutgers, but Rutgers has a lot more people in the state and both suffer relative to the pros.
You still don’t get the rest of it. Its not about Rutgers being a more highly regarded school academically. Rutgers was part of the “eastern” strategy. They are leveraging Penn St. and all the Big 10 alums in the east. Just as Colorado moved to the Pac 12 to connect with their rich California alums, the Big 10 is moving the east to it to connect with their rich eastern seaboard alums. And using those alums to create a critical mass with Rutgers fans and Maryland fans in the east. Something the Big 12 could never do with Rutgers. And I suspect the ACC couldn’t risk the athletic weakness while the Big 10 felt it could with the addition of Nebraska.
And they are seeking not just student-athletes, but students in the highly populated east. Ohio is still growing in population, but has 25% fewer HS seniors than 30 years ago. They need good students to keep up the quality of their enormous state universities. There’s no doubt this was a president driven expansion, not an AD driven one.
LikeLike
And Rutgers has more fans than it did 15 years ago. They have averaged 47k over the last 4 years. Of the schools not currently in the Big 5, only BYU and ECU draw more. 1/4 of the P5 draw less.
LikeLike
Missouri has better sports programs than Rutgers. That isn’t to debatable but performance on the field is almost inconsequential. Television is all that matters. He is the tv ratings thru 7 weeks on the networks and espn. Missouri is listed twice while Rutgers is listed 3 times.
Rutgers vs Fresno State Week 1 10:30 pm Thursday night ESPNU 241k
Rutgers vs SMU Week 6 12:00 pm ESPN news 241k
Rutgers vs Louisville Week 7 7:30 pm thurs ESPN 1.6 mil
Missouri vs Toledo Week 2 3:30 pm ESPNU (game started on Espnnews than switched) 326k
Missouri vs Georgia Week 7 12:00 pm ESPN 3.01 mil.
When both Missouri and Rutgers each played on a secondary channel like ESPNU or ESPNnews,they drew pretty much the same with a differences 85 thousand viewers which isn’t much tv wise. Then they both played national games against top 10 opponents. Missouri against Georgia significantly outdrew Rutgers versus Louisville even though the Rutgers game was in prime time. But how much was that Missouri and how much was that Georgia? Georgia is listed 5 times on that site: drawing 8.41 mil, 7.05 mil, 7.39 mil, 5.61 mil, and 3.01 mil. 3 of those gems were on CBS or ABC but the 7.05 mil against South Carolina was on ESPN much like the Missouri game all be it at 4:30 pm. Regardless, Missouri gave Georgia’s it lowest national game ranking.
These number are incomplete for the season. I would love to see the national numbers for each of these team’s game. It would be interesting to track going forward. However, against nobodys Missouri and Rutger drew about the same. Unless success on the field equal television ratings, it doesn’t really matter.
LikeLike
Here’s the link : http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings
LikeLike
After the merger with the University of Medicine and dentistry of New Jersey this past summer, Rutgers will be a top 30 research institution nationally. That would put them at 7 or 8 in the BIG and significantly higher than Missouri.
Click to access research2011.pdf
Page 185.
Rutgers did $320 mil in research. The university of medicine and dentistry of New Jersey did $223 mil, about $22 mil less than Missouri itself. Combined puts them into the top 30.
LikeLike
Yeah, OK, New Jersey has 30% more people than Missouri. So there’s that. But how many of those people are Rutgers fans? Barely any.
At this risk of stating the obvious…
New Jersey (and New York) is full of B1G alumni and fans. Adding Rutgers is not about adding Rutgers fans but all about adding fans from the other B1G schools who now live / work in NY or New Jersey. Adding the BTN in NJ is better than adding the BTN in MO where they must compete with the Cardinals at al on the pro level while competing with the B12 fans who follow UNL football (cannibalized market) and KU basketball (cannibalized market) in MO base market. In addition it get the SEC a recruiting hold on the east coast which has fertile recruits and no major college schools.
New Jersey (and east coast exposure) > Missouri for recruiting
New Jersey > Missouri for B1G alumni
Folks want Notre Dame for the east coast and Chicago markets they sell well in NOT for their market penetration in Indiana.
LikeLike
bullet, I can assure you with full honesty that most Missouri based cards fans are also Mizzou fans. It’s not like they have to pick one or the other. And there aren’t all that many Royals fans, but among what few there are, many are also Missouri fans. You saw the national apparel sales rankings. Missouri is well within the top 25 and ahead of schools like Florida State, and just below Texas A&M. Missouri has tons of fans. Rutgers does not.
This whole “eastern” strategy thing seems like an excuse more than anything. What difference does adding an also ran no good program like Rutgers do for the B1G’s presence on “the east coast”? Next to nothing. Nobody cares about Rutgers’ games.
As for it being “obvious that it was president driven rather than AD driven”, you’re forgetting the obvious point that MISSOURI WAS NOT ON THE TABLE WHEN RUTGERS WAS CHOSEN. To draw any kind of “obvious” conclusions from that is total bunk. We’ll never know who they would have chosen if Missouri were available.
When Missouri was available the B1G presidents were still desperately chasing after Notre Dame, Texas, UNC and the like (while still holding on to Missouri as a possible school #14). They swung and missed on all of those schools, and by then Missouri was gone. Rutgers was literally the best available school left to pair with Maryland. Basically the only one that was worth a damn. Who else did they even have as an option? Kansas?
To say that Rutgers has a respectable number of fans is a huge stretch. They rank in the 50s in attendance and in the 60s in apparel sales. Mizzou ranks in the top 25 in both.
psu hockey, that’s a tiny sample set. You found the one time Rutgers has played a top 10 team in prime time on ESPN and it was the only game on that night and they still only got 1.6M. Missouri typically breaks 2M any and every time they play a conference game. Missouri had 6.27M people watch their game vs Oklahoma 3 years ago, and 10.14M people watch them beat Kansas in 2007. I’m guessing Rutgers has rarely if ever broken the 2M barrier.
Like usual you guys are grasping at straws and making pitiful arguments and I have to come in and clean up the garbage.
duffman, seriously? The fact that the cardinals play in Missouri somehow devalues Mizzou but it doesn’t matter that New Jersey has the Giants, the Jets, and they’re right by the Yankees, Mets, Nicks, Nets, etc etc? What? You guys don’t even try to make sense sometimes.
And to hear you talk, the quality of the program you’re adding is completely meaningless. It just matterst that they are in a location that has a lot of B1G fans. How does that make any kind of sense? It doesn’t. You’re rationalizing a less than ideal situation and trying to pass it off like you did it on purpose and it was the best you can do. But under all the nonsense you all know Rutgers was pretty far down the list of schools the B1G was looking at. It’s just that all the schools above them either said no or already joined another league.
LikeLike
Look at Frank’s article from a couple years ago. Big 10 ended up adding #2, #3 and #4 in schools adding fans. #1 was Texas. Rutgers was on their list in the 90s. They were looking at Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers but decided to stay at 11. And Rutgers was truly terrible then and had half the attendance they have now. Rutgers makes perfect sense when you “think like a university president” instead of a sports fan. Listen to all of Delany’s and the president’s talk of demographics. It also makes sense from a “Risk” standpoint of planting their flag with the BE disintegrating and the ACC having added BC, SU and Pitt.
Colleges do football because it adds to the bottom line through donations and enrollment. They don’t do it just because. I think if the Big 10 had a choice of Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland and Missouri, they still would have picked the same 3. Fact is they could have had Rutgers and Missouri in 2010 but didn’t. However, when they thought Maryland was available, they expanded again. The Maryland/Rutgers combo justified expansion while Missouri/Rutgers didn’t. They didn’t want to add another great plains school.
LikeLike
bullet, like usual you’re making a whole bunch of declarative statements without any proof or evidence.
I can play that game too. The B1G wanted to expand to 14 but they wanted a home run. They were ok with Missouri because Missouri has 6M people, is AAU, and is pretty good at sports. it also has a lot of synergy with schools like Nebraska, Illinois, and Iowa. But they didn’t want to go to 13 so they needed a strong partner for Missouri. Now, if they found a two school pairing that were better than Missouri (Maryland AND Virginia, for instance, or Texas AND Notre Dame) then Missouri would be out. But if they could find a workable partner for Missouri they’d take it. They chased after the schools at the top of their list. Notre Dame. Texas. Virginia. North Carolina. etc. They worked on Maryland for a while but it was slow going with no “yes” yet. Rutgers and Kansas were eager and willing but seemed like lesser options at that point. Missouri got an offer from the SEC. They told the B1G that this was their last chance. The B1G said “we’re still looking around” so Missouri walked. Then Notre Dame joined the ACC. Texas signed grant of rights. Then UNC and Virginia said no and signed grant of rights. Maryland finally said yes, but who do you partner them with? Kansas? They suck at football and their state has like 3 million people. Also their academics are shaky. Who else? Pitt? Duplicates the Pennsylvania market. Also they just signed a grant of rights with the ACC. Ditto Syracuse, and also Syracuse just gave up AAU status. Buffalo? They can’t even win in the MAC. Tulane? Rice? Yeah right. So who’s left? Rutgers is over there jumping up and down saying “me! me! me!” So the B1G takes a big sigh, swallows hard, and invites the scarlet knights.
See how I just did that? No evidence or proof at all. But my hypothetical story is a hell of a lot more plausible than yours.
And if you think Rutgers brings more fans than Missouri then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
LikeLike
Right. Missouri offered Texas, Texas A&M and OU their share of the exit fees because they had a solid offer from the SEC. Missouri told the Big 10 to take a hike, “We’re going to the Big East or give our money to Texas A&M.” Try not to be so ridiculous. Missouri and Rutgers would have jumped in a minute in 2010. To deny while insulting others doesn’t do much for your credibility.
I’m not going to try to dig up a 15 or 20 year article which may not be on the web to prove that the Big 10 publically said they were looking at MU, KU and Rutgers and either staying at 11 or going to 12 or 14. It was right after one of ND’s public rejections of the Big 10. Lots of other people remember that.
LikeLike
bullet, like usual you aren’t making any sense. So your contention is that because the B1G decided not to expand by adding Missouri, Kansas, and Rutgers back in 1991 that somehow means that they wanted Rutgers more than Missouri in 2012? Huh? Whatchutalkninbout?
In 2010 Missouri refused to confirm that they weren’t looking around while the rest of the Big 12 was freaking out at them about it. Why would they do this unless they were working on a move?
As far as Missouri playing along with the deal KU, KSU, and ISU dreamed up, that was because Missouri knew that their move wouldn’t be ready for another year or two and they wanted to avoid the trouble of having to rework the Big 12 with a bunch of Big East schools in the meanwhile. Missouri was in a stronger position if they were in a league with OU and UT than if they were in a league with Louisville and Cincinatti. Missouri knew that their time would come but it wasn’t quite ready yet. And guess what, they were right. Mizzou was gone less than a year later.
LikeLike
It doesn’t make any sense because whenever “Missouri” comes up you turn off your higher level reasoning skills. I would suggest you re-read what I wrote, but I know it would be hopeless.
LikeLike
Rutgers vs Louisville in 2006 drew 4.6 million for a 5.0 rating including an 8.1 in NYC. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/more-sports/espns-thursday-night-football-proves-big-to-the-big-east-462137/
As far as delivering NYC as an east coast strategy, he is a quote from an article in 2011.
“That rating tied for fourth all-time on ESPN2 for a football game viewed in the New York City area. Rutgers has been involved in all five of the top-rated football games in New York City on ESPN2.
Rutgers has also been part of four of the five highest-rated football games in the New York City area on ESPN.
That list is headed by Rutgers-Louisville in 2006, which drew an 8.1 rating, and includes Rutgers-West Virginia in 2006 (6.04); USC-Ohio State in 2009 (3.74); Rutgers-Cincinnati in 2006 (3.62) and South Florida Rutgers in 2007 (3.35).”
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/10/rutgers-louisville_tv_rating_i.html
If Rutgers draws for lousy big east competition in NYC, I wonder what playing psu, osu, and Michigan will do.
LikeLike
For reference on those NYC ratings for Rutgers, the Yankees on their own network averaged a 3.92 rating
in the city in 2012.
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1175533#bmb=1
LikeLike
bullet, nope, I don’t understand how Missouri going along with the other North schools until the SEC/B1G were ready to take them is proof of anything.
psuhockey, ok, sure, looks like Rutgers can get some ok ratings when they win 10 or more games. I wonder how often that will happen.
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1817767-projected-bcs-rankings-2013-updated-top-25-bcs-standings-predictions
BCS Guru’s predicted BCS poll for tomorrow:
#. School – Coaches, Harris, Computers = average
Italics = 2+ conference mates ahead of them, so likely ineligible (if season ended now)
1. AL – 1, 1, 2 = 1.33
2. FSU – 3, 3, 1 = 2.33
3. OR – 2, 2, 3 = 2.33
4. OSU – 4, 4, 8 = 5.33
5. MO – 7, 7, 4 = 6.00
6. Baylor – 5, 5, 6 = 5.33
7. Stanford – 6, 6, 5 = 5.67
8. Clemson – 9, 8, 7
9. Miami – 8, 9, 10
10. UCLA – 11, 10, 9
11. LSU – 12, 12, 11
12. TAMU – 10, 11, 13
13. TT – 13, 13, 19
14. SC – 14, 14, 18
15. OU
16. Auburn
17. VT
18. NIU
19. UL
20. Fresno
21. OkSU
22. UGA
23. NE
24. OrSU
25. MI
NIU is a likely BCS Buster if they win out. OR could quickly pass FSU based on playing UCLA and Stanford soon.
LikeLike
FL 31 TN 17
TN 23 SC 21
SC 35 Van 25
Van 31 GA 27
GA 44 LSU 41
LSU 17 FL 6
Note: This was not my idea but too good to pass up
LikeLike
I suck at html. This is what I’m referring to:
LikeLike
Ah, whatever. One last try. If it doesn’t show up it doesn’t show up.
LikeLike
This fall, she (Julie Hermann) plans to announce what she calls a Big Ten capital development plan, including a schedule for renovations at the Louis Brown Athletic Center (the RAC)
http://magazine.rutgers.edu/departments/fall-2013/scarlet-sports/her-big-plans-for-the-big-ten
LikeLike
Transic, thank you for that link, I was unaware of it: I live in New York, and you would think by being not only a woman AD, but being a lesbian (which I did not know until a month ago), Julie Hermann’s face and opinions would be plastered all over the liberal media?. However, she might as well not exist, for all the coverage she and Rutgers receives. Why? Because very few people here care about Rutgers Football, and even less about their Basketball Team (picked to finish near (or at) the bottom in Conference). I also found it interesting that she is from Nebraska and UNL is her Alma Mater, and she has the audacity to mention RU in the same breath as UNL. Think about this comparison, Julie, Nebraska which historically speaking, is awful at Hoops, is moving into the New Pinnacle Bank Arena with a Seating Capacity of 15,147, and she talks about “Upgrading the RAC” with its 8,000 Seat Capacity. This does not even go into the amenities that will be at Pinnacle Bank. Julie, lets see if RU can compete with Penn State in Hoops or Indiana in Football, before comparing RU to UNL.
LikeLike
Two things:
1. We don’t know if she actually mentioned RU in the same sentence as UNL, only that the writer of the article mentioned some of the schools that are part of the Big Ten who would be most familiar to casual readers. Christopher Hann, who wrote the article, is currently an adjunct professor of journalism at Rutgers. Perhaps you could ask him if she did try to compare RU to UNL. http://www.hannwriting.com/Chris_Hann_Bio.html
2. NY-area sports has its particular pecking order, as you well know. It would be the NJ-based media, whatever still exists who can cover issues in that state, that should cover Rutgers on a regular basis. The Star-Ledger website has a page on Rutgers and is the media company that has covered Rutgers regularly since I can remember. NJ has a particular issue with media in that the NY and Philadelphia TV stations have been said to focus so much on their respective cities at the expense of ignoring NJ-based issues. Whether or not one agrees with this opinion or not, that has been a complaint of many New Jersey residents for a long time. If that is the case wouldn’t have help explain Rutgers’ visibility issues? Just putting the question out there, since I don’t know the true answer.
LikeLike
Transic, I happen to agree with you about NJ’s coverage in the media. I did a paper in College about the New Jersey TV market and how it is split between New York and Philadelphia. That said, there are outlets for more Rutgers coverage such as Channel (9) which although Fox Owned, is based in New Jersey. I also know there is a pecking order for New York (and New Jersey) Sports Coverage, starting with the Yankees. But, even Seton Hall hoops gets more coverage than Rutgers, that is how ignored they are (the fact that Seton Hall’s Recruiting Class gets more discussion than Hermann is just the latest example).
The problem for Rutgers, is they are essentially a “Redheaded Step-Child” and always have been. For example: They are the “State University of New Jersey.” In fact, they are more of a “State School” than Penn State (50/50 state and private). but how many people know that? Basically they are on the potential level of American Soccer (opportunity is there, but it just has not happened (and likely will not)), of course, there are people who believe they can unlock the door to untapped potential and incredible riches (sort of like being the Manager of the Cubs). But if you ask me which will happen first. A: Rutgers wins the Rose Bowl (or makes the Final Four). B: MLS catches up with the NHL. C: Cubs win the World Series. I bet on the Cubs.
LikeLike
Rutgers doesn’t have to win the Rose Bowl or make the Final Four to be considered a successful addition. Just get to Northwestern’s level in football or Purdue’s level in basketball and deliver the BTN on to local cable in NJ.
LikeLike
Really interesting College Football Weekend coming up lots of Games to determine who goes to Major Bowls: 1: Penn State at No. 4 Ohio State. 2: No. 17 Fresno State at San Diego State. 3: No. 13 Stanford at Oregon State. 4: No. 11 South Carolina at No. 14 Missouri. 5: No. 9 UCLA at No. 2 Oregon. 6: No. 16 Texas Tech at No. 18 Oklahoma. 7: Houston at Rutgers. Obviously the Penn State/Ohio State Game is the headliner, but two other games I like: 1: Watch Texas Tech/Oklahoma very carefully. The Red Raiders had a very nice win in a trap game @ West Virginia, but @ Norman is the kind of important game Tech historically loses (although they did win there in 2011). 2: Stanford/Oregon State. I like the Cardinal in a close game here, with the Beavers looking ahead to USC visiting Corvallis the following week.
LikeLike
If Oregon State is looking past Stanford to a mediocre Southern Cal team with an interim coach, the Beavers have a warped sense of priorities.
LikeLike
VP19, USC is the big, bad, arrogant bully like Texas, and every single School in the PAC ( except Colorado and Utah because they are new), looks forward to the opportunity to sticking it to them, while they have the chance ( for example: if Washington State wins the ” Apple Cup” ( against the Washington Huskies), after beating USC, and loses every other game on its Schedule they would consider the Season a success). I concede the point that the single most difficult spot for USC to win has been @ OSU, but you also have to know the Beavers want this game more than any other ( exclusive of denying the Oregon Ducks a shot at the National Championship).
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (10 teams) after Week #8 : 10 of 125 = 08.00% of total :
Big 5 schools 8 of 62 = 12.90% of population : 8 of 125 = 06.40% of total
B 12 = 02 of 10 => 20.00% : Texas Tech and Baylor
ACC = 02 of 14 => 14.29% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> Miami (FL)
SEC = 02 of 14 => 14.29% : East -> Missouri \\\\//// West -> Alabama
B1G = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : Legends -> NONE \\\\//// Leaders -> Ohio State
PAC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : North -> Oregon \\\\//// South -> NONE
Non Big 5 schools 02 of 63 = 03.17% of population : 02 of 125 = 01.60% of total
MWC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 01 of 13 => 07.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 00 of 10 => 00.00% : NONE
IND = 00 of 06 => 00.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 00.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 00.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 6 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : 6 – 0 Miami (FL)
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 7 – 0 Ohio State
B 12 : 7 – 0 Texas Tech and 6 – 0 Baylor
PAC North : 7 – 0 Oregon :::: PAC South : NONE
SEC East : 7 – 0 Missouri :::: SEC West : 7 – 0 Alabama
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 7 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 6 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #9 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs ACC
4-3 Wake Forest @ 6-0 Miami | Saturday 12:00 pm | ESPNU
3-3 North Carolina State @ 6-0 Florida State | Saturday 3:30 pm | ABC / ESPN / ESPN2
B12 vs B12
7-0 Texas Tech @ 6-1 Oklahoma | Saturday 3:30 pm | FOX
6-0 Baylor @ 2-4 Kansas | Saturday 7:00 pm | ESPNU
B1G vs B1G
4-2 Penn State @ 7-0 Ohio State | Saturday 8:00 pm | ABC / ESPN / ESPN2
MAC vs MAC
1-6 Eastern Michigan @ 7-0 Northern Illinois | Saturday 3:30 pm | ESPN3
MWC vs MWC
6-0 Fresno State @ San Diego State | Saturday 10:30 pm | ESPN2
PAC vs PAC
5-1 UCLA @ 7-0 Oregon | Saturday 7:00 pm | ESPN / ESPN2
SEC vs SEC
4-3 Tennessee @ 7-0 Alabama | Saturday 3:30 pm | CBS
5-2 South Carolina @ 7-0 Missouri | Saturday 7:00 pm | ESPN / ESPN2
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #9 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #8 ********
Louisville lost to Central Florida
Houston lost to BYU
Clemson lost to Florida State
UCLA lost to Stanford
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#7) ********
AAC 6-0 Louisville
ACC 6-0 Clemson
ACC 6-1 Virginia Tech
B 12 6-0 Texas Tech
B1G 6-0 Ohio State
MAC 6-0 Northern Illinois
MAC 6-1 Ball State
PAC 6-0 Oregon
SEC 6-0 Missouri
SEC 6-0 Alabama
SEC 6-1 Louisiana State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#8) ********
ACC 6-0 Florida State
ACC 6-0 Miami
B 12 6-0 Baylor
B 12 6-1 Oklahoma
B1G 6-1 Michigan State
B1G 6-1 Michigan
MWC 6-0 Fresno State
PAC 6-1 Oregon State
PAC 6-1 Stanford
SEC 6-1 Auburn
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 8 according to Sagarin ************
(5) SEC / (3) PAC / (1) ACC / (1) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 SEC Mississippi 4-3, 2-3
@ Vanderbilt + SEMO St + @ Texas + BYE + @ Alabama + @ Auburn + TAMU + LSU
02 SEC Georgia 4-3, 3-2
@ Clemson + S Carolina + BYE + N Texas + LSU + @ Tennessee + Missouri + @ Vanderbilt
03 PAC Washington 4-3, 1-3
Boise State + BYE + @ Illinois + Idaho St + Arizona + @ Stanford + Oregon + @ Arizona St
04 ACC North Carolina 1-5, 0-3
@ S Carolina + MTSU + BYE + @ Ga Tech + ECU + @ Virginia Tech + BYE + Miami
05 PAC Utah 4-3, 1-3
Utah State + Weber State + Oregon State + @ BYU + BYE + UCLA + Stanford + @ Arizona
06 SEC Kentucky 1-5, 0-3
WKU (TN) + Miami (OH) + Louisville + BYE + Florida + @ South Carolina + Alabama + BYE
07 SEC Florida 4-3, 3-2
Toledo + @ Miami + BYE + Tennessee + @ Kentucky + Arkansas + @ LSU + @ Missouri
08 B12 Texas Christian 3-4, 1-3
LSU + SE LA + @ Texas Tech + BYE + SMU + @ Oklahoma + Kansas + @ Oklahoma State
09 SEC Louisiana State 6-2, 3-2
TCU (TX) + UAB + Kent State + Auburn + @ Georgia + @ Miss State + Florida + @ Ole Miss
10 PAC California 1-6, 0-4
Northwestern + Portland St + Ohio St + BYE + @ Oregon + Wash St + @ UCLA + Oregon St
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 8 run with SoS rank mid season point +1 :
first numbers are Sagarin Rank by week (preseason included)
school name in between
last numbers are Sagarin SoS by week (weakest SoS in group in BOLD)
ACC – Atlantic
018 014 011 008 004 005 003 003 Florida State – 41 / 25 / 70 / 108 / 73 / 57 / 51
002 Florida State 42
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 Clemson 45
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 Maryland 94
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 Syracuse 39
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 Boston College 26
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 North Carolina State 117
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 Wake Forest 102
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 Miami (FL) 75
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 Virginia Tech 37
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 Georgia Tech 29
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 Pittsburgh 57
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 Duke 92
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 North Carolina 4 Top 10 SoS
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 Virginia 35
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 Ohio State 76
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 Wisconsin 83
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 Penn State 63
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 Indiana 27
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 Illinois 40
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 Purdue 21
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 Michigan State 104
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 Michigan 85
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 Nebraska 119
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 Iowa 47
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 Northwestern 81
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 Minnesota 103
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 Baylor 100
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 Oklahoma 56
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 Texas Tech 87
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 Oklahoma State 54
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 Texas 18
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 Texas Christian 8 Top 10 SoS
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 Kansas State 12
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 Iowa State 15
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 West Virginia 14
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 Kansas 36
.
PAC – North
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 Oregon 68
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 Washington 3 Top 10 SoS
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 Stanford 11
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 Oregon State 74
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 Washington State 16
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 California 10 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 UCLA 50
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 Arizona State 13
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9 Top
035 Utah 5 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 Arizona 55
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 Southern Cal 22
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 Colorado 31
.
SEC – East
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 Missouri 30
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 Florida 7 Top 10 SoS
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 Georgia 2 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 South Carolina 20
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 Tennessee 25
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 Vanderbilt 46
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 Kentucky 6 Top 10 SoS
SEC – West
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 Alabama 43
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 Louisiana State 9 Top 10 SoS
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 Texas A&M 28
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 Auburn 33
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 Mississippi 1 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 Mississippi State 34
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 Arkansas 17
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24111695/sagarin-changes-formula-finally-removes-margin-of-victory
duffman,
I don’t know if you noticed, but Sagarin changed his formula starting this week. His new BCS system is called “Pure ELO.” He applied his ELO method to scores and added “ELO Score.” Finally, he still has his “Predictor.” His overall ranking combines “ELO Score” and “Predictor” but not his BCS model.
The article is from Jerry Palm trying to stir up controversy by claiming Sagarin never actually dropped MOV from his BCS system until now.
FYI, his Pure ELO system is 775-49-0 at postdicting games. The score-based methods are designed to be better for predicting future games, but his BCS system does really well at matching what actually happened.
LikeLike
I’ve read that some of these systems don’t directly count margin of victory, but do consider points for and points against. So there would be some benefit for a team to have 500 points and to have given up 100 vs. scoring 300 and giving up 150.
LikeLike
Brian, I saw he had new numbers in this last ranking. Since Louisville and Houston both lost and the AAC could possibly get MNC consideration when the MWC and MAC may not I have dropped the non Big 5 part of the post going forward. Since I am only using Sagarin’s rank and SoS numbers for the data I did not use his ELO or Predictor. The purpose of the post has been to provide a simple week to week view of changes in his rankings and changes in SoS to give a rough visual collection of data points over the course of the season.
In that first week we would expect to see Virginia Tech with the toughest SoS as they were playing the #1 preseason team (Alabama) at a neutral venue. Conversely, Virginia Tech was # 29 at the time yet Alabama has a SoS of 34. Not a huge difference but before the first ball was snapped thing should cross out each other (which they did for the vast majority in the preseason Sagarin) yet there seemed like about a dozen who had a much wider variance (greater than the 34 – 29 = 5) and several were in double digits.
Here was Oregon and Alabama as SoS for Sagarin’s first 3 posts.
Preseason, week 1, and week 2
Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76
Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1
Clearly Sagarin gives the advantage to Alabama which should be the case as a Top 1% – Top 5% team should be worth way more that beating a bottom 50% team. Personally I think running up the score is pointless if you are playing lots of weak schools I am already on the record that a team with schedule A is tougher than schedule B even if they average out the same.
Team A
Opponent #1 = #005 in FBS
Opponent #2 = #115 in FBS
Opponent #3 = #060 in FBS
5 + 115 + 60 = 180 / 3 = 60 average
Team A
Opponent #1 = #059 in FBS
Opponent #2 = #060 in FBS
Opponent #3 = #061 in FBS
59 + 60 + 61 = 180 / 3 = 60 average
LikeLike
Right now Sagarin’s Pure ELO (his BCS numbers) have Northern Illinois ranked 5. His predictor ranking for them is 57.
Just a weird thing I saw.
LikeLike
And Oregon St. with a loss to EWU and having beaten no one, is #6. Of course its not as bad as Billingsley. If it weren’t the last year they should have kicked Billingsley out. His are always outliers. Someone said Bethune Cookman was #4 before excluding FCS.
LikeLike
Note, B-C was in Sagarin (but I haven’t seen it myself-just repeating what I saw in an article).
LikeLike
Yep.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/team/
He also has Coastal Carolina 10, NDSU 12 and Eastern Illinois 24.
LikeLike
Looks like Sagarin’s ELO has OrSU at 31, predictor at 29. Am I misreading?
I bet Utah (conqueror of Stanford) and WSU (close loss at Auburn) resent being called no one 😦 .
LikeLike
Duh…never mind.
LikeLike
Lots of good stuff… Given the “eye” test, doesn’t it seem like tackling, pass coverage—defense in general has been left at the wayside??
I watched several (or at least part of several) games yesterday–starting with my beloved Gopher’s shocker (I didn’t see it) versus NW. Lots of missed tackles, players out of position, AND when it counted, poor pass coverage–either leading to interference penalties and/or big plays—By both squads. Am proud the Gophers won—but, what an ugly game.
Worse yet was the Michigan/Indiana scrum— each offense playing against air. This one literally made me sick to my stomach… Yet… the BTN and ESPN hyped this like it was a great game… Not when no one is covering or tackling—this was parody of defense at it’s best…
Didn’t watch Purdue/Mich State—highlights/stats indicate that offenses were inept–as both have been most of the season. MSU does play some ‘D’—one exception to the lot.
LSU and Ole Miss—this was a pretty good game… Once again though—even in the “vaunted” SEC—their was not much for defense being played. In the 4th quarter–both teams pretty much moved the ball at will—if not for a muffed punt, and poorly blocked FG attempt—Ole Miss would have won by more than just the last second upset FG.
Johnny Football (man I’m tired of this love-fest) and A&M’s awful defense were outscored by another team with no defense—Auburn.
Wisco/Illini—-mismatch from the start–but not much for good ‘D’…
Baylor, Texas Tech—play someone with a pulse—puhlease!!
My “eye” test sees that there really is no dominant ‘D’ in this country… Not ‘Bama, not FSU, not OSU, not Oregon (they gave up 38 to WSU)— Did D-1 football turn into playground football?—That sure is Hell what it looks like to me—please, gimme some ‘D’.
It would be pure shame to see the Mythical National Championship become a frigging basketball game… No more Meatchicken/Indiana Bull—-!!
LikeLike
I think a lot of the big plays are because players try to get the big hit instead of tackling with their arms. And they bounce or glance off some of these strong, shifty runners.
LikeLike
Worse yet was the Michigan/Indiana scrum— each offense playing against air. This one literally made me sick to my stomach… Yet… the BTN and ESPN hyped this like it was a great game… Not when no one is covering or tackling—this was parody of defense at it’s best…
If you worked for BTN or ESPN, you’d hype it too. The networks have no control over the quality of play. All they can do is try to make the best case for what they have.
I mean, what do you expect them to say: don’t watch this game?
LikeLike
Its been notable at Texas the last few years that players are confused about where they are to line up. There were some people putting part of the collapse of the defense last year on Blake Gideon’s graduation, who made the play calls from the secondary. The quick snap offenses also make it harder to lineup or change your defense. Some of the coaches are asking too much of their defenses in schemes that are too complicated.
LikeLike
I see receivers just totally uncovered in a lot of games. It seems like there is a lot more of that. Blown coverages from schemes too complicated for the players. Or schemes too easy to beat (block one linebacker and a receiver goes free).
LikeLike
The Dawg Father is gone.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24112588/washington-announces-death-of-longtime-coach-don-james
LikeLike
Results of week #8
AP – Georgia, Washington, and Florida dropped out
AP – Michigan, Nebraska, and Central Florida moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #11 Auburn, #13 LSU, #14 TAMU, #20 South Carolina
(4) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Miami, #9 Clemson, #16 Virginia Tech
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #22 Wisconsin, #24 Michigan, #25 Nebraska
(4) B12 : #6 Baylor, #10 Texas Tech, #17 Oklahoma, #19 Oklahoma State
(3) PAC : #2 Oregon, #8 Stanford, #12 UCLA
(2) AAC : #18 Louisville, #21 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #15 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #23 Northern Illinois
Arizona State (108) / Notre Dame (82) Oregon State (79) / Michigan State (73)
.
…
.
USA – Georgia, Florida, and Washington dropped out
USA – Wisconsin, Central Florida, and Auburn moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Missouri, #13 LSU, #15 Texas A&M, #17 Auburn, #20 S Carolina
(4) ACC : #3 Florida State, #6 Miami (FL), #10 Clemson, #19 Virginia Tech
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #21 Nebraska, #23 Michigan, #24 Wisconsin
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #9 Texas Tech, #12 Oklahoma, #13 Oklahoma State
(3) PAC : #2 Oregon, #8 Stanford, #11 UCLA
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #25 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #18 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #22 Northern Illinois
Michigan State (102) / Oregon State (91) / Notre Dame (62) / Arizona State (51)
.
…
.
Harris – Georgia, Florida, and Washington dropped out
Harris – Wisconsin, Central Florida, and Auburn moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 Missouri, #12 LSU, #13 Texas A&M, #15 Auburn, #20 S Carolina
(4) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Miami (FL), #10 Clemson, #19 Virginia Tech
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #22 Michigan, #23 Nebraska, #24 Wisconsin
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #9 Texas Tech, #14 Oklahoma, #17 Oklahoma State
(3) PAC : #2 Oregon, #8 Stanford, #11 UCLA
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #25 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #18 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #21 Northern Illinois
Michigan State (196) / Oregon State (168) / Arizona State (124) / Georgia (113)
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 01
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #5 Missouri, #11 Auburn, #13 LSU, #16 TAMU, #21 South Carolina
(4) ACC : #2 Florida State, #7 Miami (FL), #9 Clemson, #14 Virginia Tech
(4) PAC : #3 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #12 UCLA, #25 Oregon State
(4) B12 : #8 Baylor, #10 Texas Tech, #15 Oklahoma, #19 Oklahoma State
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #22 Michigan, #24 Nebraska
(2) AAC : #20 Louisville, #23 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #17 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (5-5) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
ACC : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = THREE :: U = FLORIDA STATE / MIAMI
ACC (5-5) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (1-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
B 12 : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = BAYLOR / TEXAS TECH
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (4-4) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
PAC : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 0-1 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = OREGON
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (5-5) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (1*-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (0-1) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
* Colorado played FCS game this week to fill Fresno State cancelled from flood
SEC : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = ALABAMA / MISSOURI
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (6-6) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
.
ACC had 3 teams off and played a FCS school but all and all everybody scheduled pretty well
.
Observations :
Ohio State still undefeated – the good
Purdue still struggles – the bad
The Indiana and Michigan defense created basketball type score – the ugly
LikeLike
At the New York Times, William C. Rhoden has a commentary piece about the Grambling strike, and the precedent it could set. He realizes, of course, that very few programs have the issues Grambling does. But he argues that once players at one institution have “gone on strike,” others could feel encouraged to do so.
If you don’t like articles that take a “players are exploited” angle, avert your eyes.
LikeLike
I’m sure this guy voted for the community organizer.
LikeLike
They are just trying to sift control from the NCAA to the lawyers and agents. A lawyer or agent can not get a percentage of a scholarship but they can certainly get a percentage of cash. The problem is they all talk about the “exploitation” when they are really talking about the “money” when the end result is the same. They all want a slice of the pie and manipulating teenage kids without educating them on long term money and life issues is the real “exploitation”.
LikeLike
I think this guy’s more into the political aspect rather than the $ aspect…..but I agree with your basic premise…….
I think there ARE reforms that would make a lot of sense……come type of compensation for injuries causing permanent impairment…paying the full cost of attendance…..letting these guys take less than a full load and keeping them on scholarship for a 5th year so that the kids who really are there for school as well as spoirts could take more serious classes/tougher majors…..
Best thing that could ever have happened for the NCAA would have been Bobby Knight being president rather than Piles Brand……
LikeLike
compensation for injuries causing permanent impairment
Makes sense, especially if the NCAA made mandatory insurance on players as part of the letter of intent that they all sign to play. Sadly, since no lawyers or agents will get a cut it will not happen but it would be a way to help kids without cutting them a paycheck.
paying the full cost of attendance
Totally in agreement with this and teaching a person to fish is better than just giving them fish that agents and lawyers eat part of.
letting these guys take less than a full load and keeping them on scholarship for a 5th year so that the kids who really are there for school as well as spoirts could take more serious classes/tougher majors
Very much agree with this especially if mandatory classes include finance and english reading skills to read and understand their contracts. If the schools profit the least they can do is make a serious effort to help educate kids for being responsible adults after they are out of school.
LikeLike
I cannot stand these sharks like Scott Boras and Drew Rosenhaus, who claim to be wonderful and caring human beings who want to save the “Oppressed Workers Of The World” from Universities that after listening to them, you would think are like sweatshops found in “Dickens England.” (ask the “Oppressed Plaintiffs” who settled with EA Sports, how much they got?) Its like Alex Rodriguez (making $27m a Season) acting like he is Norma Rae. If I was President of a University (particularly a small Elite Private School such as Rice), and I had to pay these guys (and maybe even other Athletes on Campus), deal with Lawyers, and Title IX, I would consider shutting down the Football Program. While I admit, that would take away a Rice Education to 85 guys (many of whom cannot afford it without Football), at least I cannot be accused of being “Scrooge” by Millionaire Lawyers, and raise Tuition and (or) make Cuts to NON-ATHLETIC Departments).
LikeLike
thanks for the warning; i’ll avert my eyes.
without reading the article, i’ll throw out some pennies: Rhoden may think this will encourage other players/teams to “go on strike,” but that is a two-edged sword.
For those that argue pay-for-play will cause untold unintended consequences (like the need for payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.), here is exhibit 1. If, under the current set of circumstance, one group of players can grant themselves the “right” to strike, imagine how things might quickly change under a pay-for-play regime. All you need is a bit of cross-team collective action and you have a players’ union.
Now that the AthleticDirectors and Commissioners have seen one example of a “strike,” I think they will be very very very very leery of making ANY changes that smack of making the players more “employee-like.”
In my view, the pay-for-play advocates are making a strategic blunder in pushing so aggressively.
I’ll use the BCS as an illustration.
The mid-major football programs were very aggressive in the last 7-10 years about how the BCS system was “unfair” and denied them access. They pushed hard for change.
However, that aggressiveness was a strategic blunder since the BCS vanished/will vanish but what replaces it is far more disadvantageous to the mid-majors. Now the “free-market” reigns, the mid-majors will rarely be invited to the money bowls and the mid-major are in the process of creating their own bowls. Death to the BCS is going to be very bad for the mid-majors.
In a similar way, the pay-for-play advocates are making a strategic blunder. If they get pushed hard enough and the Universities agree, the Universities could “zero-out” this problem by simply eliminating the scholarships completely. If every school does it, then the playing field remains level, the students play for the love of their school and the love of the game. There is no “pay” at all, therefore there is no alleged under-payment and if you don’t want to play football, then dont.
LikeLike
Off topic, but I wanted to point something out:
“However, that aggressiveness was a strategic blunder since the BCS vanished/will vanish but what replaces it is far more disadvantageous to the mid-majors. Now the “free-market” reigns, the mid-majors will rarely be invited to the money bowls and the mid-major are in the process of creating their own bowls. Death to the BCS is going to be very bad for the mid-majors.”
Under the BCS, the mid-major teams were rarely invited to the big money bowls; under the CFP, there will always be a mid-major team in the big money bowls each year. Under the BCS, the mid-major teams often lost money in the smaller bowls; under the CFP, the mid-majors own their smaller bowls outright, giving them the opportunity to come out ahead.
The only teams that are worse off are Connecticut (started BE/AAC football in 2004), Cincinnati, and USF (both BE/AAC football 2005-present). I’d argue that Temple and all the teams that started BE/AAC football since 2012 are no worse off.
LikeLike
@ Aaron Morrow.
You said: “under the CFP, there will always be a mid-major team in the big money bowls each year.”
I was unaware of that. I stand corrected. I hate when facts get in the way of a good rant. LOL
LikeLike
A good article running down some history of player “strikes.” Clearly, the author is another pay-for-play advocate glossing the whole thing in terms of employment. For example, the first complaint by the Grambling players is listed under: “Hazardous Working Conditions.” And there is a lot of “exploitation” themes sprinkled throughout.
But otherwise, an interesting piece more factual than opinion based. Some nice history.
I find it very interesting how long these kinds of arguments have been extant. All the way back to 1927 at Howard University.
I also found it telling that Hruby admits that strikes are unlikely at places like Ohio State and ‘Bama because the players have professional aspirations and, thus, would be afraid that striking would cost them a job in the NFL. He gives a nice example of a planned player Bball strike that never happened in 1997.
http://therotation.sportsonearthblog.com/the-grambling-state-football-strike-what-just-happened/
Hruby’s particular version of pay-for-play is to allow the players to have jobs. I’ll put link in a “reply.” As with some many other “solutions,” allowing players to have jobs does not address the alleged “exploitation.” Consequently, allowing players to have jobs does not end charges of exploitation.
LikeLike
http://therotation.sportsonearthblog.com/another-empty-defense-of-amateurism/
LikeLike
Interesting comment to the article. Article was drivel.
If athletes become paid professionals, there can’t be any restrictions on where they play. They would need to have free movement to another school that wanted to pay more (or the same). I guess they could have a 4 year employment contract, but those deals can be broken.
LikeLike
yeah, that is an interesting point. i had not thought about binding employment contracts, non-compete agreements, confidentiality clauses and the like. I wonder if players have to sign such agreements now? Does, for example, Manziel sign anything agreeing not to reveal Sumlin’s playbook?
LikeLike
Sounds like the Grambling students who weren’t athletes chose not to be exploited by paying an extra $100 to support athletics.
All this pay for play stuff falls flat when you see what Grambling is doing to keep sports going, draining funds from the school. That is undoubtedly the case for every FCS school and nearly all the non-fb schools (i.e. anyone not in the BE) as well as most of the FBS schools.
LikeLike
Nailed it.
Grambling, the face of excessive revenue generation that the players are “creating”. [sarcasm]
Not that there aren’t serious problems, but complaining about buss rides as a non power school? Grumbling State is more fitting.
LikeLike
They did apparently place an anonymous call to the health inspector who recommended changes. It wasn’t clear what was done after that or when that inspection report was done.
I was thinking about the long bus and train rides the players used to take when they complained about the bus rides. Indy is a long ride. There were some frivolous complaints mixed in with the serious issues like the mold and staph.
One thing the NCAA should address is summer workouts. Those are no longer truly optional. That restricts the athletes from working over the summer.
LikeLike
Rhoden and others look upon this as largely a racial issue, that universities are making money from football and men’s basketball players (a disproportionate number of whom are black). The law, and Title IX, doesn’t see things that way — something Rhoden fails to comprehend.
It reminds me of the protests John Thompson had about Prop 38 some years back. Sorry, but IIRC, that applied only to Division I, and those who didn’t qualify could have played in Division II, III or the NAIA. Thompson and his cohorts were looking out for themselves, not the athletes.
LikeLike
RIP Don James.
The Don James-Nick Saban/Gary Pinkel connection:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/if_not_for_don_james_nick_saba.html
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this article has been posted yet but the Chicago Tribune released an article two weeks back about Mark Silverman, current president of BTN.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-14/business/ct-biz-1014-executive-profile-silverman-20131014_1_mark-silverman-btn-college-football-game
Excerpt:
During the 2012 football season, ratings for BTN ranked just below ESPN in an eight-market average including Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit and Cleveland, according to Nielsen.
In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan.
On average, subscribers pay about 37 cents per month to receive BTN. But within the Big Ten footprint, that rate is nearly $1 per subscriber, according to sources, making the East Coast expansion a potentially big revenue boost.
Net advertising revenue has grown to a projected $29 million this year, despite a conference ban on alcohol ads.
BTN pays about $100 million per year in rights fees to the conference, according to sources. That revenue is distributed to the schools, along with profits, benefiting athletic programs and facilities across the Big Ten. Northwestern, for example, is building a $220 million lakefront athletic facility.
The network has also benefited the not-for-profit Big Ten Conference, which earlier this month moved into a new $20 million facility in Rosemont.
LikeLike
I thought this was interesting: “Launched in 2007, BTN is a 20-year joint venture between Fox Cable Networks, which owns 51 percent, and the Big Ten Conference.”
So along with the expiring of various GofRights agreements and various TV licensing deals, the FOX/B1G joint venture re: the BTN expires in the 2025-2027 time frame.
Anyone know what happens when the joint venture expires in 2027?
LikeLike
I’ve heard 2032. Is that a 5 year option?
LikeLike
I don’t know. I googled to see if I could find a copy of the JV agreement, but no luck.
LikeLike
I believe the extra 5 yrs came when Fox moving from 49% to 51%.
LikeLike
I thought that is when the Big Ten takes total control of the network.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Big-Ten-Could-Reap-$28B-From-Network-Deal.aspx
“News Corp. projects that the Big Ten Network could pay $2.8 billion to the Big Ten Conference over the 25-year life of its deal to operate the channel, according to the media company’s most recent 10-Q federal filing, which provided the first glimpse of its agreement with the conference.
The Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp. has a 20-year contract with the Big Ten, with an option for five more years.”
LikeLike
Good source. Yes, based on this, there is a 5 year option that takes it to 2032.
But still, nothing in that article suggests that, in 2032, the “Big Ten takes total control of the network.” How a JV ends is determined by the agreement. It could just as easily be written that the BTN becomes totally owned by FOX. Very very very unlikely, but possible.
For kicks, I’ll send an email to the press relations people at the BTN.
LikeLike
The first sentence states “over the 25-year life of its deal to operate the channel.” I interpret that to mean its a type of managing agent and general operator.
Analogous to a real estate owner hiring a professional building manager to manage the day-to-day of a building–maintenance, marketing, leasing, collections.
LikeLike
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-14/business/ct-biz-1014-executive-profile-silverman-20131014_1_mark-silverman-btn-college-football-game/3
One other good quote:
“Once we add Rutgers and Maryland, we believe we’re going to have the programming that should provide to us additional subscribers in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland and D.C. areas,” Silverman said.
LikeLike
Since, as I understand it, we do discuss other conferences, I thought I would link to an article about the upcoming Big East basketball season. This coming Friday Fox Sports 1 will air a special on the Big East where they’ll go around the campuses to cover the festivities.
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2013/10/21/big-east-tip-off-is-a-party-on-fox-sports-1-517214/20131021fox02/
I’m very interested in watching how this new group will do this season and in the short term. The old Big East was, to put it mildly, stacked on the basketball court. However, realignment did a real number on that conference and today you’ll find schools that once were members scattered across 4 different conferences (one non-football; 5 starting next year). There’s no way the new Big East will regain the strength of the old but they might do better than we think if new members like Butler and Xavier can compete well, and old members like St. John’s and Seton Hall start to play up to their potential, the latter two being big city schools in a fertile area for basketball.
Of the 10 members, Georgetown is easily the school with the highest profile. Marquette is a solid choice to challenge Georgetown for the top spot and has a solid athletic profile in general. Creighton will need some adjustment playing in a league with East Coast big-city schools but I won’t count them out yet. Villanova has to always contend with the likes of Temple and La Salle competing for talent, not to mention the ACC, the AAC and Big Ten.
Rough guess but I think this would be the order of finish this season:
1. Marquette
2. Georgetown
3. Xavier
4. Villanova
5. Butler
6. Creighton
7. Seton Hall
8. St. John’s
9. Providence
10. DePaul
LikeLike
I’m defintely a fan of the new Big East.
Agree that Marquette is the favorite at this point.
Butler is a wild card with Stephens moving to the Celtics. Also, of the three schools added, Butler was in the weakest conference last year so the schedule grind could be more of a shock for them.
I’d put Creighton a bit higher than 6th with McD back for his senior year and Gibbs given a 6th year. Somewhere from 2nd to 4th.
Also agree on DePaul as the bottom feeder for the first year (sorry Frank).
LikeLike
In a way, realignment has opened the way for Marquette to claim the top mantle of a major basketball conference, if they take advantage of the opportunity. Whether this makes it even harder for DePaul to turn around its program depends on some factors inside and outside their control. One thing for sure, with the Big Ten and ACC as competition, the Big East will need to cast an incredibly wide net across the northern and eastern US states to keep up in recruiting.
LikeLike
NCAA penalties for Miami.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9861775/miami-hurricanes-avoid-bowl-ban-lose-nine-scholarships-part-ncaa-sanctions
No bowl ban.
Lose nine scholarships over three years.
Mizzou’s Frank Haith gets a five game suspension.
LikeLike
So they get 82 scholarships for the next 3 years. That’s rounding error. They have already served a 2 year bowl ban. I guess that’s pretty typical.
LikeLike
Already served 2 yr bowl AND post season (no CCG either) self imposed ban, plus self imposed scholarship and other activities limits.
Had USC done the same they’d probably be a year or more removed from sanctions now, and into rebounding.
LikeLike
No bowl ban.
I don’t want to jump on Alan in particular, because that error is common. Miami pre-imposed a two-year ban.
LikeLike
USC got screwed by the NCAA. PSU gets a reprieve and Miami gets lesser penalties than they do.
LikeLike
Just as a fun little tidbit, SI’s Peter King stated in his latest MMQB column that the Rams still get more website views in California than in Missouri.
LikeLike
Maybe the Pac-12 should have added Missouri instead of Utah.
LikeLike
Heh,
Or, maybe Missouri is about to become the main football team in town.
LikeLike
The Saint Louis Cardinals Baseball Team OWNS St Louis…
The Rams are a blip on the radar screen in direct comparison of interest.
The now Phoenix based FB Cardinals were of even less interest in their time there.
Is interesting how St Louis and Kansas City are so different in fandom… Granted, the primary team each follows has real history– in KC’s case that’d be the Chiefs…
I don’t think too many in St Louis would shed tears if the Rams ended up back in LA…
LikeLike
Just for fun, I ran some Google News archive searches on Missouri and Rutgers relating to Big Ten expansion, and found some interesting articles:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20100511-Why-Big-12-s-Missouri-is-8281.ece
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2007/08/politi_column.html (Very pro-Rutgers)
http://rutgers.scout.com/2/114074.html (a reprint from an Iowa blog, featuring quotes from then-Iowa AD Bob Bowlsby)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xfFRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yG4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4412,2720998&dq=rutgers+missouri+big-ten+expansion&hl=en
LikeLike
Those were interesting. Decided to follow your lead. Found where Delany talks about studying KU, MU and Rutgers.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-12-10/sports/9312100144_1_commissioner-jim-delany-big-southwest-missouri
LikeLike
Correction-Delany denies the report of a tv study. I remember some Big 10 official reporting it, probably in the Houston paper, at the time.
LikeLike
In the sidebar there is a link to a December 16 article. Some interesting and amusing quotes:
“There could be some big changes in the Big 10 even if the conference decides not to expand.
The Big 10 placed three expansion scenarios on the table during its meeting Sunday through Tuesday at the conference headquarters in Park Ridge. According to league sources, the options include:
– Adding an additional member to give the conference 12 schools.
– Adding multiple schools, probably as many as three to form a 14-team conference.
– Or sticking with 11 teams, but with dramatic changes in the scheduling format.”
and:
Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany wouldn’t get into specifics Wednesday. The league has a moratorium on discussing expansion with individual schools, which runs through June.
“With the moratorium coming up, we’re looking at a number of different scenarios,” Delany said.
If the Big 10 does expand, the likely schools include Kansas, Missouri, and Rutgers.
Conference commissioners are keeping a close eye on the Big 10’s next move or non-move. There’s the feeling if the Big 10 keeps the status quo, so will the other conferences. But if the Big 10 jumps, it will trigger another major round of conference realignment.
“It’s all in the Big 10’s hands,” said one league commissioner. “We’re all waiting to see what they’re going to do.”
Last comment keeps repeating itself over the decades.
LikeLike
Another historical oldie, but goodie:
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-23/sports/sp-12212_1_southwest-conference
The Big 12 was announced in February 1994. Colorado turned down a late invite by the Pac 10 in December 1994.
LikeLike
I’d forgotten Graham Spanier had been Nebraska’s chancellor.
LikeLike
My takeaway from these articles:
1) Mizzou was viewed as a safe, boring, decent choice of a school very similar to present Big Ten institutions but that would not add much in the broader TV marketplace. (Note the quotes by Bowlsby and Ikenberry that St. Louis is already within the Big Ten’s market with Illinois).
2) Rutgers was being heavily considered during the depths of its craptitude in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. But it was always viewed as a conduit into the NYC TV-market promised land. (Note Bowlsby’s comment that “Rutgers kept showing up high in the ratings when the Big Ten was considering expansion two years ago. Rutgers enjoys a great academic reputation, delivers 6% of the TV households in the nation, and would be the natural rival that Penn State does not have now.” That comment appears to have been made in either 2001 or 2003 — very early in Schiano’s tenure.
3) Contiguous states matter tremendously, and so does the AAU. Non-AAU schools (other than Notre Dame) do not seem to merit consideration, and neither do far away schools, based on several quotes in these articles spanning 18 years or so. It would seem to pour water on the FSU/GT hypothesis.
LikeLike
Remember back in 1994 Mizzou was just as bad as Rutgers in football.
From 2006-2011 the only Big 12 team to win more games than Missouri was Oklahoma.
That is to say, 1994 opinions about Mizzou are somewhat outdated.
The numbers say that Mizzou was easily a top 30 program pre-1984 and post 2002. 1984-2002 they ranked somewhere in the 80s or 90s. They were awful. And yet still the B1G considered them a top option.
LikeLike
Andy,
I think we all have figured out your passion (sometimes a little too much) for all that’s U of Missouri.
Personally, I would much rather have seen Missouri as an add to the B1G over Rutgers (ANY day of the week!)… Much of my interest is based on the fact that I have a fair amount of family and some friends that live in Missouri—would be fun for the Tigers and my Gophers to have faced off routinely in sports across the board.
To the average fan, a lot of this conference re-alignment stuff does NOT make any sense. To those in power—it is obvious that they are playing the numbers game–as in; how many eyeballs ($$$$$$$$$$) can I put my league in front of.
Even as a casual observer, I am 100% sure that Rutgers University is a NO GO if they are in ANY other market… There are only 3 things the State University of New Jersey (ugh!) had/s going for it: 1. State of Jersey market. 2. Potential in for NYC market. 3. State Flagship school with comparable academics to the rest of B1G. Move the school to a different market and it becomes Pitt (only Pitt actually has some proven athletics success (see Marino, Dan— amongst others)).
From a cultural and athletics fit standpoint (re:B1G) MO>>>>RU…
The water is under the bridge… RU will be in the B1G… MO is in the SEC..
Unless there is some MAJOR climactic shift what is, will remain the same…
LikeLike
This is my take on the subject, based just on what I have read in various articles and blogs. And I could be totally wrong.
In 2010, the Big Ten was looking to add one school to split into divisions and gain a championship game. While it would have loved to have added either Texas or Notre Dame, those schools weren’t coming. And while Missouri would have been a solid choice for the Big Ten, it didn’t have the national marque name of Nebraska (sorry, Andy – Nebraska has a greater national football name recognition than Missouri, and Missouri isn’t all that much better in other categories to overcome that). While there was some speculation about going to 14 teams, the purpose behind expansion – adding a football school and a championship game – didn’t warrant such.
According to the Washington Post article on the addition of Maryland, President Loh had expressed interest in the Big Ten in the summer of 2010. However, the Big Ten didn’t seem truly interested in adding Maryland until the fall of 2012. This was after the joint scheduling alliance with the Pac 12 had broken down. This was also after the ACC had added Pittsburgh and Syracuse and some of Notre Dame. In short, if the Big Ten was looking to get into new markets, it would have to expand, and if the Big Ten was planning on expanding east, its options had just been reduced. From a practical standpoint, Missouri was already off of the table, having joined the SEC. Even if it hadn’t been, though, it didn’t fit into the latter of these calculations. And so, of course, the Big Ten expanded by adding both Maryland and Rutgers.
The Big Ten elected not to expand to 14 teams in both 2010 and 2011, when Missouri was available. By the time it chose to go to 14 teams, Missouri wasn’t available and it didn’t fit the criteria that the Big Ten wanted even if it had. Was it a mistake for the Big Ten not to add Missouri as a 13/14 team? Perhaps, if you are focused solely on expanding solely for the sake of expansion. But if you’re looking at what the Big Ten wanted to accomplish, I don’t think so. As a fan, I would much prefer Missouri in the league rather than either Maryland or Rutgers (but not Nebraska), but conference expansion is not done by or for the fans.
LikeLike
Amazing how close we were to superconferences back in 1993.
Big 10 could have invited KU, MU and Rutgers to go to 14. If Pac 12 had been willing to take Texas Tech then, they could have had Texas, CU and a 14th, maybe Baylor. A&M and probably UH would have gone to SEC. That would have left OU, OSU, KSU, ISU and NU in the Big 8. At that point, NU along with an eastern school probably would have gone to B10 and OU and Okie St. probably go to SEC. KSU, ISU, TCU, SMU, Rice would be up a creek and headed to the WAC. Going from 12 to 14 or 16 wasn’t as big a hurdle in those days of smaller TV contracts.
LikeLike
bullet,
I seem to recall UT asked the B10 about joining but was rebuffed because there was a 5-year expansion moratorium after adding PSU.
LikeLike
That is true about 1990. That moratorium was about to expire. As shown in the articles, the Big 10 was evaluating expansion in 1993. That is when they were looking at MU, KU and Rutgers. UT had a Tech problem in 1993 as well.
LikeLike
“…maybe Baylor.”
In the PAC? Seriously? Texas politics don’t work outside the state.
Why wouldn’t the PAC16 with OU, OkSU, UT, TT, CU, and whoever (not Baylor…perhaps UNL) instead of 14?
If UT could move independently, you don’t think they’d displace one of the B8 schools supposedly B10 bound?
LikeLike
As I said above, UT had a Tech problem in 1993. Pac looked at it and let UT know they wouldn’t take Tech. That’s when the Big 8 became UT’s choice. UT didn’t want the SEC.
LikeLike
mnfanstc and unproductive
you’re both making the typical leap in logic that somehow because Rutgers was chosen AFTER Mizzou was already no longer available, that somehow means that Rutgers would have been chosen over Mizzou if Mizzou were still available. There is zero tangible evidence to prove that. Sure, you can have that opinion, but there’s no actual evidence to support that opinion.
The real choice for the B1G last year wasn’t between Rutgers and Missouri, but between Rutgers and Kansas, as Kansas was really the only other contiguous AAU school from a BCS conference that might have said yes.
LikeLike
There is quite a bit of evidence for what they’re saying. It’s not definitive, but it’s not just personal opinion either.
If you see a little boy with blueberry on his face, and next to him a blueberry pie with a slice missing, it’s a fair inference that the boy ate the pie.
LikeLike
um, no there isn’t. and the fact that you failed to even try to describe what this mythical evidence is is very telling.
LikeLike
Don’t you get it; only Andy is allowed to present his opinions as facts.
LikeLike
Actually, unlike you, I make a constant effort not to.
LikeLike
Andy you assume that Mizzou going to the SEC was not a reaction to being passed over by the Big 10. We do not know if the decision to take Rutgers & Maryland over Mizzou & Kansas was made at the same time as the addition of Nebraska or only after Nebraska was added. I would not be surprised if the Big 10 after looking at the study said we can go with Kansas basketball or Maryland basketball and Mizzou football or Rutgers football to complement Nebraska. The decision to expand with Nebraska likely included the decision to add Rutgers & Maryland as well and we are simply seeing implementation of the plan. That leads me to believe Mizzou & Kansas were tied to the hip similar to Rutgers & Maryland. And that would mean Rutgers & Maryland were chosen because all other things being equal with Kansas & Mizzou, they are located in populous growing states nearby New York City.
LikeLike
prophetstruth, it’s real simple. Mizzou had a choice. They could accept the SEC’s offer and join one of the two best leagues in the country, or they could let FSU or VaTech or somebody take that spot and then sit around in the Big 12 waiting to see if the B1G would expand again.
They made the obvious decision that any school would have made.
To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
LikeLike
you’re both making the typical leap in logic that somehow because Rutgers was chosen AFTER Mizzou was already no longer available, that somehow means that Rutgers would have been chosen over Mizzou if Mizzou were still available. There is zero tangible evidence to prove that. Sure, you can have that opinion, but there’s no actual evidence to support that opinion.
For what it’s worth, you are also assuming Missouri was no longer available. The SEC is famous for its no exit, no waiting period, no GOR and plenty of schools have bailed on conferences after agreeing to join them (TCU, BYU, BSU, SDSU). And as Missouri showed when it abandoned the Big XII less than a year after pledging to stay, they have no qualms abandoning their commitments if they get an offer they like (not shot a Missouri; that statement is true for pretty much every school)
LikeLike
Mizzou was not going to leave the SEC less than a year after joining it. That’s absolutely ridiculous and just goes to show the low level of discourse that routinely trashes up this forum.
LikeLike
Your evidence sir?
LikeLike
Mizzou made a HUGE friggin’ deal out of joining the SEC. Major effort to rebrand the university as an SEC school. Hype machine in full throttle. No way they reverse course in less than a year. Alums would be up in arms. It would not be possible.
LikeLike
To put this into context in case you’re still confused: Missouri spent something like a million dollars buying billboards all over the SEC region proclaiming that Mizzou was now in the SEC. Also lord knows how many TV commercials. Signs all over campus. Constant fundraising emails and mailings. Big parties. Interviews all over the national media. Hype hype hype. Talking up the SEC like it was the greatest thing ever. And the fans and alumni bought in big time. They were thrilled. Attendance and donations were up.
How humiliating and ridiculous would it be for the institution to change courses in less than a year? It would have been a catastrophe.
LikeLike
Humiliating was having the governor of the state publicly trash the Big XII while lobbying for a Big Ten invite only to have to go crawling back to the Big XII when the Big Ten passed.
Jumping to the Big Ten would have just demonstrated that the Tigers were truly in demand…
LikeLike
Hm, let’s see, another “reasonable” FrankTheTank poster putting “cray cray” Andy in his place by first changing the subject to get a cheap shot in, then by matter of factly stating that Missouri could easy as by hop from one conference to another to another all within less than a year without negative consequences, and then thirdly not backing up that opinion with any kind of argument at all.
Yep, seems like par for the course around here. Maybe I’m “cray cray” to you guys, but maybe that’s not a bad thing considering.
LikeLike
yeah, I make a lot of random typos. always have.
point is, your flippant attitude about hopping from Big 12 to SEC to B1G all within a year are absurd, and the reason you don’t even try to justify them with argumentation is because you know that they are absurd. Your cheap shot attacks are just trying to deflect from the weakness of your pitiful argument.
LikeLike
Sometimes I really wonder at the motivation of the people in this forum.
I’m here to set the record straight and defend the truth.
But why do you guys do this? You’re obviously not tuned in to the situation. You’re off in Maryland and Ohio and California and wherever else.
Your entire understanding of the situation comes from a couple of brief AP articles from years ago and your own imaginations.
Somehow you imagine that Rutgers is better than Missouri so in your mind it becomes a fact that that’s how it was always planned out and meant to be.
It’s perfectly fine and fair to have that OPINION, but to get all arrogant and self righteous and to call me crazy for disagreeing with it is pure buffoonery.
There isn’t much reason to support your position and plenty of reason not to.
LikeLike
Hm, let’s see, another “reasonable” FrankTheTank poster putting “cray cray” Andy in his place by first changing the subject to get a cheap shot in
I didn’t change the subject; I just pointed out that
A. Moving from the SEC to the Big Ten wouldn’t have been humiliating
and
B. Even if it were, Mizzou’s own behavior shows they don’t let pride get in the way
then by matter of factly stating that Missouri could easy as by hop from one conference to another to another all within less than a year without negative consequences
Never said it would be easy or that it would be without consequence. Quit making stuff up.
then thirdly not backing up that opinion with any kind of argument at all.
I did provide evidence. You may not find it persuasive but don’t say I didn’t provide evidence.
LikeLike
You’re here to put out the Missouri propaganda line (and call people buffoons for not buying it). A lot of it, many of us think is utter nonsense. I’m sure it plays well on Tiger Droppings. You may be right with your “insider” info. None of us really know the answer to some of these questions (including you). But there’s a lot of delusional and deceitful and self-serving inside information and that is not confined to Missouri at all. There’s some real support for many of your positions other than “insider” info. But there’s a ton of support for alternative explanations. You are just too sensitive to anything that even might slight Missouri, you can’t see it and that is the truth.
LikeLike
Unlike many on here I’ve always been open about the fact that what I’m saying is impossible to confirm via internet and it’s mostly just what I’ve heard from people with contacts at Missouri. I’ve also said that my believing them is only my opinion.
What I take issue with is so many on here making declarative statements about Rutgers getting picked over Missouri when there is zero logical reason to say so, and then calling me crazy for disagreeing. That is buffoonery, plain and simple.
LikeLike
no, frug, I don’t find your argument or “evidence” persuasive at all.
LikeLike
Andy:
Why do you discount the very simple idea that the B1G could have given Missouri private assurances that they would be included in an expansion to 14? I take the sign that Mizzou joined the SEC while holding out hope for the B1G as sign that the SEC was a second choice, and that no private assurances about future acceptance were forthcoming.
See: http://espn.go.com/dallas/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most
“The University of Missouri hopes to join the Southeastern Conference but would have preferred an offer from the Big Ten that never came, a school official told The Associated Press.
The person, who is familiar with the discussions involving conference affiliation, spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity because the school has not commented publicly about its intentions.
Missouri hoped to join the Big Ten last year but the league instead chose Nebraska. The university official said the Big Ten remains Missouri’s top choice but that conference “has no interest.”
“That’s what’s left,” the official said, referring to the SEC.”
Based on this, even if Mizzou is available, I see no reason to think it would have been chosen over Rutgers. Certainly not over Maryland. I also believe, based on Rutgers statements over the past few years to the effect of “when the realignment calms down, Rutgers will be in a better place” reflects private assurances that the school was in the Big Ten’s plans, and the conference was waiting for the right moment.
Just let it go. Your school is in the SEC. Was the Big Ten’s rejection such a blow to your ego, or Missouri’s? Its possible that one conference’s trash is another’s treasure. Celebrate being in the SEC.
LikeLike
Good point about trash and treasure. The ACC passed on Rutgers many times. The Big 12 didn’t seriously consider them. It looked at Pitt, WVU and UL from the east. Obviously the SEC had no interest. Yet the Big 10 was interested.
LikeLike
Wainscott, again, it’s real simple: when Mizzou joined the SEC, the B1G was still shopping around trying to get the best school available. They were chasing Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, UVA, etc. This is obvious. So given that, how could the B1G give assurances to Mizzou? They couldn’t.
Waiting around and hoping that Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, UVA, and all of them would all say no was a risky proposition. Mizzou didn’t want to take that risk when they had a sure thing in the SEC.
This shouldn’t even be controversial really. It’s extremely obvious.
LikeLike
It is real simple, if the B1G wanted to, it could have given private assurances as to future membership. Clearly, the conference did not want to. Did you not read the ESPN article I linked to?
Sample private assurance dialogue:
Jim Delany picks up a phone, calls Brady Denton.
Jim Delany: Hey, Mizzou, just so you know, for right now, we are taking Nebraska. However, we intend to expand to 14 teams in the next few years, and we are extremely interested in your school being a member of the B1G. You can ignore rumors, because we are doing our due diligence on the right timing to expand and the right school to pair you with If you get an offer from another conference, or before you sign any GoR, check in with us. Also, if word of this conversation leaks out, this conversation never happened and you can forget ever joining this conference. What do you say?
Denton: Yes sir!
Pretty simple to me. And if you don’t think private assurances are routinely given in college athletics, in realignment, bowl game selections, and such, well then I can’t really help you there.
LikeLike
Clearly the B1G wanted Texas, Notre Dame, UNC, and UVA more than they wanted Mizzou. Therefore they could not give Mizzou those assurances while Texas, Notre Dame, UNC, and UVA were still on the table. How hard is this to comprehend?
LikeLike
Also, read this: http://www.thetelegraph.com/sports/local_sports/article_f3909c54-6fdc-5a5b-86fe-2f394374cf02.html
“So Mizzou had to do something. And the Tigers can cultivate SEC rivalries with Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Arkansas. Yet if you look what the Tigers could have had in the Big Ten, I’d say competition with Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska and others would have meshed better.
There’s just one problem with that observation – the Big Ten doesn’t want Missouri. Not now, for sure. It’s unclear that even if the Tigers waited for the perfect time, they would have gotten a call from the Big Ten office in Chicagoland.
Football is driving the conference realignments and expansion. Nebraska has a higher profile than Missouri, even though the Tigers play a better brand of basketball. In this case, football trumps basketball by plenty. That’s why Kansas isn’t even on anybody’s radar.
It’s true that Mizzou has stable markets in St. Louis and Kansas City. Illinois, however, put its footprints in The Lou and perhaps the Big Ten doesn’t consider Kansas City a prize. Nevertheless, it carries more clout that Omaha, Neb. – except in football, of course.”
AND:
“I understand that line of thinking. What baffles me is that evidently the Big Ten and Missouri never had any serious correspondence about a mutual relationship.
There’s no evidence of talks behind the scenes and nothing to suggest that Mizzou administrators even had a written exchange with Delany.
No dialogue translates as zero interest, as far as I’m concerned. The Tigers apparently had visions of doing business with the Big Ten. Yet it wasn’t reciprocal.”
That seems like a firm, Taylor Swift-esque repetition of “Never Ever” as it related to Mizzou and the Big Ten. Its likely that Rutgers, for reasons repeated well beyond the point of ad nauseum on this board, was favored by the B1G over Mizzou, and that Mizzou knew it and looked elsewhere (and found a warm, southern home).
LikeLike
that article is completely 100% in sync with what I am saying. At the time, the B1G could not give assurances to Mizzou because there were still schools on the table that they wanted more. But then Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, and UVA said no. This is not difficult to understand unless you willfully refuse to do so.
LikeLike
Andy,
I honestly believe you are trolling at this point, like some cross between a Bill Swerski superfan and Colin Cowherd or Skip Bayless. If numerous articles report “ambivalence” or “the lack of contact” from the B1G to Mizzou, that’s a sign they did not want Mizzou in any context–12, 14, or 16. Based on this treatment, Mizzou clearly knew it would never join the B1G, and look elsewhere.
Its not that the B1G preferred other, bigger schools, like UND or UNC/UVA. Its that the conference preferred other schools, and not just the ones you list, and did not actually want Mizzou.
The article does not say anything about assurances–this article talks about there NOT BEING ANY RECIPROCAL INTEREST by the conference to Mizzou. That is nowhere near the “giving of assurances” and completely eviscerates your line of thinking.
LikeLike
There was a ton of contact between Mizzou and the B1G. Extensive meetings. Nebraska got spot #12. Mizzou was discussed for spot #14 but was told that if it would happen they’d have to wait behind others. Namely, Texas, Notre Dame, UVA, and UNC. At the time Mizzou joined the SEC, all of those schools were still very much in play. Notre Dame had yet to join the ACC. Texas had yet to sign GOR. The ACC still looked very unstable. There is no way the B1G could commit to Missouri under those circumstances. It wasn’t until after Missouri joined the SEC that all of those situations changed.
This is painfully obvious and easy to understand. You are misreading what the word “ambivalent” means. You’re also relying on an article that cites one anonymous source who’s only telling part of the story. Yes, after the B1G told Missouri they’d have to wait and see there wasn’t much to talk about, so communications died down. But Mizzou never got a “no”. They got a “maybe but not now”. Missouri became basically a backup plan. But guess what? None of those other schools ended up joining the B1G so the backup plan very well could have been used.
None of this has anything at all to do with Rutgers. Nothign you are citing could be construed in any way to be an endorsement of Rutgers. Nothing you have posted in any way contradicts what I have been saying. Not even in the slightest.
The only way not to see this would be to willfully refuse to see it.
LikeLike
“Nothing you have cited contradicts what I have have said”
Except for articles in reputable places, like ESPN, because they do not jive with your hopes and dreams.
Again, from ESPN, which reported an AP story:
Missouri hoped to join the Big Ten last year but the league instead chose Nebraska. The university official said the Big Ten remains Missouri’s top choice but that conference “has no interest.”
“That’s what’s left,” the official said, referring to the SEC.”
I read that to mean this: THE BIG TEN HAD NO INTEREST IN MISSOURI, NOW OR EVER.
without the aid of a dictionary, since Missouri was not wanted, other schools would be preferred to it. Other schools like UMd, Rutgers, and the like. Not just your convenient list like UVa or UNC or ND.
Moreover, you cannot produce a source for your conjectures of conversations and such, as you have stated that you heard this from people who heard it from people.
I deal in facts and reality. Provide the evidence necessary to state your case counselor, or rest your case. I am open to being persuaded, but based on contemporaneous news accounts, your assertions do not seem to be accurate.
LikeLike
Yeah, you read this to mean that and you’re reading it wrong.
The correct way to read it is that the Big Ten had no interest in committing to Missouri before Missouri would need to leave for the SEC.
Circa 2011, the time of that article, the B1G said that they were not expanding any time soon. Their game plan was to wait on schools like Notre Dame.
Between that date and the day the B1G expanded again, Notre Dame joined the ACC and Texas signed GOR. In fact, the B1G made a move very shortly after those two things happened.
The B1G had no interest in expanding before that. They had every interest in expanding after.
And any astute sports fan should know by now that ESPN articles are often sloppily written and sensationalistic and can’t always be relied upon to tell a full and accurate story. The reporter likely chatted up one Missouri official who gave him part of the story with some nice quotes and the reporter ran with it. The actual story is more complicated than that. Thus the use of the word “ambivalent” in other articles.
The long dialogues between the B1G and Missouri are no secret. They definitely happened. The Governor of Missouri was involved as well.
LikeLike
ESPN reprinted an AP story.
http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2016412035_apbig12missouri.html
Is the AP also unreliable?
Stop hating on sources and provide your own. Also, Gov. Nixon was involved only in publically embarrassing himself by cheerleading for an offer than never came and, in the process, denigrating Big 12 schools.
Again, a year later, the B1G could have told Mizzou to hang on if it wanted to and hold off on joining another conference, but clearly it did not because the Big Ten did not want Missouri.
LikeLike
I know you don’t want to hear this but Alan Scher Zagier is a shitty journalist. That’s a fact. He’s a journalist based in St. Louis and has a long history of misleading and inaccurate stories, frequently based on anonymous sources.
Again, nothing you have posted has anything at all to do with Rutgers. Nothing.
Rutgers was in the same boat as Missouri in 2011. On the outside looking in. A backup plan. The ONLY difference between Missouri and Rutgers is that Rutgers didn’t have an SEC offer on the table with a deadline on it.
LikeLike
As for providing my own source, nobody worth a damn will go on the record about this.
The only person who has was a disgruntled employee at Mizzou who went to Zagier with an axe to grind. He didn’t like the SEC move so he smeared Mizzou anonymously.
If you recall there was a very long debate among the Missouri board of curators as to whether Missouri would accept the SEC offer or not. Not everyone was on the same page.
LikeLike
Do you really think Rutgers would be in the B1G if any two of Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, UVA, Duke, or Maryland had agreed to join?
Of course not. That’s ridiculous.
Rutgers was never Plan A. They weren’t even Plan B. They probably weren’t even Plan E.
Same as Missouri they were a backup plan. But the way things went down their number got called. But it was a risk.
Now, it wasn’t a risk to Rutgers really because they didn’t have any options. Their only choice was to rot in the AAC until the day ever came that the B1G might be desperate enough to take them.
Missouri did have options so they took them.
LikeLike
Wow. Apparently you now also hate on the AP
I’ve already explained what this has to do with Rutgers (as in, Missouri was told never, and Mizzou relied on that to go elsewhere, and the conference later chose Rutgers after telling Mizzou to shoo because it was not wanted),
Final analogy: Guy (Mizzou) hears Girl (B1G) is looking for a new boyfriend, and asks Girl out, stands on lawn with giant boombox, peppers girl with candy and chocolate and jewels, and Girl ends up dating Farmer (Nebraska), telling Guy in the process “We will never be an item, so stop chasing me.”
Guy, all sad and dejected because his dreams of dating Girl are forever dashed, ends up dating and marrying a wealthy, southern belle.
Girl later adds the Fonz (Rutgers) and Turtle (UMd) to her collection, having the time to properly scour available prospects after having told the Guy to leave her alone (which he did).
By definition, Girl did not ever want Guy and told him to go away. Subsequent Fonz and Turtle were, by definition, more desirable, because Girl actually interacted with them. Guy was simply not a factor, his marriage to the southern belle notwithstanding, because, based on Girl’s previous statements, even if Guy was available, she had no interest.
Alas, you persist, and I am out of energy to indulge your cray cray today.
Nothing more I can do here.
LikeLike
Wow, you have quite an imagination.
1) Somehow you managed to imagine into those articles that the B1G told Missouri to stop chasing them, even though nothing in those articles even remotely resembles that.
2) Some how you managed to imagine Rutgers into articles about Missouri, even though there is absolutely zero logical reason to do so. How does the B1G not wanting to commit to taking Missouri in 2011 when Notre Dame, Texas, UNC etc were still available prove in any way that the B1G wanted Rutgers? That’s right, it doesn’t.
I’m not “hating on the AP.” I’m hating on Zagier, a St. Louis reporter who writes for the AP.
Funny how I’m always derrided on here for being “extreme” or “cray cray” when I’m very calmly stating the truth, and you guys are spazzing out with conjecture and random guesses.
LikeLike
One more:
“Missouri is all but out of the picture, a victim of apparent Big Ten ambivalence toward the Tigers, the newspaper reported.”
http://newsok.com/article/3468101
LikeLike
from dictionary.com: ambivalence: uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.
So yeah, the B1G wanted Missouri but they wanted Texas, Notre Dame, UNC, and UVA more. So they couldn’t commit to Mizzou until they got an answer from those other schools. And if Missouri waited on that they’d lose their spot in the SEC.
Again, this is completely obvious and easy to understand.
LikeLike
Boy, Andy, you’re really touchy about nothing. My OPINION is that in 2011, when Missouri wen to the SEC, the Big Ten was not looking to expand. Remember, it was in the process of negotiating the joint scheduling agreement with the Pac12, the intent of which was to “expand” the conference into new territory without having to add schools. If Notre Dame, or Texas, or maybe UNC had asked about joining, the Big Ten would probably have added it (similar to the SEC agreeing to add A&M, even though it had no thoughts about active expansion that that point). But (again, my opinion), the conference was not actively seeking new schools in 2011. So going after Missouri, (or Maryland, or Rutgers, or Virginia, or whomever) at that time wasn’t going to happen
In 2012, when the PAC 12 had backed out of the scheduling agreement, and the ACC had added Pittsburgh, Syracuse and some of Notre Dame, the Big Ten got serious about expanding again, this time to the East Coast. It persuaded Maryland to join, and then added Rutgers as number 14. It wasn’t that the Big Ten chose Rutgers over Missouri, or chose to wait on Maryland over Missouri, or did anything about Missouri. In 2011, it wasn’t planning on expanding, and Missouri went to the SEC. In 2012, Missouri simply wasn’t an option anymore.
LikeLike
unproductive, do you realize that you just pretty much expressed the same opinion that I’ve been stating on here for years, almost verbatim? Yes, I agree with your opinion 100%.
LikeLike
And if you’re confused by that or think it’s a contradiction, I’ll explain:
In my opinion (and yours), the B1G wasn’t looking to expand in 2011 unless it found a really good target like Notre Dame, Texas, or UNC. That wasn’t the time they’d going to go for a Missouri +Kansas/Rutgers/Maryland type addition.
Notre Dame or Texas + Missouri? Sure, that could work. But short of that the B1G was determined to wait.
Then the SEC said now or never so Mizzou took the plunge.
LikeLike
Let’s strike up the band again.
http://www.insidethehall.com/2013/10/21/glass-talks-big-ten-expansion-addition-maryland-rutgers/
The lack of recent movement, however, doesn’t mean that the Big Ten or the IU athletic department have moved the issue off of the radar completely.
“That’s one of the more important things we’ve been working on is expansion. Whether we continue to expand, I don’t know. I can tell you that there’s no active efforts to identify partners to expand with,” Glass said. “But having said that, I think 16 (members) might be a bit of a sweet spot and if two high caliber academic and athletic institutions applied for membership, my guess is, if they met our criteria of being academically excellent and hopefully geographically contiguous, although I’m not sure if that’s completely critical, my guess is we’d do that.”
LikeLike
On a not-so-different note, rumormongering among the West By Gawd bloggers about a supposed settlement in the MD/ACC lawsuit and B1G willing to pay to break a GoR in one or another conference (which would mean that Buffalo is out, if they had any chance to begin with).
LikeLike
Fred’s not normally an attention-grabber…………..and this is the first time he’s ever been out front on expansion….odd
LikeLike
The obvious questions are: “Why would the Big 10 not have invited these schools before they signed the GOR?” and “Why would these schools sign a GOR if they were going to turn around and break it?” Makes no sense.
LikeLike
Totally agree unless these presidents wanted to give as much stability to other schools as possible. But that flies in the face of their fiduciary responsibilities.
LikeLike
I would guess that the B1G probably invited UVA & UNC, but UNC declined and the B1G had no intention to offer anyone else (i.e. FSU, KU, or OU).
The bigger question is why did UVA and UNC (and OU or UT for that matter) agree to the GORs based on a possible ACCN which may or may not materialize. Even if it does materialize, it probably won’t be near as profitable as the BTN or SECN. It seems crazy to me that a university would handcuff themselves like that.
LikeLike
To UNC, the ACC with Tobacco Road as it’s heartland is the best situation out of many but none where it can satisfy all it’s desires. Sure, it wants money, but it wants to remain southern and elitist as well (and the SEC and B10 can each provide one but not the other). It also wants to maintain it’s rivalries, and it has many: UVa, Duke, and NCSU as a bare minimum, but it’s doubtful that the B10 or SEC would take all 4 schools.
UVa evidently decided to follow UNC.
Texas wants to be Big Dog in its fiefdom.
OU had nowhere to go (all indications are that none of the B10, SEC, or Pac are willing to take OU & OK St. as a package, and so long as the B12 is viable, jettisoning little brother is probably not possible politically).
LikeLike
@Richard
I understand why they didn’t move. I just don’t understand why they handcuffed themselves in case the dynamics of the conferences change before the GORs are up. It’s not like those schools would’ve ever been kicked out of their respective conferences had they not signed the GORs.
LikeLike
OU and UT agreed to a GOR after it became clear they had no place else to go and a GOR was going to be necessary to convince any moderately attractive Missouri replacement that the Big XII wasn’t going to collapse in 2 years (absent a GOR it is quite possible WVU would have stuck with the Big East, which at the time looked less likely to collapse than the Big XII, while holding out hope for an SEC or ACC invite). They agreed to the extension because the media deal they got was better than they expected (plus, UT needed to hold together the Big XII since no one else would take on the LHN).
The ACC GOR is more difficult. UNC doesn’t surprise me at all. The fact is all their other options while more lucrative are overall inferior (the SEC is a terrible fit economically, athletically and academically but the fanbase seems to hate the idea of the Big Ten).
What doesn’t make sense to me is FSU. At first I assumed the conference had agreed to make serious concessions to ‘Noles (like realigning the divisions), but since the GOR announcement the only thing they have agreed to do is reimburse bowl teams for their travel expenses.
The answer everyone else was giving (that FSU was afraid if they didn’t sign the GOR schools UVA or V-Tech might leave) fails because it just raises then why did UVA and V-Tech sign it.
LikeLike
How would the SEC be a terrible fit economically or athletically for UNC? UNC would definitely make a lot more money in SEC than the ACC. Athletically, UNC would be making a major jump up in football while still going to a conference that has won three national championships in basketball in the last 8 years. Admittedly, UNC sponsors a bunch of “East Coast” sports like lacrosse that the SEC doesn’t currently sponsor, but they could surely find a home for those like Missouri does in wrestling or South Carolina and Kentucky do in Men’s Soccer and those sports don’t matter anywhere near as much as football or men’s basketball anyway.
I’m not really going to dispute the academic fit, but A. SEC academics are really not as bad as they’re made out to be (though certainly not to Big 10 levels) and B. An SEC with UNC and either Duke or UVA would have 6 AAU schools, 6 other schools that are state flagships, and 2 other schools that are land-grants (Auburn and Mississippi State).
LikeLike
I’m with Jeff on UNC and the SEC…….I could definately see it if the ACC isn’t held together. AND I could see VA going as well……….in about 10 years or so when the $ differential becomes too much to ignore….an SEC with UNC, VA, Florida, Vandy, Georgia, A&M, and MO would provide enough academic cover…..but I don’t really see Duke as an SEC prospect. They would be a complete dormat in the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t see UVA ever going to the SEC. The reality is the SEC does have some fine acedemic institutions but the perception in academic circles is much different. UNC cares enough about sports to make the move but I don’t think UVA would.
I think another reason the GORs were signed was to give the power schools time to sorte out there respective issues. The administration would want the BIG while the fans don’t at UNC and vice versa with the SEC. In 10 years, one side might relent. Texas had a “tech” problem and OU had a “state” one as well. In time, those problems which are political might change. I think A&M leaving with neary a whimper might give UT some leverage to go now. Plus division 4 could really change everything and I am sure that was something these schools might have know was coming down the pipe and wanted to see what the new landscape would look like.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – Yes, I do think the vibe at UVA is a bit different than UNC. There’s a larger and louder T-shirt fan contingent at UNC and it’s a step further in being more Southern (both geographically and culturally) where it’s arguably a sports fit with the SEC. However, the academic brand seems to be more of the focus at UVA and it will eventually be looked at more of an extension of DC than being part of the South (if it isn’t already). So, I could see where sports would trump academics if push came to shove with UNC, but it would be the reverse with UVA. As I’ve said, the dilemma is that the ACC as-is essentially provides the academic/cultural fit balance that both UVA and UNC want. They truly don’t *want* to make a choice between the SEC and Big Ten, which is also a dilemma for both the SEC and Big Ten since the ability to raid the ACC schools that they want really require proactive motivation from UNC in particular to move (and they’re simply not going to be proactive).
LikeLike
frug—Re: FSU…..I did see some speculation (?) that the ACC’s GOR was somehow dependent on the creation of an ACC network (within a certain period of time?)…….don’t know whether that has any validity, but you do wonder if there is some “out” if the $$ differential becomes too great……it would be interesting to read the thing….has it been made public?
LikeLike
I’ve seen that speculation about the ACC GOR in a number of places as well. Never with any backup. I don’t believe it, but its out there.
There was one rumour that the Big 12 TV contract went up $2 million with every two teams they added. It was everywhere. Yet apparently the source of it in many diverse places was one post on a UConn board by a guy claiming to be a TV consultant. These stories can spread like a virus with the effects lingering for months or years.
LikeLike
@ frug,
” (the SEC is a terrible fit economically, athletically and academically but the fanbase seems to hate the idea of the Big Ten).”
Why would the SEC be a terrible fit economically and athletically (I won’t argue academically)? The economical differences between the B1G & SEC won’t be that much going forward for the foreseeable future. And I really don’t get how they are a terrible athletic fit. The only sport that they would be overly concerned about would be lacrosse. And I know that there is serious concern about the direction their baseball program would go if they went to the B1G (baseball is a big deal for UNC).
LikeLike
Frank…I agree with your analysis of UNC v. Virginia…..ie…that the academic side might trump the fans and boosters…….problem is, if UNC ever did goes to the SEC it might be with VT in tow….bet the fans/boosters wouldn’t like that…..
Also, I agree UNC and VA probably very much want to stick with the ACC…..but if the differential widens any more that might not be an option……if they can’t get a profitable ACCN up and running all bets are off…………
LikeLike
I don’t know if this has been brought up, but strategically it makes a lot of sense for the BIG to keep the ACC vibrant instead of crippling it. The ACC is more of a thorn in the SEC’s side than the BIG’s as its power teams are located down south far away from the BIG’s footprint. Also having a two state buffer in North Carolina and Virginia from SEC territory helps as well. An SEC with Virginia Tech in it is bad for the BIG as the SEC would be right near the fertile recruiting grounds of DC and Virginia beach. The schools that the BIG would want are not football powers so their addition might not offset the poor effects of crippling the ACC; ie is adding Virginia worth pushing UNC to the SEC or bringing the SEC closer to BIG territory. The schools that the BIG would want are in no way knocking down the door of the SEC anyway due to its academic reputation so why push the issue.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – There’s some logic in the sense that it doesn’t behoove the Big Ten to see major pieces that they’d like to go elsewhere. We’ve discussed previously that the Big Ten is better off with Notre Dame remaining independent as opposed to going to the ACC, so Delany isn’t ever going to make moves “force” ND to join a conference unless it can be assured such conference is the Big Ten itself. The Big Ten would also rather have Texas stay in a weakened Big 12 than to head off to an expanded Pac-12. Likewise, the Big Ten is better off with UNC staying in the ACC compared to going to the SEC. There’s a certain limit to how powerful the ACC can be in staying as-is – it is still going to be behind the Big Ten and SEC unless it can ever get ND to join as a full member (which is exactly why the Big Ten would never want that to happen). However, the SEC getting UNC is a complete loss for the Big Ten. There is nothing good that would come out of that. This is why it’s a delicate balance – the Big Ten wants the big dogs like ND, Texas and UNC, but would rather have them stay in their less powerful fiefdoms than team up with more powerful competitors of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey and Bama
UNC is a terrible athletic fit for the SEC because they sponsor 27 sports which is far more than SEC team and would require the Tar Heels to find separate homes for a whopping half dozen of their teams. (In comparison, the ACC sponsors all of UNC sports (and for that matter so does the Big Ten))
UNC is terrible economic fit for the SEC because UNC is a basketball school (they have the third most valuable basketball program in the country and make one of the highest % of their AD budget off BB of any school). The SEC ranks quite a bit lower than the ACC in both BB revenue and TV viewership.
LikeLike
One quick correction; the ACC doesn’t sponsor fencing so that could stay where it is if they move, but that would still leave a bunch of other sports (most importantly LAX) to find separate homes in the SEC.
LikeLike
Frug, I understand that the SEC doesn’t sponsor all of the sports that UNC does, but if UNC decides that they want to be in the SEC, there is no way that they will let non-revenue sports stop them. Honestly, if UNC were willing to join the SEC, I’m sure that Slive could convince a few schools to sponsor a men’s lacrosse team with the extra money they’d be bringing in. I’m pretty sure that several SEC schools and their boosters could find a way to do so if that meant associating with UNC. I know starting lacrosse is expensive, but it’s not starting hockey expensive.
And again, I am of the opinion that UNC is extremely happy in the ACC and has no plans of leaving anytime soon.
LikeLike
As another point, as some of you were saying, the Big 10 would rather have UNC than not, but would rather have UNC in the ACC than the SEC. The same goes doubly true for the SEC. The SEC can reasonably hope to compete with the BIg 10 financially if the Big 10 doesn’t get UNC. If the Big 10 were to add UNC and the value that it would bring to that conference, I don’t see any possible addition that the SEC could make that would bring SEC income levels up to the Big 10. Frankly, the SEC is almost as limited in expansion candidates that bring real value as the Pac 12 at this point. Without UNC, I would guess the options would be limited to Duke, Oklahoma and VaTech/UVA, though it wouldn’t surprise me if the numbers worked out so that a few other schools wouldn’t take from everyone’s pie like Kansas, West Virginia, Texas, FSU, NC State, and Miami too. In any case, I extremely doubt that any of those schools would be anywhere near as valuable for the SEC as UNC.
Hence the Big 10’s real long-term bind when it comes to adding UNC. My take on the situation is that A. The SEC doesn’t really see any benefit from expanding without UNC and B. That the SEC is willing to wait on UNC for as long as it takes and that UNC is fully aware of the situation. Any leverage that the Big 10 could wield against UNC is meaningless when UNC knows that it can always go to the SEC and make comparable money as it would in the Big 10 if the ACC doesn’t work out.
LikeLike
JJ – Lacrosse is a red herring. Prior to ACC expansion last year, only four ACC schools competed in men’s lacrosse: Duke, UNC, UVA, and Maryland.
frug – Baseball, which is probably UNC’s #4 sport would clearly be better off in the SEC. I seriously doubt many top baseball recruits would choose UNC as a member of the B1G.
Two SEC schools, Alabama and Tennessee, compete in CUSA for women’s rowing.
Two SEC schools, Florida and Vandy, compete in the ALC for women’s lacrosse, along with Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Northwestern.
Two SEC schools, Kentucky and South Carolina, compete in CUSA for men’s soccer.
Mizzou competes in the MAC for wrestling.
Regarding women’s field hockey, no SEC schools compete in that sport, but the Northern Pacific Field Hockey Conference has members stretching from Cal and Stanford to App State and Davidson in the state of North Carolina.
My position has been that UNC baseball trumps all those other sports. Even if you argue that men’s lacrosse is more important than baseball, the Tar Heels have competed in a four team league forever. Furthermore, the Big East would probably take them if UNC didn’t want to compete as an Independent.
Also, I doubt that UNC will choose the B1G or SEC based on how it affects any of these sports mentioned above.
LikeLike
@JJ and Alan
I never said that non-revs would but causes them to decide Big Ten over SEC (or vice-versa); I said they could be the thing that keeps them in the ACC compared the SEC.
Yes, some SEC schools have sports in other conferences, but it only one or two per school. A move to the SEC would force UNC to put almost a quarter of its athletic department elsewhere, something I seriously doubt they would look forward to (especially if it meant putting certain sports in a mid-major conference).
On the specific case of LAX
@Alan
All the Big Ten schools are leaving the ALC when the Big Ten starts sponsoring the sport in a couple years.
And while it is true that the ACC only had 4 lacrosse members for years that doesn’t mean the SEC could. In order to get an auto-bid to the NCAA tournament lacrosse conferences needed to have six members (which is why the Big Ten had to bring in JHU for men’s only). The ACC has gotten by with fewer because it is so strong (in fact far and away the strongest league in the country) that its champ is always going to get an at large bid. An SEC lacrosse league (even with UNC) would not be strong enough to be viable without an auto-bid.
@JJ
No school has ever decided to start sponsoring a sport in order to lure other schools to the conference. Plus, if the schools are going to be forced use all the new money they make from expansion to start a up a team they wouldn’t otherwise, then what is the financial incentive to expand?
LikeLike
Also, I never said non-revenue sports would be the deciding factor. I said that UNC would probably prefer the ACC to the SEC because it is a poor athletic fit and a poor economic fit and a poor academic fit (to say nothing historic ties to the ACC).
LikeLike
Actually, I just did some checking and I was wrong; the SEC doesn’t sponsor 8 of UNC sports, not 6. That is almost a third of the athletic department (including Men’s Soccer and LAX both of which UNC is a national power in) that would have to be placed elsewhere.
The SEC is simply a horrific athletic fit for UNC.
LikeLike
@frug – I do think you make a good point. UNC is one of the handful of schools where money alone isn’t going to satisfy them – currently, they have disproportionate power and influence on their conference matters along with being with a large number of their institutional peers academically. The SEC and the Big Ten have to sell UNC on non-financial matters to get them to move, so the fact that the SEC doesn’t sponsor several UNC sports is definitely a negative. It’s a circular argument that UNC won’t care about non-revenue sports if they want to go the SEC because if UNC feels like it’s compromising anything in their athletic department (or academically), then they won’t want the SEC in the first place. Similarly, cultural fit can’t be wished away by the Big Ten with respect to UNC. Both SEC and Big Ten supporters often come from the angle that if the money is right, then whoever they target will just fall in line and push everything else to the side. This is the incorrect approach to a school like UNC (or ND or Texas): any conference that wants them has to show that UNC is getting everything that it needs AND, lo and behold, the money is right, too.
LikeLike
UNC is terrible economic fit for the SEC because UNC is a basketball school (they have the third most valuable basketball program in the country and make one of the highest % of their AD budget off BB of any school). The SEC ranks quite a bit lower than the ACC in both BB revenue and TV viewership.
frug,
Not sure if I buy what you are saying here. It is not like the whole ACC is basketball and the real value is UNC vs x. Early on it was UNC vs NC State and currently under coach K it is UNC vs Duke. ACC basketball is really just 2 – 4 schools and Maryland has left for the B1G. Granted Louisville may fill this void but the Cards are not close to UNC (distance or history) the way Maryland was. Now if Chapel Hill to College Park is about 4.5 hours and 40 bucks in gas who could replace them in the SEC?
College Park = 4.5 hours / $ 40 gas
#25 21games / 262,264 / 12,489
Knoxville = 5.0 hours / $45 gas
#8 17 games / 282,794 / 16,635
Vols could easily replace Maryland for the Tar Heels in basketball
Now lets look at swapping Kentucky for Duke
#1 All time vs #2 All time
#1 Attendance vs #4 Attendance
Since UNC would be in the east here is the other games
UNC vs Florida : 5 NCAA banners vs 2 NCAA banners
UNC vs South Carolina : border state game
UNC vs Vanderbilt : Vanderbilt has solid basketball and UNC alum in Nashville
UNC vs Georgia : Atlanta is full of UNC alumni
UNC vs Tennessee : see above
UNC vs Kentucky : see above
Depending on how the SEC got to 16 Missouri could remain in the east but if UNC moved with UVA they would probably get moved to the west but it would mean the UNC vs UVA basketball games would be interrupted.
LikeLike
Lets not forget that UNC is a soccer powerhouse, and the SEC does not sponsor men’s soccer as a sport. Nor does the SEC at present sponsor lacrosse. Could be an issue for UNC when debating where to go if leaving the ACC.
LikeLike
My position has been that UNC baseball trumps all those other sports. Even if you argue that men’s lacrosse is more important than baseball, the Tar Heels have competed in a four team league forever. Furthermore, the Big East would probably take them if UNC didn’t want to compete as an Independent.
Baseball is the interesting point in the discussion where it is not about money. Both UNC and UVA have keen interest in their baseball teams and baseball in the SEC east is easier to carve a niche in than the SEC west. The Hoos have about 5K seats and 2 CWS visits in 2009 and 2011. The Tar Heels have similar seating and 10 CWS trips from 1960 – 2013. Here is how the SEC east baseball would look if UNC and UVA went to the SEC and Missouri got moved to the west:
1 South Carolina 8K
2 Florida 5K
3 North Carolina 5K
4 Virginia 5K
5 Tennessee 4K
6 Vanderbilt 4K
7 Georgia 3K
8 Kentucky 3K
Tar Heels in the SEC could have a big rival (and ballpark expansion) with border rival South Carolina. Hoos could develop a strong baseball rival with Vanderbilt. Either school in the SEC east could push to become a top dog in the east every season and Alan has pointed out that the SEC travels for baseball. Even if the Hoos were unable to match the SEC in football they could do well in basketball and could easily rise to the top in baseball. While not saying baseball will be the deciding factor it does seem foolish to discount it in how either school makes a decision involving sports budgets.
.
…
.
Here is the Tar Heel’s official sports in relation to current SEC schools
The Big 3 sports (including women equivalent) – 14 SEC schools* compete
Basketball = major upgrade – 8 banners (UT) ACC = MD in 06 and UNC in 94
(M) Basketball = pairs UNC with UK – 11 banners (UK, UF, and UAF)
Football = major upgrade, stadium expansion assured in SEC
Baseball = major upgrade – 9 CWS (WF has only ACC CWS in 1955)
Softball = upgrade ( *no Vanderbilt team) – 1 WCWS (none in ACC)
UNC sports with favorable homes in SEC
Cross Country = upgrade – 14 of 14 – 1 NCAA title
I Track & Field = major upgrade – 14 of 14 – 14 NCAA titles
O Track & Field = major upgrade – 14 of 14 – 16 NCAA titles
Golf = competitive – 14 of 14 – 4 NCAA titles
Tennis = major upgrade – 14 of 14 – 8 NCAA titles
Swimming & Diving = major upgrade – 12 of 14 (no MS) – 13 NCAA titles
Soccer = competitive – 14 of 14 – 1 NC from Florida (UNC has 21)
Gymnastics = major upgrade – 8 of 14 – 18 NCAA titles
(M) Cross Country = major upgrade – 13 of 14 (no SC) – 8 NCAA titles
(M) I Track & Field = major upgrade – 14 of 14 – 18 NCAA titles
(M) O Track & Field = major upgrade – 13 of 14 (no VU) – 18 NCAA titles
Volleyball = competitive – 13 of 14 (no VU) – Florida is top team
(M) Golf = major upgrade – 14 of 14 – 11 NCAA titles
(M) Tennis = major upgrade – 13 of 14 (no MO) – 7 NCAA titles
(M) Swimming & Diving = major upgrade – 10 of 14 – 11 NCAA titles
UNC sports with SEC conflicts
Lacrosse = UF and VU / 15 NCAA = 11 MD + 3 UVA + 1 UNC
Fencing = No ACC team has an NCAA championship (not ACC sport)
(M) Soccer = UK & SC / 15 NCAA = 6 UVA + 3 MD + 2 UNC & CU + 1 WF & Duke
Rowing = Alabama and Tennessee = 2 NCAA (both UVA)
Wrestling = Missouri / No ACC team has won a NCAA wrestling title
Field Hockey = NONE / 16 NCAA = 7 MD + 6 UNC + 3 WF
(M) Lacrosse = NONE / 18 NCAA = 7 MD + 5 UVA + 4 UNC + 2 Duke
(M) Fencing = No ACC team has an NCAA championship (not ACC sport)
SEC sport support with no UNC team
SEC has 10 NCAA equestrian titles
Equestrian = Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas A&M
Oddball sports in the SEC
LSU has a boxing NCAA title but no team I could find
Kentucky has a rifle NCAA title (Mississippi has a team also)
Vanderbilt has a bowling NCAA title (may explain no volleyball team)
Missouri has a wrestling team in the MAC
LikeLike
duff – thanks for bringing baseball back into the discussion. As frug, Frank, and wainscott didn’t mention, UNC is also a baseball power. UNC plays almost twice as many home baseball games as soccer and lacrosse – COMBINED. Baseball is covered round the clock on ESPN in June. Several SEC schools have shown that baseball can be a revenue sport, or at least a break-even sport.
I don’t pretend to know much about men’s soccer and lacrosse, but I do know something about college baseball. If UNC joined the BIG, their baseball program would be greatly damaged. I would think that damage would be much greater than any damage done to the soccer team competing in CUSA or the lacrosse team competing in the Big East. With all due respect to B1G baseball (Indiana and Purdue had nice runs the last few years), UNC baseball recruits aren’t going to want to play against inferior opponents in front of tens of fans.
As I’ve written several times before, I seriously doubt the minor sports will be much of a consideration in any conference move, but I do believe that baseball counts as more of a consideration than many of you think.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – I don’t disagree with the notion that on a relative scale, baseball could be more important at UNC compared to the other non-revenue sports. In fact, my critique applies to both SEC and Big Ten fans. My point is that both SEC and Big Ten fans seem to be putting the proverbial cart before the horse with respect to UNC. Both conferences’ sides seem to be saying that UNC is going to be willing to ignore certain negatives (whether it’s academic prestige, conference sports sponsorships, geography, cultural fit, etc.) if they really want to join the SEC or Big Ten, as applicable, but the core issue is that such negatives essentially kill the notion of UNC “really wanting to join” either the SEC or Big Ten in the first place. UNC is ultimately one of those schools that is going to have to be convinced with more than money – they don’t want *any* non-financial detriment in joining the SEC or Big Ten compared to what they have now in the ACC, which neither the SEC nor Big Ten can really provide right now. There are pretty big non-financial detriments from the UNC perspective with either the SEC or Big Ten that can’t be addressed by more revenue. So, the fact that the SEC doesn’t have the same academic prestige or sponsor all of UNC’s sports are significant issues when you put the whole non-financial package of what the SEC has to offer compared to the ACC. Similarly, the fact that the Big Ten’s geography and cultural fit are still too Northern for UNC along with its T-shirt fan base largely rejecting the notion of moving there are major impediments. Giving 50% or 75% of what UNC has now in the ACC isn’t good enough – it has to be close to 100% or they’ll never be compelled to move.
LikeLike
Lets not forget that UNC is a soccer powerhouse, and the SEC does not sponsor men’s soccer as a sport. Nor does the SEC at present sponsor lacrosse. Could be an issue for UNC when debating where to go if leaving the ACC.
UNC is a W soccer powerhouse and all 14 SEC schools compete. Since 1982 here is the NCAA count by schools :
31 total
21 North Carolina
3 Notre Dame – just moved to ACC
2 Portland – not where UNC would be moving
1 Stanford – not where UNC would be moving
1 Southern Cal – not where UNC would be moving
1 Santa Clara – not where UNC would be moving
1 George Mason – not where UNC would be moving
leaving
0 from B1G schools
1 from SEC schools (Florida)
UVA is the M soccer powerhouse not UNC, however with Maryland moving to the B1G they can combine with Indiana to make a pro B1G soccer argument :
13 = B1G : (8) Indiana + (3) Maryland + (2) Michigan State
10 = ACC : (6) Virginia + (2) Clemson + (2) North Carolina
.
…
.
Men’s Lacrosse
Syracuse = 1983, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009
Johns Hopkins = 1974, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1987, 2005, 2007
Princeton = 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001
Virginia = 1972, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2011
North Carolina = 1981, 1982, 1986, 1991
Cornell = 1971, 1976, 1977
Duke = 2010, 2013
Maryland = 1973, 1975
Loyola = 2012
Syracuse, Princeton, Cornell, and Loyola are not joining the B1G so if UNC and UVA moved in tandem they would add strong secondary lacrosse in the B1G or primary lacrosse in the SEC. I have a feeling if UNC and UVA moved to the SEC overnight you would see lacrosse teams at Vanderbilt, Florida, South Carolina, and a few other schools.
Women’s Lacrosse
Maryland = 1986, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2010
Northwestern = 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012
Princeton = 1994, 2002, 2003
Virginia = 1991, 1993, 2004
Penn State = 1987, 1989
Temple = 1984, 1988
Delaware = 1983
Massachusetts = 1982
New Hampshire = 1985
North Carolina = 2013
Harvard = 1990
Here the B1G would have a decided advantage especially with Maryland joining next year. Discounting the schools on this list that will join neither the B1G or SEC and this is what remains :
Maryland = 1986, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2010
Northwestern = 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012
Virginia = 1991, 1993, 2004
Penn State = 1987, 1989
North Carolina = 2013
if UNC and UVA did move to the SEC only Florida and Vanderbilt currently have teams so they would be the leaders in the conference from the start until the SEC could build out. This may lend to a long term competitive advantage but that is not a given. In the end it may be a decision to be subordinate in the established B1G or dominant in the growing SEC.
LikeLike
@Duff
UNC is certainly a Men’s Soccer powerhouse. Their history in the sport doesn’t go back as far some other schools, but the Tar Heels were national champs in 2001 and 2011 and they qualified for the college cup in four of the past five years.
@Alan
You’re still missing the point.
The issue we discussing isn’t SEC vs. Big Ten, it is why UNC would sign a GOR with the ACC.
LikeLike
As I’ve written several times before, I seriously doubt the minor sports will be much of a consideration in any conference move, but I do believe that baseball counts as more of a consideration than many of you think.
I have written early and often of baseball in the B1G. I think the 2 growth sports – both being perfect for BTN or SECTV – are baseball and hockey. I feel very safe about the B1G position in hockey but feel just the opposite about the B1G position in baseball. The problem is hockey overlaps basketball where you can have one cannibalize the other. Baseball – and softball – has the third leg of NCAA broadcast sports all to itself. Sports like golf, tennis, and track & field will not draw TV viewers in the spring in the same numbers as baseball and softball will. It has been my strong opinion this is where the ACC, B12, PAC, and SEC will build out their content in the spring and summer for their networks and the B1G may be the laggard.
The numbers Alan has posted for SEC baseball in the past are impressive and lead me to believe he is correct on the growth or death of baseball / softball depending on where UNC and UVA decide to move. The question is how much will UVA and UNC value baseball in the sports equation? While the answer eludes me at this time, my awareness dictates giving it some level of importance greater than many of the discussions on here. 400,000 fans going through the home turnstiles of any college sport is not something to ignore.
@ Alan,
On a side note I was surprised to see the ACC had only 1 CWS (Wake Forest in the 1950’s) as several teams like Miami did not win theirs as ACC members. Is this correct?
LikeLike
@frug ~ exactly. There is a P5 conference that supports being a baseball power, lacrosse power and soccer power. That is worth protecting if you are UNC.
LikeLike
@Duff
UNC is certainly a Men’s Soccer powerhouse. Their history in the sport doesn’t go back as far some other schools, but the Tar Heels were national champs in 2001 and 2011 and they qualified for the college cup in four of the past five years.
We can agree to disagree but my view is
Indiana M Soccer > North Carolina M Soccer
@Alan
You’re still missing the point.
The issue we discussing isn’t SEC vs. Big Ten, it is why UNC would sign a GOR with the ACC.
On this point my best guess is the ACC is currently being firewalled by the SEC because ESPN controls both. If Skipper and Slive are both old ACC guys the GoR backed up by a “no raid” promise from Slive means UNC stays in control in the ACC where they currently run the conference.
LikeLike
Why UNC would sign a GOR with the ACC?
For the same reason as Notre Dame. Its a better fit.
Minor sports are a better fit, but that’s not particularly important. What’s important:
1) its a bus league for many of its games. That reduces costs and reduces the demands on the student-athlete.
2) it matches their alumni base in the southeast and upper east coast.
3) it keeps up rivalries and keeps up the ACC tourney which is a big driver of donations.
4) it has matching schools, smaller elite public schools and elite private schools.
The Big 10 has only one “matching” school-Northwestern (and of course, its private, not state like UNC). The others are huge state universities. Only Iowa and Nebraska have less than 40,000 students. UNC may not want to compete with schools with twice the alumni base. UNC has 30k students now, but they were low 20s not that long ago. The Big 10 schools have been huge for decades.
Control only matters for issues that are important. If they were concerned about academic integrity (not that they have demonstrated any interest in that), the Big 10 would not be a worry. SEC, maybe. Now if they are concerned about rule changes allowing more spending, the B1G and SEC would probably be for it, while the ACC might limit things (unlimited # of football coaches, for example).
So they strengthen the conference that best fits them, even if they are leaving TV money on the table. They may make it up in other areas. They will certainly narrow the gap with travel and donations.
LikeLike
frug – here’s your first comment of this thread that I have been addressing: “(the SEC is a terrible fit economically, athletically and academically but the fanbase seems to hate the idea of the Big Ten).” I addressed the issue regarding minor sports and asserted that baseball trumps the others, in my opinion.
Frank – I never wrote that the SEC is a better fit for UNC than the ACC. I agree that UNC and UVA are right where they ought to be (the ACC). I also stated many times that if UNC decides to move after the GOR expires, I don’t think the minor sports will be much of a consideration. To the extent they will be, I think baseball is more important than the other minor sports.
LikeLike
duff – you are right. The ACC only has one CWS championship won by Wake Forest back in the 1950s. Miami’s championships were won as an Independent. Several ACC teams have been the bridesmaid on many occasions.
LikeLike
The obvious questions are: “Why would the Big 10 not have invited these schools before they signed the GOR?”
They may very well have put out feelers (if not a full-throated invitation) and gotten a “no”.
…and “Why would these schools sign a GOR if they were going to turn around and break it?” Makes no sense.
I’ll believe a school is willing to break a GOR when I see it. Having said that, GORs are like a game of chicken. On the one hand, if you find a better option later on, you’d like to be able to leave without penalty. But if there is no better option, you want your current league to be intact.
At the time they signed, the schools must have believed there was no better option forthcoming, so they wanted to ensure that the league remained strong. Might they regret that later on? Quite possibly. Plenty of people do deals they regret.
LikeLike
I was thinking the same thing. That and it gets posted when I am out of pocket and miss it.
LikeLike
I can tell you that there’s no active efforts to identify partners to expand with
Which is the exact same line they were using publicly even as they were in final negotiations with Maryland…
LikeLike
“I think 16 (members) might be a bit of a sweet spot”
I think 16 teams has always been the target for the B1G. It is the number that seems to come up the most when those associated with the B1G bring the topic up. I know that a lot of people on this site like to discuss 20 team conferences, but I don’t think anything past 16 teams is very realistic.
LikeLike
I don’t put too much stock in it. I think 16 comes up for it’s symmetry as much as anything. If the right schools want in, going past 16 is a wise decision. If the candidates are iffy, sticking at 14 is the right move. There’s nothing inherently great about 16. It’s not as magic number like needing 12 for a CCG.
Are the presidents really that interested in doing pods (4×4 does work nicely)? I doubt they’ve even looked into it. If they had, they’d notice that the B10 doesn’t easily split into 4-team pods unless just the right 2 schools are added.
W = NE, WI, IA, MN – that’s the only easy one
The rest are a mess because of conflicting priorities – more big brands playing in NYC/DC versus keeping rivalries vs balance. Do you put OSU and MI together or keep 1 king in each pod and lock that game? What about PU/IN and NW/IL?
LikeLike
I would hope the BIG thought about PODs being that every fan on the planet has thought about it. I give these guys credit for knowing more than me.
16 with the current rules is a sweat spot. Two 8 team divisions with a 9 game schedule gives you 7 round robin division games and 2 cross overs so that every team plays each other either once every four years or 2 in 8 years.
A BIG 20 can work easily but only as PODS and with playoff semifinals. An extra 10th conference game would also help. Both those things could happen in the future so it will be interesting to see what’s to come.
LikeLike
I would hope the BIG thought about PODs being that every fan on the planet has thought about it. I give these guys credit for knowing more than me.
I’m sure they’ve discussed the scheduling options in a general way, not just for football but also for basketball. But I think, to the presidents, scheduling is a second-order problem: if the addition makes sense, you figure out the schedule. And I doubt they’ve put anything on paper, because it’s just an abstraction until you know which two schools are joining.
LikeLike
I would hope that the B1G would dispense with divisions if they go bigger than 16. With a 9 game schedule, a B1G 18 could protect 2 rivals for each school and play everyone else (except one school) in the conference every other year. Another benefit of dispensing with divisions is that it allows for a conference featuring an odd number of schools.
LikeLike
And give up the FB CCG (and its income)?
LikeLike
No. With the advent of a Div 4, they could (all but) certainly keep the CCG and do as they wished.
LikeLike
If the other conferences were willing to let them (which they might)
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“I would hope the BIG thought about PODs being that every fan on the planet has thought about it. I give these guys credit for knowing more than me.”
First, most fans really haven’t ever thought about it. People like us are a tiny minority of fans. Most fans don’t even give expansion any thought until a story hits the news.
“16 with the current rules is a sweat spot. Two 8 team divisions with a 9 game schedule gives you 7 round robin division games and 2 cross overs so that every team plays each other either once every four years or 2 in 8 years.”
How is that better than 14? You can play more often with 14 than 16.
“A BIG 20 can work easily but only as PODS and with playoff semifinals.”
It could work with divisions, but they won’t do it. 10 team divisions mean no crossover games, and each division champ goes to the CCG. Teams could play 1 crossover game to balance the schedule if they wanted.
I don’t see conference semifinals coming any time soon. There just isn’t a compelling need. Most CCGs struggle with attendance, and adding another round will just make it worse.
“An extra 10th conference game would also help.”
Unlikely for now. It would end good OOC games unless a 13th game is added.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m sure they’ve discussed the scheduling options in a general way, not just for football but also for basketball. But I think, to the presidents, scheduling is a second-order problem: if the addition makes sense, you figure out the schedule.”
Exactly. Just like they don’t really look at the possible division split and it’s implications until after adding someone.
“And I doubt they’ve put anything on paper, because it’s just an abstraction until you know which two schools are joining.”
Agreed. And they may think differently by the time something actually happens anyway, so why waste the time?
LikeLike
Interesting, but I’m taking the quote to mean more of, “If the right school applied, we’d go along.” I’d guess that list is very small and really probably would have to include one of Texas, North Carolina, or Notre Dame or maybe Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the only realistic one though and they would have to come alone which I don’t think they’d do.
Besides, let’s remember, the Big Ten released the 2018/2019 schedules this week.
LikeLike
Eric, the funny thing about Contracts (GOR included) is there is almost always a loophole and (or) an exception (looking for and finding them is just another reason why Lawyers make big bucks). There are two LONG SHOT ways it could happen (hypothetically speaking of course). 1: If Oklahoma and Kansas announced they are leaving for the B10, does anyone really think Texas is going to stick round? I could see them taking Tech with them (for Cover) and heading for the PAC? The problem is (besides the GOR), how can OU and KU Divorce themselves of Oklahoma State & Kansas State? As far as OU is concerned, if there is a plan to bring them to the B10, it would likely be with a partner, which I believe would be KU, because KU gives cover on issues like the AAU, connecting states, and Schedule balance. Finally, if there is a way to bring in Oklahoma, they would adjust the Schedules if necessary. 2: The other way it could happen would be if Texas announced it is moving to the ACC (maybe with West Virginia (more likely if Luck becomes AD in Austin)), and that would give political cover for OU & KU ditch OSU & KSU to join the B10.
Do I think either scenario happens no? But there is a long term scenario that could end the Big XII, and that is in five years UT realizes its losing its Texas power base to A&M and the SEC, and they decide that in order to save it, the ACC, PAC, or Independence would be a better option
LikeLike
Fred says no expansion if even 2-3 schools are against it………….only way I see such support is if a HR like TX or UNC or a triple like Virginia were involved………..and it sure seems like that option went out the window with the GORs…….so, taken as a whole, the comments seem to make no sense…….
LikeLike
Things thaty make you go “hmmmm”……….FSU fired it’s AD……looking for bigger “revenue streams”….and a persistent rumor is that FSU just hasn’t gotten around to signing that GOR………
LikeLike
Where are you seeing rumors that FSU hasn’t signed the GORs?
LikeLike
I got it off the Boneyard realignment board, which is an interesting place….however, I went back and looked and see that it was old “news”. My bad on that…..Only rumor now is that the Big 10 is ready to “challenge” one or both of the GORs to get what it wants………and the firing of the FSU AD did just happen…for the reason that FSU needs bigger revenues…….
FSU is somewhat interesting to me as a long-shot BIG 10 expansion candidate for a couple of reasons…..First, I read an article to the effect that the state intends to advance Florida and FSU as top-flight academic “destination” schools…….It’s kind of amazing how big UCF,USF, and FA have gotten…I think UCF is now in the top 3 nationally in attendance, and the others are around 40000……so a state policy that officially elevates Florida and FSU is an interesting political call…….Second, it does seem that FSU has a lot of academic momentum and the desire to become more elite…….kinda like Oklahoma, but with more resources and potential, I would
think. They are now at 97 in US News. I may be wrong, but I think that’s much better than a few years ago. Third, I have read and do believe that FSU’s President had discussions with both the SEC and Big 10 in the Spring….word was that the SEC didn’t want another Florida school and that the Big 10 also said no, at least at that time.
LikeLike
Even if FSU ups its game, it could be 20 years away from AAU status, and the only way I see them getting in is if the Big Ten goes really big (18-20). I don’t think they’d want FSU on an island.
LikeLike
Even if the AAU situation is resolved (or ignored), I only see FSU as a Big Ten entrant in tandem with Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Spetman has been on thin ice for a very long time. Its amazing they kept him as long as they did.
LikeLike
Notice that the IU AD seems to downplay the idea that any potential expansion target has to be in a geographically contiguous state. From other comments by Delany and other AD’s, however, geographic proximity plays a larger role. That might be Glass’ personal opinion and not a sign of shifting conference strategy.
LikeLike
Could be….but having watched Glass over the years I’d be very surprised if everything he said hasn’t been discussed at length by all the ADs…..I’m not saying he was “sent out” to say this stuff, , because I don’t think he was, but I think everything he says is the company line.
LikeLike
OK conspiracy buffs, here’s what you have to work with:
1. Glass: 2 or 3 schools can block any expansion—-would a school like U Conn or an expansion of KU and U Conn ever get true unanimous or nearly unanimous support? Unlikely, ecept for one of the 2 as the 16th school.
2. Glass: “16 might be a sweet spot”—-ie…we REALLY want to get to 16 before our current contract runs out.
3. Glass: “Academically excellent” and “high caliber” institutions—no specific mention of AAU.
4. Glass: “…From the eastern seaboard to the plains OR close to the mountains is a nice area to
dominate” Hmmm…is U of Colorado close to or IN the mountains?
5. Glass–“Not sure if geographically contiguous is “critical”.
6. Mark Silverman–“Once we add Rutgers and Maryland…additional subscribers in NY, NJ, Conneticut, Maryland, and D.C.’–at least thinking of the Conneticut market…
6.. U Conn’s Herbst on secretive flight to Chicago
7. FSU’s AD fired for insufficient “revenue flow”
LikeLike
#6 (the 2nd #6) has no meaning for reasons others have previously stated.
#3 is code for AAU (or Notre Dame). Rare that “Academically excellent” and “high caliber” institutions would not already be in the AAU.
#4 Colorado’s long term goal was to be in Pac12. Mission accomplished. For expansion purposes, Colorado is Col. Markinson from “A Few Good Men”. Colorado is gone; there is no Colorado. Also, could mean Appalachian Mountains, not Rocky Mountains.
#6 (the 1st #6): Clearly means “Once we have Rutgers and Maryland, we will have additional subscribers in NY, NJ, CT, MD, & DC” on face value. Meaning, we’re good in CT with these two schools.
#7: FSU will do whatever it takes, Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction” style to be in the SEC. I fully expect a FSU alum to break into Slive’s Birmingham house and boil a rabbit on his stove.
LikeLike
mushroom God, I simply do not see Connecticut in the B10 for many, many, reasons, but I will mention just one number 6: Fairfield County and part of New Haven County, Connecticut are part of the New York TV Market (they are connected to Cablevision’s huge Franchise in Westchester County, New York). This is where the Connecticut viewers will come into play. One more point: Just because a School is in the “Mountains” does not mean it is Colorado. UTEP, New Mexico State, BYU, Air Force (who may have turned down the Big XII), and even Penn State (Mount Nittany) are in the Mountains. As for FSU, a big problem relates to the need to expand and renovate Doak Campbell, and a lack of funding to do so. I know they came up with a 5 year plan to do so in May, but I have nothing since.
LikeLike
I read a story about the FSU AD that was interesting…….he came up with that 5 year plan to try to save his job….Apparently, he was hired by the previous president….may be a personality dispute as much as anything…..
LikeLike
3 part series with a view from the ACC. Newer posts but looks like points discussed on FtT in the past. Will link each as a response on this.
LikeLike
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/10/15/Are-The-ACC-s-Days-Numbered-Part-1-of-3
LikeLike
okay, so reopen the debate on who is the lynchpin of the ACC.
the quote:
“Consider: If Carolina goes, the ACC loses its most prestigious member and moreover, it’s number one franchise: the Duke-Carolina basketball rivalry. And oh, by the way, Coach K will retire in just a few years, and that might mean an end to this rivalry having the national relevance it enjoys today. You can bet every single athletic director in the conference knows it too.
On the other hand, if Florida State and Clemson were to jump to a mega SEC, the ACC loses almost all of its current football credibility, not to mention its two biggest revenue stadiums and biggest two television draws. Considering that football revenue – in stadium and on TV – is what now drives college athletics, and is where the ACC is weakest, this would also be devastating.”
LikeLike
The ACC could survive just fine w/o UNC, BUT, if UNC, the most dedicated ACC member left, it would be like a fire alarm going off and everyone would head to the exits.
FSU leaving would raise concerns, but they may all still stay put much like the BE hung around when Miami left. Now FSU + VT or FSU + Miami and they are sunk. Here are the year end AP Poll points and times ranked for the ACC by member during the BCS era:
Virginia Tech 164 13
Miami 142 9
FSU 130 11
Louisville 56 4
Georgia Tech 51 6
Boston College 40 5
Clemson 30 6
Pitt 19 3
N. Carolina St. 15 2
Virginia 15 3
Syracuse 13 2
Wake Forest 8 1
Duke 0 0
North Carolina 0 0
Total 727
The ACC averages 52 points per school on their 2014 lineup. SEC-86, Big 12-82, B1G-67, Pac-60, MWC 17. W/O 2 of the top 3, ACC is down to 31 to 38/school and w/o all 3 is down to 22. They would no longer be in the top group, but more comparable to the MWC.
LikeLike
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/10/16/ACC-DAYS-NUMBERED-PART-2
LikeLike
An interesting and different take on demographics. We’ve looked at from macro-population; he’s an argument based on micro-school-based demographics.
the quote:
“It demonstrates that Cunningham has an eye on the ACC’s potentially fatal foundational flaw: demographics.
It’s not just that the ACC is primarily a basketball league in an era where football’s influence on the entire landscape is more pronounced than ever – though that’s certainly a major problem – it’s that the ACC’s member schools’s enrollments, not to mention their non enrolled natural fan bases, are simply minuscule when compared to those of the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12.
Size matters, and the member schools of the other major leagues are all significantly bigger on average than the ACC member schools are.”
LikeLike
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/10/20/PART-3-of-3-ARE-THE-ACC-S-DAYS-AS-A-MAJOR-CONFERENCE-NUMBERED
LikeLike
These are really good articles, particularly the second and third. @Duffman: thanks for posting these.
The size-of-school issue is a new one to me. Maybe it’s been discussed here, but I don’t remember seeing it or having it set out so clearly.
Small schools lead to small alumni bases which lead to small potential TV audiences which lead to small TV contracts which lead to falling behind in the $$ race which lead to schools considering a jump to $$ leagues like the B1G and SEC.
Quote: “Consider also that Central Florida, who beat incoming ACC member Louisville Thursday night, has ballooned in just a few years to over 60 thousand students on the one campus in Orlando. The ACC should not worry that CFU beat Louisville, it should worry that CFU has more students than Duke, Wake, Miami, Virginia and BC combined – with room to spare. More students equals more fans and more viewers and more donors and so on. … Perhaps the league should have considered these type of up and comer schools [Central & South Florida] instead of tiny but well known BC and Syracuse. UCF will never have the built in cache that the Gators have, but in a few short years they’ll have more living alums than most ACC schools.”
Very interesting.
Some interer
LikeLike
http://collegeapps.about.com/od/choosingacollege/tp/atlantic-coast-conference.htm
quick list of enrollments (rounding up):
BC – 15k
CLEM – 20k
Duke – 16k
FSU – 41k
GaTech – 21k
MD – 38k
Miami – 16k
UNC – 30k
NCState – 35k
Syr – 21k
ND – 12k
Pitt – 29k
UVa – 25k
VaTech – 31k
WF – 8k
By contrast, every B1G school is 40k plus except Iowa (30k), UNEvanston (21k) and NULincoln (24k).
LikeLike
I think you meant NU Evanston and UNLincoln.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing this info BuckeyeBeau.
I had no idea BC, Clemson and Syracuse were that small. For that matter, I didn’t realize Pitt, VaTech and UVa were that small either. Given that the demographics in these states are growing, I wonder were the kids are attending college?
LikeLike
This is why ND made sense with the ACC. Even UNC, UVA and GT are relatively small for being one of the state’s flagships.
LikeLike
That’s a good question about VA and VT Anthony…….you would think VT would either be somewhat more elite or have a much larger enrollment given the size of the state’s population and the smallish enrollment at VA…….look at Purdue and IU for example–both at or near 40000…..I don’t think VA will grow much in enrollment, as they have discussed (as UM has) just going private….I think the State’s relative contribution to VA’s operating budget is quite small….
LikeLike
“Given that the demographics in these states are growing, I wonder were the kids are attending college?”
In VA, William&Mary, George Mason, VCU, JMU, ODU, VMI & others.
IN funnels their top kids in to 2 gigantic state flagships. In VA, it seems that every school wants to be (or pretends to be) a small elite liberal arts college.
LikeLike
Richard,
That makes sense. I forgot about the sheer number of schools in that area. IL does not necessarily funnel its top students to U of I, although a majority of them wind up there. Northwestern, U of Chicago are starting to attract more top flight in-state talent. Still though, the enrollments are way behind the BIG’s enrollments.
LikeLike
@Anthony London – One thing that Virginia has a lot of public university options that fit the entire quality spectrum of high school grads. UVA and William & Mary attract top tier students. Virginia Tech gets a lot of the next tier plus the top engineering people. It then goes down the line with JMU, George Mason, VCU, etc.
The state of Illinois doesn’t have that range. UIUC gets top tier students, but then there’s a big quality gap between the flagship and then the next tier of Illinois State and UIC. If you can’t get into Illinois but have grades and test scores that are way too good for ISU/UIC (which is a large group of kids), then you’re looking at private school options or out-of-state schools. That’s a huge reason why neighboring Big Ten schools like Iowa, Indiana and Purdue enroll such a huge number of Chicago-area students.
I’ve seen studies that the states of Illinois and New Jersey send more of its high school grads to out-of-state colleges than any other states in the country (including much larger states like California and Texas). So, getting exposure in New Jersey in particular is a large positive of the Rutgers addition (which I’m somewhat skeptical of otherwise) – those kids have been paying out-of-state prices at Penn State, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin for years, and the rest of the Big Ten wants to get in on that enrollment action.
LikeLike
Frank,
I was somewhat skeptical about the Rutgers addition until I read this article from 2011.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/10/rutgers-louisville_tv_rating_i.html
Here is the most important line about having 4 out of 5 of the highest rated New York area college lot all games on ESPN at the time.
“That list is headed by Rutgers-Louisville in 2006, which drew an 8.1 rating, and includes Rutgers-West Virginia in 2006 (6.04); USC-Ohio State in 2009 (3.74); Rutgers-Cincinnati in 2006 (3.62) and South Florida Rutgers in 2007 (3.35).”
When you factor in the Yankees averaged a 3.92 in the city in 2012 on the yes network (http://www.nydailynews.com/raissman-yankees-must-see-tv-team-postseason-article-1.1175533), those numbers are really good. Now those numbers were when Rutgers had fairly successful seasons but they also occurred against Big East schools not exactly known for having large amounts of alumni in the NYC area. What happens when Rutgers plays PSU, OSU, of Michigan? The yes network charges $2.99 a month for a 3.92 (should be noted that that number was down for the Yankees from the previous year by 8.3% and lowest since 2003). Now the Yankees play 162 times a year, although a lot of their games are picked up by national networks due to their popularity. Rutgers football would be on the BTN maybe 8 times so it is not just a matter of comparing ratings. But if the BTN can get on basic coverage at say $0.50 in NYC for its 7,384,340 million pay service subscribers, that’s a cool $3.692 million a month just from that city.
Here’s a dollar and figures article about cable sports in NYC. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/06/regional-sports-networks-in-new-york-city/
LikeLike
Even if the BTN got on basic cable at its out of footprint rate of $0.33 cents, that’s 2.4 mil a month and thus a little over 2 mil more per school per year. The addition of Rutgers doesn’t need to be a grand slam in NYC to be hugely profitable. All Rutgers, combined with the other BIG school, needs to due is just jump up a package in cable.
LikeLike
trouble with that is Rutgers only draws viewers when they’re relatively good and they almost never are.
LikeLike
Think this link has been on here before. At least an interview with this guy was. Talks briefly about RU/MD:
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/illini-sports/football/2013-09-26/loren-tate-guenther-gone-not-forgotten.html
New faces
Rutgers and Maryland will join the Big Ten next year, and Guenther was deeply engaged in that unexpected development.
“We ran out of options,” he said. “That was not what we started to do. Jim had challenged me to come up with ways to increase the conference value, and I worked with the Pac-12 to put a collaboration together whereby we would play a 12-game series with them in football, staggered over the first three weeks of the season. We’d then be able to capture all three time zones, thus increasing our TV dollars. Unfortunately, right at the end, the Pac-12 pulled the plug because some institutions had contracts they couldn’t break.
“The challenge then was how do we increase our revenue? I looked at the population base going east. Once we take the Big Ten brand into New York, with that population and the good high school programs … give this 10 years and we’ll see.
LikeLike
Andy,
Against big east competition, Rutgers has only drawn when they are relatively good. Add BIG alums in NYC and it might not matter. Time will tell.
LikeLike
Rutgers will draw well in the B1G if they are competitive. I have little doubt of that. What I doubt is that they’ll be competitive.
LikeLike
Rutgers draws decently now in the Big East. They’ve averaged 47k the last 4 years and haven’t been below 40k since 2005.
LikeLike
was talking about tv.
also, 47k is not impressive.
LikeLike
47k is not impressive
It is, compared to what they used to draw.
LikeLike
True. But it’s still not impressive.
LikeLike
I think it has been discussed to some extent on this board. It is why I’ve always thought that the addition of Miami and GT were never really a good option for either the SEC or B1G in that they don’t fully gain either the states of UGA or FL, nor do they really even get you the full market share of ATL or Miami. There just isn’t enough alumni or t-shirt fans to demand those markets.
These articles also shed light on why most people don’t see an ACCN as being anywhere close as productive as the BTN or SECN. The ACC just doesn’t of the alumni or t-shirt fanbase to demand the type of coverages in the ACC states outside of NC and VA.
LikeLike
Though they don’t show up to games, there are a lot of casual Miami fans. Miami is extremely popular in Florida from the Orlando area south. Pretty much every Walmart and Target has UM gear for T-shirt fans.
LikeLike
The size of the school is hugely important especially in regards to conference networks. Alumni tune in to watch all the football, basketball, and hockey games versus casual fans who really won’t care whether they see a third tier football/basketball game or not.
LikeLike
I’m sure Delany pointed out the sizes of member schools in each conference to Anderson (the AD) and Loh. Clemson will bring plenty of purple and orange to College Park this Saturday, and Florida State, Virginia Tech and Virginia traditionally travel well for Maryland games, but most ACC schools don’t do that for football. In contrast, most Big Ten members travel well, and many of them have considerable numbers of alums in the Washington-Baltimore area.
LikeLike
Duff,
Great articles, thanks for posting them…
LikeLike
I sense the writer is a UNC alum from some of his Chapel Hill-centric comments. Sorry, Tar Heels, but it you choose to remain in your basketball-oriented cocoon, this is what’s going to happen.
LikeLike
Not sure if this was posted yet, but an interesting article about the Pac-12’s struggle in getting carriage in Northwest states.
It doesn’t seem like they are anywhere close in reaching agreements with DirecTV and Charter, and the demand for these games might never reach a boiling point to get the companies to capitulate.
http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootball/index.ssf/2013/10/goe_in_a_saturated_market_mayb.html
LikeLike
Not a northwest thing. DTV and Charter (everywhere) haven’t signed on.
LikeLike
I’m trying to collect information about the Big XII third-tier media rights, so I can more accurately compare that conference’s contract numbers to those of the ACC and others. Here’s what I have so far, with sources:
Texas: $15M/year over 20 years, http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/705/
Oklahoma: $8.5-$9.5M/year over 10 years (TV only, $5.8M/year over 10 years), http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/09/17/Media/Oklahoma.aspx
West Virginia: $6.7M/year over 12 years, http://wvmetronews.com/2013/07/11/img-earns-tier-3-deal-for-80-million/
Kansas: $6.5M/year over 7 years, http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/04/18/west-virginias-media-rights-bidding-reflects-true-value-of-big-12s-tv-deals/ and http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/68676/ku-signs-third-tier-media-deal-with-espn
Kansas State: $3.4M/year in 2011, http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/07/3801691/big-12-announces-new-tv-deal.html
Texas Tech: $3.2M/year over 3 years, http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/texas-tech-agrees-to-third-tier-rights-deal-with-fox-sports.html/
I’m not 100% certain about which Sooner figure to compare, the data points from the Kansas schools are sketchy, and I have no figures for TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State’s third-tier contracts. Even if you assume zero income for those four schools, Big XII media rights average out to $24.4M/team a year, so that is a bare minimum figure. In comparison, if ESPN does not start an ACC Network, the ACC media rights average out to $20M/year; that’s about 80% (at best!) of the average haul of the Big XII.
Does anyone have any corrections or updates? The math is easy, the data collection is hard.
LikeLike
To explain the OU deal. They are getting $7.5 million for their miscellaneous Tier 3. They are getting $5.8 million additional for their TV deal which will effectively be over $7.0 million, since it will increase advertising in the $7.5 million deal. So they will have $14.5 million + of which $7.0 million + is related to their media deals.
Much like Texas has a $10 million IMG deal in addition to the $15 million ESPN deal (of which IMG gets 15%, so it nets to $22-$23 million).
WVU had a $9 million deal (that was the guarantee, there were provisions to potentially pay more), but there was a lawsuit by the former holder of those rights that threw out that bidding. To complete the new bidding quickly and avoid legal entanglements, they retained some rights themselves when they re-bid. So effectively they are getting $9 million. But that $9 million is everything so it is comparable to OU’s $14.5 million and the $22 million at Texas.
LikeLike
Counting the IMG deals is kind of cheating, though. OSU is getting $11M/year over 10 years for it’s IMG deal with no third-tier TV rights.
To compare apples to apples, you’d also have to dig up the ACC media deals (I believe UNC, thanks to bball, has a good one).
However, that $20M/year ACC figure is kind of a funny number; I don’t believe the ACC schools are getting anything close to the average the first few years.
LikeLike
He’s got both types of deals listed. I’m explaining what he’s got.
The Georgia Tech AD said the ACC was getting an average of $260 million a year, starting at $12.8 million in 2014 to $22.7 at the end of the contract. The ACC got $12.2 in TV money in the most recent distribution. The $260 included ND’s partial share. So its roughly $18 million/school before the no network bump. I’m not sure I believe that bump even though Sports Business Daily reported it. Pay them $2 million (per team or for the whole league?) to not do something that you weren’t obligated to do before with inventory you already had rights to? Maybe its a backwards payment for the GOR, but it doesn’t make much sense. I guess I’ll believe it when I see it in the ACC’s distributions. Until then I’m skeptical.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen any numbers on the other 4. I know TCU, Baylor and Oklahoma St. sold their rights to Fox just as Tech did. Iowa St. did a deal to create a school only network.
LikeLike
Here’s another link on KU:
http://cjonline.com/sports/basketball/2010-04-08/ku_inks_86m_deal_with_img
LikeLike
On the WVU deal, they point out it is a $5 million increase from what they had before. NCSU at about the same time did a $4.9 million deal which included all the miscellaneous Tier 3, but not the media rights which ESPN owned.
LikeLike
Note that while ESPN is paying $15 million a year UT gets “only” $11 million of that; IMG, who handles the Longhorns media rights, receives the remaining $4 million.
LikeLike
IMG gets 17.5% (correction-not 15%), so an average of $2.625 million. The 1st year of the contract paid $10.98 million gross and it escalates starting at 3% (that may be where you are getting that $11 million).
So LHN $15 less $2.625=$12.375 + IMG $9.4=$21.775.
LikeLike
This link has some info on the top miscellaneous Tier 3 deals. This was before Ohio St. did theirs ($110 million/10 yrs).
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2009/03/20090309/This-Weeks-News/ISP-Deal-Would-Put-Georgia-Into-Top-Tier.aspx
Now these don’t include the Tier 3 TV deals which are controlled by the conference in the ACC, Big 10 and now the Pac 12 and SEC (although not in 2009).
LikeLike
http://www.buzzfeed.com/danoshinsky/which-college-football-teams-get-the-most-and-least-respect
FWIW, rundown on how many times teams in the current top 25 have been on TV. ‘Bama, LSU and tOSU lead with 6; ND actually has 7, but they are not in the top 25 and of course have there own special deal. Note that BTN and other regional networks are not listed/tabulated.
I thought it interesting that tOSU has been on ABC 4 times.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“FWIW, rundown on how many times teams in the current top 25 have been on TV. ‘Bama, LSU and tOSU lead with 6; ND actually has 7, but they are not in the top 25 and of course have there own special deal. Note that BTN and other regional networks are not listed/tabulated.”
Yes, almost everyone will be shown 12 times out of 12. The question is where. BTN is a pretty good fallback.
Also of note, they count ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, but CBS, NBC and Fox are the only other ones they counted. No NBCSN, no FS1, etc.
“I thought it interesting that tOSU has been on ABC 4 times.”
Well, it’s been a slow year with the double bye reducing the number of games per week and a weak OOC slate. With OSU ranked so much higher than everyone else, they become the default choice. Also, remember that all the Legends contenders play each other in November so none of their big games have happened yet except for NW playing OSU.
LikeLike
Well, ESPN has near universal carriage, so it makes sense to list them with the broadcast networks. I think ESPN2 is close to near universal now as well. Pretty certain NBCSN and FS1 are not near universal carriage. In fact, does NBCSN have more carriage than the BTN?
LikeLike
“On Oct. 29, the Division I Board of Directors and Presidential Advisory Group will hear presentations from several groups that have ideas for improving how Division I works.”
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/october/groups+to+discuss+governance+ideas+with+di+board
LikeLike
Having DC and NYC to build on covers the East Coast as far as I’m concerned. UNC will be more trouble than its worth. They would never be happy in the BIG, and building a bridge of academic-yawners down the East Coast with the fervent hope that FSU is deemed acceptable to the Presidents (as #20) isn’t worth it. In a hypothetical dream scenario (dream being the optimum word) one that would cover the bases for both football and BB, as well as be BTN friendly, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas and ND would be perfect.
LikeLike
….just sayin’
LikeLike
…..All contiguous too.
LET”S DO IT!
LikeLike
I’d alter the dream a bit, insert some realism, and instead add Virginia and Kansas, for now limiting the Big Ten to 16. UVa is gradually becoming more northern and has a solid all-around program (despite its traditional ties to UNC, it’s hardly a Chapel Hill clone), KU adds basketball heft, and both are AAU and contiguous. As for the others you noted, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Florida State are non-AAU kings (of different sports) not yet quite up to par academically, Missouri isn’t going to ditch the SEC for decades, if ever, Texas has a tradition of not playing well with others and Notre Dame thinks it’s bigger than the game.
LikeLike
Actually, I think you’re right about Missouri, which is where Virginia would come in. Missouri is a perfect fit for the B1G, but that ship may have sailed. ND obviously isn’t coming anytime soon and would only consider it if Texas were involved, if then. You’re still wrong about Oklahoma though. The Big Ten has looked seriously at them and would take them if Texas were to bite, which is also very unlikely. Again. Dream adds that make the most sense when all things are considered.
LikeLike
If that ship has sailed, you bribe them. If that doesn’t work, you break them.
LikeLike
Probably will only add schools in ones or twos….. so which order do you add/offer that doesn’t drive desired schools to a conference that will limit adding them later on? Adding schools one or two at a time allows each school to integrate into the BIG and begin to feel apart of the conference culture.
Maybe going Virginia in the East and someone from the Big 12 will be the best move. Continue to raise uncertainty in each of those conferences.
LikeLike
The cultural component is important in expansion. All of the current and future members of the B1G are in what Colin Woodward calls Yankeedom or the Midlands–no southerners or westerners. Kansas and Missouri fall within the Midlands region, but Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas do not. Notre Dame is a special case. So the only likely additions are Missouri and Kansas–Gordon Gee’s choices.
By the way, I was on OSU’s faculty during both of Gee’s terms. He is a very smart guy, although somewhat of a smart ass.
LikeLike
If a 16 team conference is the sweet spot for the BIG as per the Indiana AD, I can’t see the BIG taking anything short of at least one home run. Why add Kansas, Missouri, or UVA when you could add Texas? I think the BIG is going to be very picky about the last two schools and I cant see a worthwhile expansion economically unless one of them is a football power.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey:
I agree, and I think that one of those schools (in my opinion, UVa) has already been teed up as #16, but that that conference will wait to find its ideal #15 (Notre Dame/Texas/UNC in my view), and may wait 12 or so years to secure it.
I go back and forth on Oklahoma. I wonder if choosy, snooty university presidents will take such a school that, while improving its academics, is still far from most other B1G schools (save Nebraska). I’m not convinced that the academics in charge will want to take a school weaker than Nebraska, especially when B1G presidents voted to boot UNL from the AAU after it joined the conference. Not sure they want another academic bottom-feeder (relative to B1G standards) but would rather wait on equally prominent athletic programs that are part of superior academic institutions.
(Yes, UNC is not 1/10 of Oklahoma in football, but UNC’s dept as a whole is better).
I also go back and forth on KU vs UVa. UVa makes sense for eastern seaboard presence/tv/alumni/academics (and as a natural rival to Maryland), but if KU is able to improve in football and avoid removal from the AAU, it could move ahead of UVa, assuming the conference doesn’t move to expand until other conference GoR’s are closer to expiration.
LikeLike
I’d really love to see updated TV analysis and prospective values for schools like UVa, UNC, KU, and for BTN purposes. (to use in addition to the numbers from a few years ago for Texas, ND, and others).
Does KU basketball present more value then we think? Would UVa really mean as much for the BTN, assuming UMd provides access to DC cable? Does Oklahoma, like Nebraska, have rabid fans scattered about the country, to compensate for smallish instate TV markets? I assume UNC has tremendous value to the BTN.
LikeLike
Just throwing this out there (and I hold my nose doing so): we’ve seemed to establish that UNC is not willing to move, but what if the Big Ten offers were to UVA and Duke? It’s not as if though UNC is being targeted for football power and the value of Kansas is in its basketball brand. However, Duke has the most powerful basketball brand, elite academics, is in the location where the Big Ten wants to grow, and has a large NYC fan base. It’s really a Northern school that happens to be in the South.
The SEC wanted to get into Texas and certainly would have loved UT. However, A&M was the one that was willing and is probably a better cultural fit with the conference. Duke may be to the Big Ten what A&M was to the SEC.
LikeLike
If the academic high heads on the BIG won’t take Oklahoma because of no AAU and the embarrassment of Nebraska, why would they take Kansas? Kansas is currently AAU yes but it is at the button of the rankings with Oregon. It is possible that they could be kicked out when the AAU wants to add a few schools ahead of them in the rankings like they did with Syracuse and Nebaska. These are 100 years decisions. Why take a lesser school athletically in Kansas now over a OU when in 15-20 years they both could be not AAU?
So the way I see it, it is one of two ways: either Nebraska was an embarrassment for the BIG and they will only take high end research institutions with sustainable AAU rankings like those schools of the ACC or they don’t care about Nebraska, having some foreknowledge that they could be kicked out since their membership first came into question in 1998, and expansion is simply an athletic revenue decision. If it is a revenue decision, then OU IMO beats every other team except Texas.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey:
I tend to agree about KU, which is why I prefaced that assuming KU improves in football and maintains AAU status. Kansas is above Nebraska in most academic rankings, so the school should pass basic muster on that front. As for athletics, improving in football is critical, to balance world-class basketball.
These decisions are definitely 100 year ones, and I assume that no moves are forthcoming for at least 2-3 years, and most likely 10-12, which will give KU time to fix football and maintain and improve its academics to avoid a potential loss of AAU status. But KU basketball keeps the school in the discussion. That’s valuable winter TV programming for the BTN.
I don’t think Nebraska is an embarrassment, based on the specifics that hurt the school in the AAU (separate Med School, devalued Ag research). Its not as if were talking about the University of Phoenix, after all. I could see the Presidents as having made an exception for UNL based on its football pedigree, but that all future school will have to meet certain academic thresholds, as UMd and Rutgers do. At present, KU just meets that floor, whereas Okla does not. The odds are in the future that KU will sooner maintain AAU status than Okla acquiring it.
Could a potential compromise be Okla and UVa? Sure, as the presidents and AD’s both get something in that trade.
@Frankthetank:
UVa & Duke sound great on paper, but I’d love to see if Duke translates to BTN on basic cable tiers outside the Raleigh/Durham area. If Duke translates into similar carriage fees that UNC would then yes. If not, then the financial benefits might be lacking.
Also, that would be BRUTAL on B1G football. Just absolutely brutal. That B1G East, with Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, and Penn State paired with UMd, RU, UVa, and Duke? Yikes, Not even the BTN would want that Rutgers vs. Duke football game.
Plus, I think Indiana secretly loves being in the B1G East, and would not be pleased to move, losing exposure to NYC alumni (whereas I think MSU would love to be in the B1G West, since they have more Chicago alumni than NYC alumni).
LikeLike
Frank, I’ve pondered a UVa/Duke combo, too. Duke can serve as an East Coast version of Northwestern, has a national basketball brand (though that may slip a bit in a post-K world), and under Cutliffe (who is at the same level as Wake’s Grobe in doing the most with least) has become, if not competitive in football, at least not the embarrassment it used to be. I wouldn’t rule it out…though it probably couldn’t be done until K retires and the ensuing aftereffects on its Research Triangle rivals are uncertain (Would UNC follow, or would it jump to the SEC? What about NCSU — might it tag along to the SEC as a condition of UNC membership?).
LikeLike
Not until Coach K is gone, and who knows what will happen to the program once that happens. Duke, outside of academics, could be a bust.
LikeLike
@ FtT.
I marvel at your brilliance. Duke and UVa. Perfect #15 and #16.
LikeLike
Except that Duke is probably less likely to leave than UNC.
LikeLike
I like the idea of Duke+UVa, but I doubt either leave without UNC.
Wainscott:
No division that has OSU and Michigan and PSU (and MSU) wil be brutal. As it currently is, the B10 East will be as strong as the SEC East. Duke would replace IU, who aren’t exactly good in football. So adding UVa would not make one of the strongest divisions in college football “brutal”.
LikeLike
I think Indiana secretly loves being in the B1G East, and would not be pleased to move….
And people said that Michigan State was going to be in the west, to have access to the Chicago market. It didn’t happen.
If Indiana loves the east, it’s going to remain a secret love. The rest of the conference isn’t going to say no to an otherwise sensible expansion, so that IU can keep playing the Eastern teams every year.
LikeLike
@Frank
Are you saying you think that Duke would be more likely to leave the ACC than UNC or just more likely to accept a Big Ten invite than UNC in the event the ACC starts to collapse? The latter possibility seems like a safe assumption but I don’t really buy the former.
LikeLike
One note about a UVa/Duke addition: It would make pods, quads, whatever you want to call them easier to set up for football:
Atlantic: Duke, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia
Central: Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Western: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Yes, the Central would be brutal, but every three years one of the other divisions would share the pain. And one year out of three in the cycle, a team from the Atlantic or Midwest would find itself a win away from the Rose Bowl. Some of you who prefer kings to reign in perpetuity might not like that, but for those eight programs, that chance to dream is crucial.
LikeLike
Yes, the Central would be brutal, but every three years one of the other divisions would share the pain.
I think it’s awfully unlikely that, having added Maryland and Rutgers in part to give Penn State a regular partner, they’d rotate both schools off the Nitts’ schedule two years out of every three.
And one year out of three in the cycle, a team from the Atlantic or Midwest would find itself a win away from the Rose Bowl. Some of you who prefer kings to reign in perpetuity might not like that, but for those eight programs, that chance to dream is crucial.
It clearly can’t be crucial, given that the Big Ten never saw the need to do it before.
If they went with pods, they’d probably do something like this:
Years 1-2: Central pairs with Atlantic, Western with Midwest
Years 3-4: Western pairs with Atlantic, Central with Midwest
In years 5-6, it’s back to the first pairing, and so forth. The quads you never pair with, you play in cross-divisional games, two per year.
They’d never pair Central with Western, which doesn’t pass the laugh test because the other division would be so incredibly weak.
LikeLike
I think it’s awfully unlikely that, having added Maryland and Rutgers in part to give Penn State a regular partner, they’d rotate both schools off the Nitts’ schedule two years out of every three.
You’re playing a nine-game conference schedule, so you could put Maryland and Rutgers on the PSU schedule as automatic partners those other two years. Similar automatic partners could be assigned to other members (e.g., Northwestern-Duke, Iowa-Illinois, etc.).
LikeLike
UVa and Duke will not happen. Here goes the ACC delusions again, again, again. Absurd!
LikeLike
You’re playing a nine-game conference schedule, so you could put Maryland and Rutgers on the PSU schedule as automatic partners those other two years. Similar automatic partners could be assigned to other members (e.g., Northwestern-Duke, Iowa-Illinois, etc.).
Penn State’s a money game. The league won’t do that.
LikeLike
aha, Wainscott is a Kansas fan. That explains a lot.
LikeLike
@Richard:
By Brutal, I meant that the additions of UVa and Duke would very much decrease the quality depth of B1G football. Obviously Mich, MSU, OSU and PSU are top, name-brand programs. But not even those schools can prevent the watering down of football with the addition of mediocre (and that’s being charitable) football programs–especially on the heels of the addition of 2 mediocre (also charitable) football programs in UMd and Rutgers.
@ Marc Shepard:
Regarding Indiana and Michigan State, they still have to vote to approve the invitation to prospective schools, and its a given that Delany wants such votes to ultimately be unanimous, so the school would have some leverage in this process. Their wishes might have to yield to the majority at some point, but its as neat and easy as saying they would have to just suck it up.
LikeLike
vp19,
“One note about a UVa/Duke addition: It would make pods, quads, whatever you want to call them easier to set up for football:”
Bad pods are easy, yes. But not good ones.
“Atlantic: Duke, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia
Central: Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Western: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin”
There is no way on this earth the B10 would do that. You can’t possibly have 2 of 4 pods lacking a brand name (not even a prince). That completely devalues the CCG 33% of the time. They are much, much more likely to require some balance while also trying to respect geography.
First, I think they’d stay with divisions:
E = OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, UVA, Duke
W = NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, MN, PU, IN
If they wanted pods:
W = NE, WI, IA, MN
N = MI, MSU, NW, Duke
S = OSU, PU, IN, IL
E = PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
You need to lock OSU/MI and IL/NW (or swap Duke and IL), but the rest is decent.
LikeLike
I am? News to me.
LikeLike
Yeah, he also places Indiana, Ohio and Illinois not in Yankeedom but Appalachia, along with Oklahoma.
Missouri, Kentucky, Kansas and Virginia are not really a cultural stretch for a conference that has Pennsylvania and Nebraska. Oklahoma would need at least one Southwest partner such as Texas but still more culturally similar to the Midwest than UNC or Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Correction, all three states mentioned plus Pennsylvania are split north to south into Yankeedom, Midlands and Greater Appalachia.
LikeLike
link to the woodward map. OKLA is not a cultural stretch, IMO.
LikeLike
sorry for that link. i googled the map; that was the first one that came up; i didn’t actually look at the website. FWIW, that website is a very very very stark reminder that some people actually want the South to rise again (and, apparently, southern blacks will NOT be allowed to vote).
try this link: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQ_Qh60WcwA/T4OfimVs9kI/AAAAAAAABSs/1GkxUoOpFRU/s1600/ColinWoodard_AmericanNations_map.JPG
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – I like how the author of that map just lumps the west into one “nation.” There are some similarities between North Dakota and Utah but the differences between them are probably greater than some of the other lines drawn on that map.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/#q=american+english+dialects
I think across Indiana and Ohio this dialect map more accurately reflects the cultural split. The Ohio River is a real barrier, although parts of southern Indiana and Ohio are more Appalachian.
And there is a very real cultural difference between Texas and the Deep South, at least west of I-45/US 75.
LikeLike
@bullet,
How do you get that their is a big cultural difference between Texas and the south based off of the dialect maps?
According to this map (which was on the first link that you linked to) Houston, Austin, and San Antonio have what they call lowland south dialect which is shared throught the south (DFW has a mixtureof lowland and inland south dialect) : http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#LargeMap5Right
LikeLike
However, the northern part of the Tidewater is rapidly Midlandizing. MD use to be completely Tidewater. Now it is mostly Midlands. Arlington is already more Midlands than Tidewater. The rest of NoVa will be Midlands in a couple of decades as well. NC won’t be Midlands any time soon, however.
BTW, if you look at his map, he has Greater Appalachia too far north in both IL and MO.
LikeLike
Well, he’s got it right for Indiana and Ohio; I’ve lived in both states, and still live in North-Central Ohio in real Appalachia. Also, he agrees with James McPherson (Civil War historian) who places the northern border of Appalachia at about 41 N. Pigs/corn/whiskey vs. Cows/wheat/milk.
However, that boundary really refers to the rural parts of those states. The urban areas have a decidedly non-Appalchian feel, especially Columbus and Bloomington. But I don’t see any southern schools getting into the B1G or wanting to, and only the northern plains schools seem to fit. I’m dubious about Oklahoma, but the renewal of their Nebraska rivalry would be worth it.
U. Texas can drown in their own sweat for all I care.
LikeLike
Northeast Ohio, the old Western Reserve settled by pioneers from Connecticut is most decidedly Yankeedom. I think the map overstates the Appalachian influence in Central Ohio north and west of Columbus and I would consider the Greater Cincinnati area north to Dayton as Midlands with a touch of GA. Columbus itself is a combination of all three nations represented in Ohio but with Yankeedom a distant third. Coming to Columbus for school after growing up in Cleveland the cultural differences were pretty apparent.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“In a hypothetical dream scenario (dream being the optimum word) one that would cover the bases for both football and BB, as well as be BTN friendly, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas and ND would be perfect.”
I assume you mean your dream scenario, not the B10’s (nor mine).
LikeLike
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1759372-walt-disney-still-standing-strong
Still no resolution in the DISH/Disney spat. Same 3 big issues-Hopper, Futura Spanish language network and SEC Network.
LikeLike
The Washington…Bravehearts?
http://www.tmz.com/2013/10/25/washington-redskins-name-change-bravehearts-dan-snyder-aris-mardirossian/
What’s wrong with Pigskins?
LikeLike
I like the Washington Bacon
a) There is all kinds of pork in Washington
b) Who does not love bacon
c) Pork producers would be an easy corporate partner
d) The Washington O line in the 80’s was called The Hogs
LikeLike
Cooked bacon kind of matches their team colors.
LikeLike
I didn’t see any U CONN talk above, and some of you know I’ve gone back and forth about them. I’ve read up a bit on U CONN and may be be more receptive to the idea. Conneticut’s gov. just signed a bill into law earmarking $1.5B over the next 10 years toward engineering, tech, science, and math…….1 specific part of the deal is that undergrad enrollment is to increase by 6600.That would take total enrollment to around 32000–pretty BIG 10ish imo. Also, U CONN has already gone from US News’ #38 nat. public U. in 2000 to #19 (#57 overall) in 2013. “Too small” was 1/3 major issues with UC before….other 2 being non-AAU and a 40000 seat FB stadium.Now, if U Conn were to agree to expand that stadium, which is only 10-15 years old, to 53000, which is physically feasible, as I understand matters…I think it has some upside–BB obviously, but also an undisputred flagship school in the North. Also, as some have already observed, a school like Oklahoma adds yet another “region” to the mix…at some point, given size and cultural diversity, unity breaks down.
LikeLike
Plus, UConn would allow the Big Ten to capture that all important Hartford tv market! And maybe get cheaper insurance rates!! And excellent opportunities for opposing team fans to spend a weekend antiquing while driving back home!!!
LikeLike
As I have said before, I think UConn is one of the most likely schools to join the Big 10, if not the most likely. In my opinion, the Big 10’s expansion moves have been just as much about the recruitment of future students than anything else. The combination of UConn and Rutgers give you access to high school students throughout some of the richest suburbs on either side of NYC. Rich suburbs = parents able to send their kids to out of state schools = potential out-of-state tuition for the Big 10 schools. UConn also gives the Big 10 some access to New England, and there are no other schools that the Big 10 would possibly consider that could do that. For all the many wonderful people that live in Kansas and Oklahoma, they are not nearly as wealthy on average than the people of Connecticut, New England, or the NYC metropolitan area and therefore are much less likely to be able to afford to send their children to an out-of-state Big 10 school. Something else to consider is that in-state tuition in the Northeast is much, much higher than it is in the Plains States and Especially the South and that some parents could actually save money by sending their kids to a Big 10 school rather than staying in state.
Everybody seems to think that the conference wants/needs football kings for network value. I don’t think so at all. Much of the Big 10 network’s value comes from basketball due to the sheer number of games televised when compared to football. While some people debate whether UConn’s success will continue after Calhoun I would argue that A. Three national titles is three national titles B. UConn’s location will always give it access to elite hoops recruits and C. I don’t hear anyone making the same arguments about Penn State or FSU football, both of whom’s fortunes were just as tied to a single head coach as UConn basketball.
I actually think that the Big 10 might want/be best served football patsies. While it is impossible to say exactly, there is a undoubtedly a huge correlation between a successful football program and the ability to recruit out-of-state students. Alabama’s out-of-state student population has skyrocketed since Saban started his run. Those students are both paying more for the University’s operations and improving its academic reputation. The strength of Michigan’s football program has attracted out-of-state students for years and has tremendously helped the University’s academic reputation long-term. You put UConn in the Big 10 and it is going to lose 4 years out of 5 by Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, etc. in football. Everybody wants to be associated with a winner, even as a high school student. Suddenly you have some of the biggest names in college sports coming through Hartford every other year. Pretty soon, those Connecticut/New England, NYC Suburban kids are going to see those schools beating the local team all the time, come to associate the Big 10 schools with winning, and want to go to those schools more, which further helps with recruiting.
From an alumni/fan perspective, everybody claims that they want to see bigger opponents, but what they really want is to see their team win. No offense to the Big 10 schools, but just due to recruiting access you put Oklahoma or FSU in the Big 10 and the only schools they don’t beat the vast majority of the time in football are Ohio State, Penn State and maybe Michigan and Nebraska. If you’re the Purdue athletic director, do you honestly think that you can compete on an annual basis with Oklahoma or FSU? Probably not, but you do think that you can compete with UConn. If you’re Ohio State, what is going to be easier to explain to your alumni, a three game losing streak in football to FSU or a three game hoops skid to UConn? The question becomes would you rather watch your team play Oklahoma but lose or play UConn and win? I think that the vast majority of fans/alumni would choose the latter.
LikeLike
Due to football, I’d have a hard time with U Conn and KU in the same expansion…..but I’m pretty sure, after looking at everything, that I’d take U Conn over KU….
The killer for me is the 40000 seat stadium; no way I’d invite U Conn unless they committed to a 53000 cap. stadium….thing is, I’m 95% sure they would. The stadium was built just 15 or so years ago and was specifically designed to be suitable for expansion.
OK, so IF U Conn expands it’s stadium to 53000 and it’s enrollment to 32000, I see U Conn pros as: basketball, men and women’s-tradition and facilities; Northern school with built-in rivals of PSU, Rutgers and no culture shock (ie..Oklahoma) #57 ranked US News undergrad, with academic momentum; 8000 grad students, which is a lot; hockey; undisputed fairly large flagship school in-state with no in-state pro competition in fb or bb; 2nd newest football stadium in Big Ten; some tv penetration into NE market; helps with NY market as well. That’s a lot of pros, imo.
I’ll acknowledge the negatives of no substantial fb history, relatively small state population (3.4m or so; and non-AAU status (at present)..
LikeLike
Two things
1. Technically, UConn doesn’t own their own stadium; the state does (a fact illustrated when local business owners pressured state politicians to force UConn to play Michigan at home even though they could have made more money at a neutral site). I don’t know how this would effect stadium expansion exactly, but I suspect it would make financing more complicated.
2. Oklahoma (the state and the school) has just as much in common culturally with the Big Ten as Connecticut. They have played in conference with Midwestern schools for more than a century and Oklahoma’s rivalry with Nebraska is far deeper than any other expansion candidate (besides ND) has with any current Big Ten school (and that includes Maryland and its soon to be former ACC conference mates)
LikeLike
Uconn in a bubble would be good addition especially if they get into the AAU. However, as one of two final spots if in fact the BIG thinks 16 is the sweet spot, UCONN is not as good as say OU, UT, Kansas, or even UVA. Juergens, you are correct is stating the BIG does not need any more football powers out east. The conference would be better served with PSU, OSU, or Michigan having only 1-2 losses a year. However, you do not mention IMO the glaring weakness of the western division, where expansion would be better served.
The soon to be western division, which IMo is stronger from top to bottom compared to the east, will be led by Nebraska and Wisconsin, and king and an upper prince, but so far this season Nebraska has been on national television once against UCLA. That will change when they get to the meat of their schedule later but their biggest conference game so far against Illinois got pushed to ESPNU. Illinois at the present would be arguably the 4th best brand in the western division, possible even 3rd if you consider them above Iowa. If Nebraska’s 3rd, or 2nd best division game, can’t get on ESPN2 even (MSU vs Iowa on ESPN2 at the time, FSU vs MD on espn), the western division is lacking brand appeal. In 16 team 2 division setup, each member will play its division partners 7 times, the absolute bulk of the schedule. Adding two in the east pushes Indiana over, hurting Nebraska, and Wisconsin too, further by keep them off national television without any big division matchups. A big brand in the west is essential for future health of those programs, so in other words UT or Oklahoma.
So how does that effect UCONN? IMO, I don’t see OU or Texas coming without a partner.
LikeLike
UConn has about the same odds that a school in the Yukon has.
LikeLike
The Big Ten hasn’t been shy about stating the criteria they care about, and UConn falls short in practically all of them. No speculation is required.
LikeLike
Sharing gate revenue unique, vital to B1G football
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
LikeLike
How is it vital? The receivers do NOTHING in football. Other than Northwestern, they’re leeches. They get football revenue and fail to improve their program.
LikeLike
Try selling that to UT…
(See: bullet’s response)
LikeLike
Like the Big 10, the SWC had 50/50 gate splits in the past. Actually up until the late 80s. At that point Texas and Texas A&M were drawing 60-80k. Rice and UH were frequently drawing in the teens. TCU was 20s. SMU was coming off the death penalty.
LikeLike
To clarify for those who didn’t read the article, the SWC had 50/50 splits like the Big 10 used to have. That isn’t how the Big 10 does it now.
LikeLike
Bullet:
So they split, but didn’t do the pool and divide? Perhaps that pooling is what they refer to as “vital”, in the sense that it provides more consistency in budgeting. Less concern about scheduling.
LikeLike
Right. They did it just like they describe the way the Big 10 used to do it. They changed it to “keep what you kill” after Arkansas left.
LikeLike
You can’t compare college football to MLB revenue sharing. Unlike the Kansas City Royals, Purdue can’t use that revenue to build up a farm system; its talent (recruiting area) is defined by geography, academics and other factors. Purdue realistically isn’t able to spend money on the NCAA football equivalent of creating a baseball academy in the Dominican Republic.
LikeLike
Its easier to win in football hotbeds. But Notre Dame, Iowa, Tennessee and Boise have proven that you can win without much local talent.
LikeLike
Boise proves money, while helpful, is not an absolute requirement for success. And multiple rich, even king programs prove that money also doesn’t guarantee success.
LikeLike
Actually Indiana and Tenn have decent hs football, albeit traffic is heavy in In – too many FBS schools for a state that size. You failed to mention Nebraska & Oregon, neither ever succeeds without tapping states like Tx and California. Neb has clearly outperformed ND since 1970, and by a significant margin. I’d throw in Wisconsin as well, they’ve been a measurably better program than ND, Iowa, and Boise State the past 23 years.
On the other hand, states with incredible in-state recruits so often deal with in-state competition. Ca, Fl, Tx all have at least 7 FBS programs a piece. I’ve been a proponent of contracting FBS for years. Why does Ohio have at least 8 FBS schools? Furthermore, states like NM and WVa really only have room for one FBS school. NC has no business adding two more FBS schools, to make 7, in the future: Charlotte and Appy State. If football isn’t careful, it will doom itself with greed.
LikeLike
Blame the MAC for Ohio and Michigan. They went downhill when they added CMU, EMU, Ball St. and NIU who all recruit the same general area in the 70s. And when NIU left they added Akron which was one of the worst adds of any conference. They have had the sense not to double down on their 70s mistake and Akron mistake by adding Youngstown.
LikeLike
How is it vital? The receivers do NOTHING in football. Other than Northwestern, they’re leeches. They get football revenue and fail to improve their program.
Well, the claim made in the article, is: “You can’t fairly evaluate one without looking at the big picture. We choose to share revenue. There are areas where Iowa probably is a giver and there are areas where Iowa probably is a taker. In the long run, we all benefit.”
But the amount at stake is fairly small. The article notes that Iowa “lost” $961,828.86 due to football gate sharing, but made more than $26 million from the conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is mentioned in the article, but the Big Ten does the same thing for MBB (without the maximum and minimum contributions)
LikeLike
Football revenue sharing was the norm across all conferences. Michigan realized it would make a lot more on its OOC games by keeping all the home revenue and giving up all revenue on it return visit. Since a Michigan visit still generated big revenue there was not a shortage of schools that would agree to no revenue sharing from the big house. It did not take long for other large schools both B1G and from other power conferences to adopt this paradigm. Michigan could not get this model adopted for B1G conference games, while it was in other conferences (PAC went to a $200K share). However, it is not like Michigan did not do well. Prior to the B1G changes to conference gate sharing, Michigan had to give up 50% of the gate. That would be $12.5M of its gate while only receiving $5-6M from away gates. So Michigan went from giving up >$6M of its gate to about $1M today ($4M in the pool, but pulls $3M out). The cap benefits MI, OSU, NE, and PSU. Without the $1M cap, Michigan would need to kick in $8.75M, but would only get back a little over $4M, so the cap cuts Michigan’s net contribution by 75%. So even in the B1G, football revenue sharing is not like it was in the old days when a trip to Ann Arbor or Columbus could balance the athletic department budget of Northwestern or Purdue.
B1G MBB ticket revenue sharing is 25% capped at $67K per game with a floor of $29K. Revenue sharing is based on face value of tickets. It excludes premiums such as suites, required donations, seat licenses, etc. for both football and basketball.
LikeLike
What’s the word on John’s Hopkins joining the CIC? I haven’t heard anything since June, anyone have some news?
LikeLike
IIRC UMd’s interim status report on integration with the B1G stated that CIC annual fees were $1.5M this year, plus $0.25M for one-time software. administrators did not expect any financial benefit in their budgets (due to CIC membership) in the foreseeable future (at least several years). The UMd report leads to the conclusion that CIC membership may not make sense unless there is a long-term commitment.
LikeLike
Pretty neat expansion article from 1993. Unbelievable, 20 years later and we’re discussing the same thing, albeit now electronically.
LikeLike
Yesterday, a federal judge denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss the O’Bannon lawsuit.
At this stage of a lawsuit, it is usually difficult for a defendant to win a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, according to the article, the decision contained some ominous signs for the NCAA. The next step in the case is whether the judge will certify class status for the athletes.
Crucially, earlier this year, the O’Bannon team added some current NCAA athletes to the list of plaintiffs, which the judge said was necessary if current athletes were going to be included in the class. Without that, even if O’Bannon won, the decision would have no effect on anyone playing now.
LikeLike
From what I have read, it is expected that the Judge will certify the class and it is expected that the case will go to trial. Settlement is not really an option for either side. O’Bannon’s lawyers have too much invested (both in $$ and reputation) to take some nuisance-value; the NCAA is not going to bankrupt itself settling this and there is principle involved.
Most also expect some sort of half-way position in the end. O’Bannon wins on the use-of-likeness-in-video-games/teeshirts arguments, but loses on the we-get-part-of-the-TV-money arguments. In that case, there will be no use of likenesses at all.
If O’Bannon wins everything, as the PTB have said many times, the Universities will ask Congress to pass legislation to “fix” the problem.
There are a lot of laps still left in this race.
LikeLike
The lawyers are in it for money. They will go with the best they can get, whatever that is.
Logically, the likeness is hard to defend while getting part of the current TV rights seems pretty ridiculous from a legal standpoint. Subsequent TV rights is more grey, but is probably of minimal value and probably goes with current TV rights. Jerseys and the restrictions on things like autographs are definitely in the grey area and where it gets difficult.
LikeLike
@bullet – At face value in those grey areas, the NCAA and colleges have a stronger argument in protecting jersey sales (tied to their trademarks and brands), whereas the players have a stronger argument where it comes to autographs. There is quite a bit of precedent in other industries of people signing over rights to their likenesses and use of name on products for long periods of time (most notably in Hollywood for blockbuster movies), but a broad restriction on any ability to make money from your own autograph is completely unique to college sports. That’s where the “school is what’s making you famous” argument is largely irrelevant or at least impossible to measure in that particular context – the vast majority of famous people are famous for reasons that may be completely out of their control or have leveraged famous brand names similar to top sports programs (i.e. comic book superheroes), so it’s one thing to restrict revenue that directly uses those brands (like video games, TV rights and jerseys), but quite another when it comes to signing your own name.
LikeLike
Frank, there is already a mechanism in place for paid autograph signings and for actors names. First the Yankees with permission of MLB and the Major League Players Association (MLBPA) allow only one Organization (Steiner Sports) to conduct paid autograph shows of its players (they must have a MLB & MLBPA “Seal of Authenticity” to protect the player from fraud). Next, when it comes to protecting Actors names. It goes back to the 1930’s with an actor called William Boyd. The problem was there were TWO Actors named William Boyd. One is the one that was known for playing “Hopalong Cassidy” (lets refer to him as “Hopalong Cassidy”), and he actually lost jobs because the other William Boyd caused lots of trouble on set, and damaged “Hopalong Cassidy’s” reputation). So they made the other William Boyd change his name, and he chose William “Stage” Boyd. Now, when you register with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), they cross reference your name with other past or present SAG members so there is no overlap (this is particularly important so that residual income checks do not go to the person (or the Estate of) the wrong person). One famous example involved the Actor Stewart Granger. He had to change his name from….. James Stewart. The Boyd incident, is why the only actor who has the same name as another actor is Harrison Ford (there was a 20s Actor also named Harrison Ford).
LikeLike
The lawyers are in it for money. They will go with the best they can get, whatever that is.
I know that lawyers have a terrible reputation, perhaps exceeded only by Members of Congress and the NCAA itself. Like most professionals, they want to get paid, but I think they also want to do right by their clients. To be the lawyer that finally takes down the NCAA (after so many have tried) would be a pretty good feather to have in one’s cap.
There is quite a bit of precedent in other industries of people signing over rights to their likenesses and use of name on products for long periods of time (most notably in Hollywood for blockbuster movies). . . .
Most of those precedents, even if they are customary, involve individual decisions between buyers and sellers. A particular actor could negotiate his own rights deal for any particular film. O’Bannon’s case hinges on the theory that a national organization has conspired to fix the value of the players’ services among all its members, which would be illegal in most other industries.
…but a broad restriction on any ability to make money from your own autograph is completely unique to college sports.
As far as I can tell, this provision is not part of the O’Bannon case, though it seems clear to me that if the NCAA loses O’Bannon, they ultimately must lose on this issue too, barring legislative intervention.
LikeLike
“As far as I can tell, this provision is not part of the O’Bannon case, though it seems clear to me that if the NCAA loses O’Bannon, they ultimately must lose on this issue too, barring legislative intervention.”
Why? It’s been upheld multiple times in court, and not in the distant past.
LikeLike
It’s been upheld multiple times in court, and not in the distant past.
Has it been tested on anti-trust grounds? That I do not recall, but perhaps you are aware of cases that I am not.
LikeLike
I couldn’t say for sure, but I’d assume someone would have given it a shot if they (or in some cases their team of lawyers) thought it had a ghost of a shot.
LikeLike
I’d assume someone would have given it a shot if they (or in some cases their team of lawyers) thought it had a ghost of a shot.
Anti-trust cases take years — O’Bannon has already been going on for 4½ years, and it’s nowhere near finished. That is obviously far longer than any player’s eligibility window. Eligibility is a wasting asset, by definition. I can’t recall a case where an active player was willing to risk that while they waited out a case that would take longer than their degree.
I do recall vaguely that there are cases the NCAA lost, but they are very canny: when their goose is cooked, they settle out of court to avoid enshrining an unfavorable decision as precedent. The TV rights case (which went to the Supreme Court) was a rare exception.
LikeLike
Sure, but we aren’t talking about any random kind of case. You said essentially that the NCAA will have to loosen/lose the amateurism rules. I said the authority, responsibility, and indeed the necessity for the NCAA to establish and enforce such has always been upheld.
LikeLike
You said essentially that the NCAA will have to loosen/lose the amateurism rules. I said the authority, responsibility, and indeed the necessity for the NCAA to establish and enforce such has always been upheld.
What I said was, that if the NCAA loses O’Bannon, then on the same legal theory it would seem they have to lose on the other amateurism issues too.
If there have been other cases (I am not sure which ones you’re citing), they would be relevant only if they tested the same anti-trust theory that O’Bannon is testing.
LikeLike
Rutgers sucks.
LikeLike
Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan playing in NYC market > Missouri
LikeLike
no, wmwolverine, I don’t think so. Put #5 Missouri against Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, or Penn State and you’ve got good ratings and national interest. Put them against pitiful Rutgers and you’ve got a whole lot of yawns.
LikeLike
And the NJ/NY market lights up…why?
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
@Andy,
ccrider55 is clearly stating an obvious truth that OSU, PSU, Nebraska, or Michigan playing Rutgers generates more fan interest in NY/NJ (the largest TV market in the country) than would those teams playing Missouri. Even you must accept this simple truth.
LikeLike
Rutgers does suck (they are even worse at Hoops). I wonder if Delaney reads “Frank The Tanks Slant” because some of the Bloggers here like Jeffrey J can give him a good laugh, by recommending Connecticut for the B10. U Conn (job) has a realistic shot at going winless. Their best shots @ Temple @ home for Memphis. Preferring them to Kansas? I would vote Kansas State, Rice or Tulane over the Poodles oops Huskies. I hope they go winless, so that would eliminate any possibility of them joining the B10
LikeLike
I would vote Kansas State, Rice or Tulane over the Poodles oops Huskies. I hope they go winless, so that would eliminate any possibility of them joining the B10.
@JepHJuergens’s hypothesis is obviously nonsense on so many levels. It doesn’t require more UConn losses to discredit it.
But assuming for argument’s sake that the Big Ten were considering UConn, one bad year would not deter them. Expansion is a structural decision that lasts decades.
LikeLike
I agree with you, that Expansion should be a structural decision lasts Decades, but an elite Hoops School like Kansas or an Academic Program like Rice or Tulane will bring more to the plate both now and 10 years from now than Connecticut. Oklahoma is self explanatory. If possible, I would like to see Oklahoma and Kansas added (one great football program and one great basketball program), shift Purdue East and call it a day. I know OU is not AAU, but they are a such a dominant football School ( and reigniting the Nebraska Rivalry), they are worth bending the rules for. Kansas home and home with IU and OSU in basketball would also be an event.
LikeLike
We’ll see when the Big 10 adds schools who they are.
LikeLike
Exactly. The Schadenfreude duo have no better clue than either of us. By the way, I wouldn’t be banging my own chest right now if I were them right now. What a different a few hours make, huh?
LikeLike
Yes, but also remember there is a reason the ACC passed over UConn.
LikeLike
If I were Delany, I would focus on Texas. Texas can be had if Delany elected to expend the energy. The move of A&M to the SEC, and its success in the SEC, has Texas people nervous up and down the corridors of administration, power, and alumni.
LHN is there and Texas wants to keep it. Delany would have to figure out a way to give Texas its LHN, yet somehow mollify the rest of the league. I don’t know if that is possible.
Adding Oklahoma and/or Kansas would also be helpful in persuading Texas. Texas likes to think it’s helping its friends.
As for the GOR, I have no clue how to wire around that problem. The B12 GOR is not actually the critical issue — it’s the B12 Bylaws that contain the difficult forfeiture language. Other than a buyout or league dissolution (unlikely), I can see no chink in the Bylaw forfeiture provisions.
My current observation is that the long-standing thinking at Texas is rapidly changing. A&M is responsible for this. And with A&M about to build a 100,000+ stadium, Texas will become only more gloomy in the months ahead.
If the B1G has any interest in Texas, then now is the time to begin the campaign for Texas. Texas is there. Texas can be had.
LikeLike
“LHN is there and Texas wants to keep it. Delany would have to figure out a way to give Texas its LHN, yet somehow mollify the rest of the league. I don’t know if that is possible.”
They can’t, he can’t, and it’s not.
LikeLike
I understand.
I think it will become increasingly obvious to Texas that it cannot fend off the Aggie upsurge by remaining B12.
If the B1G has no interest, then perhaps the SEC or the PAC. I don’t think the SEC would accommodate the LHN either. I think the PAC might, though, maybe, judging from prior comments by Scott.
I think it’s going to be very interesting to gauge Texas’ reactions over the next several months as Texas A&M continues its ascendency.
LikeLike
The $64 million question remains: Can Texas learn to play well with others as equals? In the Big Ten, Austin would be entering a conference culture completely unlike the Southwest Conference or Big 12, where it called all the shots. Purdue won’t play the lackey role that Rice did or Iowa State does. For example, if the Big Ten says we’ll invite you, but only in tandem with AAU Kansas (not non-AAU Oklahoma), does UT say no and try to woo the Pac back? (Conference shifts sometimes take decades; witness Syracuse and the ACC — SU was a vote shy of admission in 1990, and the Orange was bumped for Virginia Tech in 2003.)
.
LikeLike
If Texas called the B10 and said we will come to the Conference but it must be with Oklahoma, instead of Kansas, what do you think Delaney will say? That is like Milla Kunis offering you a chance to go out with her, but Jennifer Lawrence must come along as a chaperone. I cannot imagine the most “Ivory Tower” University Presidents saying no to that (well maybe Graham Spanier might have, but he was in a clueless class by himself). But it is not happening. The problem with UT is that they want a bunch of pissant Schools around them, and Bevo the Bull(y) generally got his way (ask Nebraska and the constant 11-1 Big XII votes against Husker interests)…. Until “Little Brother” A&M stood up and said NO! The only way UT might change is if OU left, and they are stuck with Texas Tech & Baylor as Conference Rivals.
LikeLike
Lol. Act like an equal? Texas? The very existence of the LHN demonstrates the answer to your question.
The deeper question for the B1G (or any conference) is: Is a stuck-up Texas worth it? If added, would Texas bring a sufficient brand to the B1G? Does Texas bring sufficiently valuable new markets to the B1G? Does Texas bring adequate new recruiting grounds to the B1G? Does Texas bring academic moxie to the B1G? Are any of these things important to a league?
If the answer to any of those answers is “yes”, then I think the B1G ought to hesitate and consider whether to pursue a school like Texas. If the answer to all of those questions is “yes”, then I think, if I were Delany, I would attempt to capitalize on Texas’ deepening disappointment with Aggie ascendency in the face of apparent Longhorn stagnation in the B12.
There are two big obstacles: the LHN and the GOR/Bylaws. Let’s think about the LHN since I have no response to the GOR/Bylaws problem. Is it realistic to project that the BTN would make significantly more money by adding Texas and its population centers? If so, would it be a bad thing for the B1G to obtain exposure from two separate networks (the BTN and the LHN)? Would a school like, say, Illinois, be disadvantaged if the live game or replays of a Texas v. Illinois game were televised over 2 separate networks, especially in the State of Texas? Would a school like Illinois possibly gain recruiting advantages if its game or replays with Texas gained thorough saturation in the State of Texas? Should the B1G desire exposure in Texas to enhance Illinois and B1G recruiting prospects?
But then there’s money. If Texas were allowed its “precious” LHN, should Texas receive a full share of the BTN? If Texas received a lesser share of the BTN than other B1G schools, so as to keep its LHN, might that be something to give thought to if Texas’ other positives outweighed this one negative? If the bottom line for the B1G was, by adding Texas, more money, better recruiting, more exposure, good athletics, good academics, and an increased opportunity to rein in the SEC, would that be important? And if Texas made more money in the B1G, with a lesser share of the BTN, but with its LHN, would that be a net positive for Texas? If this scenario does have certain synergies, is this scenario something that ought to be explored, especially with Texas psychologically down and concerned about its situation viz-a-viz Texas A&M?
And about Oklahoma …. No, they’re not AAU. Maybe they’re not even close, I don’t know. But the RRR is a helluva game, worth millions. Would the RRR in Dallas be a positive to the scope, projection and prestige of the B1G? Oklahoma is a helluva national brand, no one can argue that point. I have no doubt Texas would be much more tempted to migrate to the B1G with Oklahoma as part of the brew. Kansas is nice, too. Sure Texas would want the Sooners to go with them, absolutely, wouldn’t you?
With Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas in the mix, the B1G would acquire two football kings and in Kansas the school that invented basketball. With those 3 schools the B1G would hem in the SEC in the west with the 3 best schools between the Rocky Mountains and the Sabine River.
The B1G would own the Plains west, the north, and most of the NE Corridor. By going to 20, the B1G could concentrate on schools like UVA, UNC, GT, and, yes, even possibly ND, Duke, or FSU if those schools ever open up down the line. Isn’t that the kind of reach and exposure that would make the B1G the undisputed Number 1 league in the land? Texas anchoring the west, Michigan the north, Ohio State the midwest, Penn State the north, and some Atlantic Coast schools — isn’t that something worth achieving?
And you talk about UNC? With Texas and Kansas in the B1G, if they were, do you think those schools might give UNC more to think about with respect to potential B1G membership? Right now the SEC might look better to UNC, true, but add Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and then tempt UNC with UVA, GT, FSU, or Duke, and wouldn’t UNC possibly experience an attitude adjustment?
Here’s the thing: Texas is concerned about its future in way that it has never had to face before in its history. Nobody at Texas wants to think about A&M filling up a brand-new stadium with 105,000 Aggies. This year Texas gifts have been around $450M — it’s usual — but A&M’s exploded to over $700M. Texas is mentally drawn wrought over A&M. This is a new phenomenon, which I think a guy like Delany might be able to exploit if he thought it would be good for the B1G.
Sure, Texas is stuck-up. So what? Texas can be had. Question is: Does Delany and the B1G care?
LikeLike
If Texas called the B10 and said we will come to the Conference but it must be with Oklahoma, instead of Kansas, what do you think Delaney will say?
Delaney would say yes… but his opinion isn’t he one that matters.
I cannot imagine the most “Ivory Tower” University Presidents saying no to that
Well they wouldn’t budge on FSU (whose academics are notably stronger than Oklahoma’s) so what makes you think they would take OU?
The simple fact is, all available evidence indicates that the only non-AAU school the Big Ten would consider is ND (who the Big Ten has been interested since before the AAU membership became an unofficial requirement) and until the Big Ten actually shows some interest in another non-AAU school the logical and reasonable assumption is that Oklahoma is a no go.
LikeLike
Exactly. The Big Ten is unique (only the Ivy and maybe the ACC even after Louisville have similar attitudes) in that the academic elitists really do run the show. Of course, this riles up the football-firsters to no end.
LikeLike
While I understand the B1G’s strong desire for top echelon academic schools, is AAU membership really a requirement for every single school? There is the quote from Chipman back in 2009 before the Nebraska addition:
“There are no restrictions regarding expansion – potential additions are not required to be in the AAU, and they do not have to be in (or adjacent to) the eight Big Ten states,” league spokesman Scott Chipman wrote in an e-mail.
While Oklahoma is not AAU, the Sooners would make a great addition to B1G athletics, IMO, and, based on my observations, the largest group of OU alumni favor the B1G over the SEC and PAC.
That quote can be located here: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/525178.html?nav=742
LikeLike
Well they wouldn’t budge on FSU (whose academics are notably stronger than Oklahoma’s) so what makes you think they would take OU?
There isn’t any authoritative source that says they “wouldn’t budge” on FSU. We don’t really know who said what to whom. Any addition requires a partner, and we don’t know who would have joined FSU.
It could be that they had only just taken Maryland and Rutgers, and were skittish about expanding too fast. Or it could be that they didn’t want to take a school that is so far out of the Big Ten footprint.
Assuming the conversations even took place (which neither side has ever acknowledged, as far as I know), we really don’t know whether FSU was a total non-starter on academic grounds, or they simply said “not right now” for a variety of other potential reasons.
I’m not saying Oklahoma’s a shoo-in, but you haven’t given me a good reason to discount them.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I agree. I don’t think that Oklahoma is some type of lock for the Big Ten, but I absolutely don’t thinly they’re just going to be automatically disqualified due to a lack of AAU status even *without* Texas. If geographic proximity matters, then that’s a strike against FSU if no one else like Georgia Tech was willing to come along. I personally love the thought of FSU in the Big Ten (I’ve written posts about it), but it’s easier to integrate, say, OU and KU into a 16-team Big Ten than it would be FSU plus one other school. I think the Big Ten presidents would be dumb enough for passing on OU alone. They would be dumbest and most myopic group in history if they passed on OU *and* Texas. Anyone that thinks that OU is the equivalent of a “Tech problem” is both overestimating how much AAU membership in and of itself is a factor (as long as a school is in a certain academic range overall) while underestimating how much the presidents still want to make football money (and they know enough that they need top football brand names to make that possible).
LikeLike
And yet the PAC reportedly turned down the Okla pair.
LikeLike
For the same reason I don’t like mega-conferences (and I think Brian agrees on this). It reduced the opportunities to play the teams you wanted to play. The 4 mountain and 4 northwest schools would have less access to California. Playing California schools has more value to them than playing OU. Getting bigger in and of itself was not important.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. But my memory was the opposition was from Az, Colo, Stanford and perhaps another (surprisingly not USC dispute their scheduling concerns). The NW seemed to feel they would enhance recruiting more in Tx/Ok more than they’d lose in Ca.
My point is that a geographically isolated conference turned down a king with none of the potential prospects of much higher academic and demographic value that the B1G has. Do you add some sagebrush and corn, and in the process strengthen the ACC? Basically give up on anything mid Atlantic for the foreseeable future?
LikeLike
They would be dumbest and most myopic group in history if they passed on OU *and* Texas.
Not really. Big Ten would still have other potential avenues for expansion (Kansas and the East Coast), so passing one OU and UT would actually be less damaging than the PAC turning down OU and OSU.
And of course nothing would be worse than the Big East turning down Penn St. in the ’80s or the Big XII declining UNL’s GOR inquiry out of hand.
LikeLike
frug,
“Well they wouldn’t budge on FSU (whose academics are notably stronger than Oklahoma’s) so what makes you think they would take OU?”
Just to play devil’s advocate:
OU would be paired with UT. FSU would’ve been paired with GT or UVA or something. The value of UT (athletically and academically) could be high enough to swing some votes.
LikeLike
OU would be paired with UT. FSU would’ve been paired with GT or UVA or something. The value of UT (athletically and academically) could be high enough to swing some votes.
True. But since FSU isn’t as far behind academically as OU, then it shouldn’t need as big a partner as UT to make up the difference.
LikeLike
The PAC wouldn’t accommodate the LHN in 2010 or 2011, and I doubt anything has changed now.
LikeLike
That’s not what Larry Scott has been quoted as saying, but what does he know?
LikeLike
Which part?
LikeLike
Ha!
Show me a time he ever advocated anything but complete equal sharing, including when he got the same pay as the men for the women at Wimbledon.
LikeLike
I ran across some very recent quotes by Larry Scott yesterday (Saturday) waiting on the Texas game start, but now I can’t find the article.
Scott was quoted as saying that he would not a let a “few dollars and the LHN” stand in the way of expansion with Texas and others.
It was a startling comment to me, given Scott’s statements back in 2010 and 2011 — he did a complete 180. Perhaps Scott realizes that the PAC is done with meaningful expansion if they can’t lure Texas, I don’t know.
But even if Scott has had a change of heart, it’s not at all clear to me that he can sell Stanford, et al, on such a deal. That’s why I said upthread “but what does he know”.
Anyhow, I looked for the quote during the lightening delay of the Texas game, but I couldn’t find it. So sorry. The quote is out there, though, and no doubt you’ll bump into it.
LikeLike
Scott was quoted as saying that he would not a let a “few dollars and the LHN” stand in the way of expansion with Texas and others.
It was a startling comment to me, given Scott’s statements back in 2010 and 2011 — he did a complete 180. Perhaps Scott realizes that the PAC is done with meaningful expansion if they can’t lure Texas, I don’t know.
Conference commissioners choose their words carefully. What was unacceptable in 2010 and 2011 could be very different in 2025. The Pac doesn’t have very good expansion options if it can’t lure Texas and/or Oklahoma. If Scott knows this (and how could he not?), I think the Pac-12 presidents know it too.
LikeLike
I saw that Scott quote as well.
LikeLike
You’re either misreading/misinterpreting what he said. A link would be helpfull because you are basically saying he has changed his DNA. Stanford would oppose on philosophical grounds (they swim in money if they choose to) but many other schools would oppose on additional monetary/competitive concerns.
No, as you said the only conference direction the LHN could possibly move is the SEC. But I don’t see Alabama, LSU, aTm, Fla. etc caving. Really, who holds the cards? No power conference has to expand unless they choose to. I’m sure the B1G, PAC, etc have communicated what is and is not acceptable, and its UTs decision as to their best interest. 12-14 teams can be enhanced be proper additions, but they don’t need to undercut themselves to increase the likelihood of those.
LikeLike
There’s no misreading it-he said Texas politics contributed to the failure of the plan, but not the LHN:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13681330/pac10s-scott-blames-texas-for-his-plans-demise
LikeLike
This is also his point of view about Texas politics. I think the simplest answer is the best, the one President Powers gave. As Scott says they would minimize travel by playing mostly within divisions. The money for the Pac 16 was not going to be much different than the Pac 12. So Texas could have basically the same type of schedules and same $ in the Big 12 without doing anything.
LikeLike
Hmmm. The article linked by bullet is the article to which I am referring.
However, I thought Scott’s comments were much more recent. I note the article is from July 2010.
Scott must have had his change of heart shortly after the Texas/PAC deal fell through.
No matter — it was a terrible deal for Texas. Glad it fell through.
LikeLike
At that time nobody knew ESPN would pay anything like they did. It also serves the PAC to put some/most of the blame on political forces outside UTs control and remaining a friend to UT. He also let it be known (i.e. let UT know) in a hurried announcement just prior to the B12 meetings that spring that OU didn’t have the bargaining leverage of possible conference switch.
I saw/see nothing incompatible with his vision of a Texas channel of the P12N (like the other regionals) and until ESPN bought UT’s future it would be a mater of dollars.
Apples and oranges. A P16 would have far outstripped the B12 media deal. I’m not sure they match the P12. The P16N could have surpassed the BTN in distributions in only a few years (no splitting 50/50ish with a partner)
LikeLike
Larry Scott has since admitted that the Texas politics excuse was a lie and it was the LHN that killed the PAC-16 (it was in a long form article which unfortunately I can’t find).
However did find this
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6809451/larry-scott-longhorn-network-keep-texas-joining-pac-12
“I think you could certainly imply that, with the news that we’re going to announce tonight,” Scott told the newspaper. “The Longhorn Network would be certainly a huge impediment.”
LikeLike
Also this
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2011-articles/september/college-football-realignment-revolves-around-the-longhorn-network.html
While we have great respect for all of the institutions that have contacted us, and certain expansion proposals were financially attractive, we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve.
LikeLike
So Larry Scott says several different things. President Powers and AD Dodds consistently say one thing. And that one thing is the simplest explanation. I’ll stick with that.
Powers and a recent article (don’t remember where) out of the west coast said P16 $ weren’t much different from P12 $.
LikeLike
That 2nd Scott quote is political BS. The Pac 12 had a much more unequal revenue distribution than the Big 12. USC was making 3 times as much as Washington St. from the conference. They may have been trying to create a culture of equality, but there was nothing to preserve.
LikeLike
The first quote I read more as an impediment to Texas joining in 2011 when OU was flirting with the Pac12, not in 2010. Don’t believe applying that article to 2010 is relevant.
LikeLike
It reads differently when you read the whole article. Note the “unlikely NOW….” and “We DID our deal.”
And now, with the Pac-12 set to make an official announcement later Wednesday about its network, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told the Austin American-Statesman that it all but eliminates the possibility of future membership for the Longhorns.
“I think you could certainly imply that, with the news that we’re going to announce tonight,” Scott told the newspaper. “The Longhorn Network would be certainly a huge impediment.”
Scott reiterated his recent comments that future expansion was coming, but it’s unlikely now that Texas would be a part of it.
“It’s not something we are looking at now,” he told the paper. “We did our deal. We’re very happy with it. We’re not thinking or looking at expanding at the moment, but we are trying to create the strongest conference possible. I do feel there will be further expansion, and I want to be an attractive place to come.”
Scott also said he’s watching the Longhorn Network’s progress with the prospect of televising high school games, saying that if it’s officially given permission by the NCAA, the Pac-12 Network will broadcast high school games as soon as the network goes live.
LikeLike
The estimates for what would have been P16 were 4.5-5 B/12 yr as opposed to the 3B/12 yr P12 deal. Of course that probably weren’t the numbers being discussed in 2010 prior to expansion and a year from renegotiation.
LikeLike
“Scott also said he’s watching the Longhorn Network’s progress with the prospect of televising high school games, saying that if it’s officially given permission by the NCAA, the Pac-12 Network will broadcast high school games as soon as the network goes live.”
I believe that statement was a part of the universal outrage at what the LHN (ESPN) was proposing (and I believe UT was caught by surprise by that proposal). A shot across the now – ‘do that and we’ll be broadcasting all your recruits to a wider audience’ kind of threat.
LikeLike
This is the quote I was talking about
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/head-of-the-pac-12152011.html
Scott says it was no secret the conference thought the University of Texas was a good fit for the Pac-10, academically and athletically. However, in Scott’s negotiations with UT President Bill Powers, it was clear Texas was not committed to the idea of sharing revenue equally with 15 other schools. UT wanted to maintain the new Longhorn Network, all of whose profits flow to Texas. “I had a vision of a league-based, centralized brand, and Texas wanted to do their own thing,” Scott says. “It was about control. In the short term, Texas is successful enough that it might work going it alone. But in the long run, I don’t think so.”
Note that was about the first attempt to add UT (in 2010).
LikeLike
Wait, meant second time (need an edit button on this blog)
LikeLike
Damn it, I was right the first time.
LikeLike
I do find edit functions useful! I thought he had said something like that. But he’s said totally different things as well. But none were as definitive as the July 2010 article. That one clearly says he thought they would have worked around it. Much of the rest is after the fact stuff once they had their deal in place and he’s not quite so definitive. This is kind, well, maybe they weren’t on the same page as us after all. Its not-there was an insurmountable problem. Sounds more like thinking out loud.
LikeLike
@cc
I think you are reading what you want into that HS statement.
Sounds to me like a simple, “Sounds like a good idea. We’ll do it too if its approved.”
LikeLike
Bullet:
Perhaps, but it is colored by (albeit not directly to me) a couple athletic directors immediate off handed responses to the ESPN/LHN HS broadcasting proposal.
LikeLike
Frankly, why so much concern about what Scott thinks? The presidents of the P12 make the decisions about expansion, not him. Just because he might be willing to work with someone or work around an issue doesn’t mean the presidents agree.
LikeLike
Good point Brian.
After all if Scott was the decision maker then OU and OSU would both be in the PAC right now and the PAC-B1G alliance wouldn’t have been scrapped.
LikeLike
“Texas can be had if Delany elected to expend the energy.”
I don’t know about that. 1st off Texas would have to dumb the LHN to get into any of the B1G, Pac 12, SEC. Maybe A&M’s success could push the PTB at Texas to decide to scrap the LHN, but it is really ESPN’s channel and I don’t see ESPN scrapping it just because A&M is doing good, especially if they know that Texas’ 3rd tier programming would be going to the BTN.
Secondly if Texas decides to go anywhere, they will go to the Pac 12. They have flirted with going there a couple of times starting back in the early 90s. The Pac 12 schools are the schools that Texas academia sees themselves as being more closely resembling, and in the past the boosters have been ok with the thought of going out west.
But even if Texas and ESPN decided to drop the LHN (which like in the case of the B1G, I don’t see ESPN wanting the PacN getting the Texas content either),and Texas decides move out to the Pac 12 or even the B1G, how would moving to either conference slow down A&M’s rise? The Texas boosters’ & fans’ concerns about A&M is in regards to their increased popularity in football. The only way that Texas could hope to do something themselves to diminish A&M’s rise in popularity is move to the SEC (which, btw, might be the only conference that ESPN would be ok with Texas taking their content to since they will have ownership in the SECN), which would take away A&M’s claim of being the only Texas school in the SEC.
If A&M’s current success becomes a big enough deal for the PTB at Texas to make those types of major changes, then the SEC would become a much bigger option for them than it has been in the past. Now I’m not saying they would go to the SEC (the Texas academia sure wouldn’t want to go there), but that would be the conference that would most easily help solve their perceived concerns with A&M and getting out of their LHN deal with ESPN.
LikeLike
There is another alternative for UT if worst came down to worst (OU & KU to the B10) which is going Independent (like BYU). There are quite a few Texas Schools: Tech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, UTEP & Rice that will gladly take 2/1 Games (Rice already does). They can keep Kansas State (a rare team that has a winning record versus UT), and OSU & OU. They have Notre Dame Scheduled for 4 Games as well. Want to bet BYU would play them? Houston even at 2/1? Gladly. Basically 7 Games a Season in Austin, 1 in Dallas (Oklahoma), and 4 on the road.
LikeLike
But again, how does that curtail A&M’s popularity swing? The only thing that Texas can possibly do to curtail A&M’s popularity swing (outside of waiting for A&M’s good fortune to dissipate) is to cut into A&M’s SEC monopoly.
LikeLike
The logic is sorta there. But…UT isn’t going to the SEC.
And they doubly aren’t as an add-on to aTm, as a little brother.
LikeLike
But the preface of the reason that they would be ripe for the taking was based on their concern of A&M’s success in the SEC. I personally don’t think they are going anywhere until their GORs are up. But moving to another conference does nothing to curtail A&M popularity swing. Plus ESPN sure doesn’t want the current Texas content that they own to go to another network.
LikeLike
I agree, IF the academics shared that concern. Or if there was unified political influence that direction. But I doubt either aTm or TT politicians are in favor of that move, for differing reasons.
LikeLike
Unless the ACC is willing to give them an ND style deal independence isn’t an option. UT won’t let their non-FB sports go slumming with a mid-major for one season.
LikeLike
I think the SEC ought to be Texas’ next move, for the reasons set forth above, but that opinion is in the vast minority Texas people.
I feel pretty sure that if Texas left the B12, it would be either for the B1G or the PAC, and then preferably with Oklahoma.
There are many problems with the PAC, not the least of which is the debilitating time-zone shift.
Of all options potentially available, I think the B1G has the most of offer Texas. Of course the B1G likely has other thoughts.
LikeLike
Excellent observations, bamatab. Here are some of my thoughts:
[bamatab] I don’t know about that. 1st off Texas would have to dump the LHN to get into any of the B1G, Pac 12, SEC. Maybe A&M’s success could push the PTB at Texas to decide to scrap the LHN, but it is really ESPN’s channel and I don’t see ESPN scrapping it just because A&M is doing good, especially if they know that Texas’ 3rd tier programming would be going to the BTN.
[Me] The prevailing wisdom, I agree, is that Texas must dump the LHN if it ever hopes to join the B1G, SEC, or PAC. But why exactly is dumping the LHN a wise thing even for the league Texas joins?
As I argue elsewhere in this thread, the LHN is actually an asset to another league, not a liability. Especially to a league which possesses 16 to 20 members. You have to show those additional Tier 3 games somewhere.
Plus, if Texas were in the B1G, undoubtedly Texas would get a lesser share of the BTN proceeds in order to keep the LHN. Personally, I see the LHN as a win-win situation for both the B1G and for Texas.
In the end, however, Texas doesn’t want to dump the LHN. So far as I can tell, neither does ESPN. If the prevailing wisdom is correct, and my analysis incorrect, then you are right: The LHN is insurmountable barrier to Texas leaving the B12.
[bamatab] Secondly if Texas decides to go anywhere, they will go to the Pac 12. They have flirted with going there a couple of times starting back in the early 90s. The Pac 12 schools are the schools that Texas academia sees themselves as being more closely resembling, and in the past the boosters have been ok with the thought of going out west.
[Me] It is true that Texas has come close to joining the PAC in the past. I, myself, supported a move to the PAC in the past. Some boosters still support a move to the PAC, can’t deny that.
But when you sit down and think about what the PAC membership means to Texas, it quickly becomes apparent that the B1G (and even the SEC) is a far better fit for Texas than is the PAC. By being time-shifted two hours to the west, kids will be getting back to Austin, after a long flight, two hours later, as part of their conference routine. Flights coming from the west are psychologically more tiresome when you get back two hours “later” than flights time-shifted one hour from the east where you get back 1 hour “earlier.” I mean, you endure the flight and then when you land you set your clock two hours later. That ain’t good.
Furthermore, the influential media markets are in the east and north, not the west (and not the south). Also, the PAC has previously proposed that Texas be stuck in a “desert division” with minimized access to San Francisco, LA, and the coastal schools. There are more reasons to be wary of the PAC, but these will suffice for this post.
Before moving on, I would also point out that Texas investigated membership in the B10 back in the early 90s but was rebuffed due to the B10 moratorium against expansion after adding PSU.
[bamatab] But even if Texas and ESPN decided to drop the LHN (which like in the case of the B1G, I don’t see ESPN wanting the PacN getting the Texas content either),and Texas decides move out to the Pac 12 or even the B1G, how would moving to either conference slow down A&M’s rise? The Texas boosters’ & fans’ concerns about A&M is in regards to their increased popularity in football.
[Me] B1G membership would give Texas a huge boost — a boost the SEC could never give. The B1G is in control of the mega-markets, not the SEC. Texas seeks exposure. The B1G is all about exposure, especially with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers. NYC, the NE corridor, the huge cities across the northern tier — believe me, that kind of true national exposure is something Texas would be quite happy with. Let A&M go to Mississippi and Alabama, while Texas kids get to go to Chicago, Lansing, the suburbs of New York City, Minneapolis, etc. That’s not happening in the SEC. Plus, there’s the academics of the B1G that the SEC is a far cry from matching.
[bamatab] The only way that Texas could hope to do something themselves to diminish A&M’s rise in popularity is move to the SEC (which, btw, might be the only conference that ESPN would be ok with Texas taking their content to since they will have ownership in the SECN), which would take away A&M’s claim of being the only Texas school in the SEC.
[Me] The SEC could certainly be the thing that turns the tide back to Texas viz-a-viz A&M. And the SEC would take Texas and Oklahoma in a heartbeat, the “gentleman’s agreement” notwithstanding (IMO).
But the B1G would arguably give Texas a much bigger boost than would the SEC. It’s that national exposure again. It’s the name state flagship schools of the B1G. Plus, Texas could argue “regionality” to recruits just as easily in the B1G as it could in the SEC. Look, in the B1G, if OU and KU were also added, Texas could show recruits games against “traditional” rivals like OU, KU, Nebraska, and substitute Iowa for Iowa State.
[bamatab] If A&M’s current success becomes a big enough deal for the PTB at Texas to make those types of major changes, then the SEC would become a much bigger option for them than it has been in the past. Now I’m not saying they would go to the SEC (the Texas academia sure wouldn’t want to go there), but that would be the conference that would most easily help solve their perceived concerns with A&M and getting out of their LHN deal with ESPN.
[Me] I agree. From a geographical pov, the SEC is the absolute best option for Texas. But from the pov of national exposure plus local rivals [KU, OU (if they were added), NU, and substituting Iowa for Iowa State], the B1G is right there, too. Then there’s the academics of the B1G, which are important when you’re talking about conference membership. Really, it comes down to exposure versus geography. For Texas, I suspect exposure/academics trumps geography.
But I can assure you of 1 thing: The PTB at Texas are concerned about Aggie ascendancy. All Texas alumnus are concerned. The Big 12 cannot stem the tide. There is a new reality in the minds of things Texas that has not existed before.
It may be that the B1G doesn’t really care to factor Texas into its thinking. But if they do, now is the time to lay the foundation because Texas has never been more mentally receptive that they are right now. We are not going to play second fiddle to aggy in the State of Texas. Changes are coming.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is not averse to adding Texas...if Texas agrees to play by the conference’s “rules.” If the B1G believed in double standards, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska could have their own networks and keep all their own revenues.
LikeLike
@XOVERX – There isn’t a conference that gets more exposure than the SEC. The media (led by ESPN) that covers college football is practically obsessed with the SEC.
But even if that weren’t the case, Texas doesn’t need exposure. They make more money, and have as many or more fans than any other school out there. There concern isn’t with their own exposure. It’s with the exposure that A&M is now getting, and the interest they are building within the state of Texas due to now being THE SEC school in the state. A&M now has the opportunity to gain significant ground on Texas, and the PTB at Texas don’t want to see that happen.
So it’s isn’t about Texas having to gain exposure, it’s about Texas wanting to curtail A&M’s exposure.
LikeLike
I think XoverX is wrong. I don’t think too many people are worried. A&M’s success will depend on A&M, not on being in the SEC. The same was true in the Big 12.
There’s little doubt A&M will narrow the gap simply because of numbers. In 1970, UT had around 40,000 students and A&M around 8,000. By 1980-81 UT was 50,000 and started freezing their enrollment at that level. A&M was 20,000-25,000. A&M grew to around 45,000 by the mid-90s before they started tightening enrollment. They’ve started growing again in the past 3 years as part of Gov. Perry’s plan to re-make universities in Texas (into community colleges IMO). UT’s large advantage in alumni will shrink.
But I still don’t think anyone in power is worried about 2-3 year trends. Having strong colleges in the state is good for all. Its not a zero sum game. UT has been strongly behind the Tier I program to create more Tier I universities. And that doesn’t threaten UT’s pre-immence in the state. It can help enhance UT’s position in the country.
As for football, Florida has proven you can have more than one good program in a state. And A&M would have to have decades of success to get at an FSU level. There is also a mis-conception that A&M hasn’t recruited well in the past. They have. They just haven’t done much with it. Their two QBs prior to Manzell are playing in the NFL.
LikeLike
Well, I have certainly been wrong about things in the past, but I am definitely not wrong when I say that many Texas alums, myself included, have some very strong concerns about A&M.
I am sure that most of you are familiar with this article earlier in October run by the Dallas News: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20131011-source-ut-officials-really-paranoid-texas-will-lose-kind-of-war-to-am-on-and-off-field.ece?nclick_check=1
The Dallas News claims some Texas powers are actually “paranoid” over aggy ascendency. McCombs may be an old guy, but he’s certainly not alone in his thoughts.
This is not merely an ego thing for Texas — it’s a money thing as well.
LikeLike
The SEC gets its share of exposure, that’s true. And the SEC is a great athletics conference as well. I don’t mean to slight the SEC. On some days I convince myself that Texas would be best off in the SEC, so my mind is not necessarily set in stone. The only league I’m certain that Texas does not need to be in is the PAC (and, obviously, the B12).
But imagine the exposure you will get if you’re ranked number 1 and you’re a member of the B1G. All those huge mega-markets spread across the northern tier and, now, the NE Corridor. Wow. Plus the B1G does have superlative academics, which is a nice bonus in a sports league.
Texas does not want to be “equal” to aggy. We want to go beyond. Can Texas do that in the SEC? Sure, probably — we did in the SWC and the B12. No, give aggy what he earns in the SEC, that’s fine. But give Texas what it earns wherever Texas winds up.
LikeLike
@XOVERX
Imagine the University of Texas also joining the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) which is the academic consortium of the universities in the Big Ten Conference.
Imagine collaborating with the University of Chicago which is also a CIC member. The University of Chicago is consistently ranked among the world’s top 10 universities. The University of Chicago is affiliated with 89 Nobel Laureates (including 10 current faculty), 49 Rhodes Scholars and 9 Fields Medalists. The University of Chicago Economics department is also considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments, and has fielded more Nobel Prizes laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university. Chicago economists have also left their intellectual influence in other fields, notably in pioneering public choice theory and law and economics.
Imagine collaborating with Johns Hopkins University who may also join CIC in the future. John Hopkins pioneered the concept of the modern research university in the United States and has ranked among the world’s top such universities throughout its history. The National Science Foundation has ranked Johns Hopkins #1 among U.S. academic institutions in total science, medical and engineering research and development spending for 31 consecutive years. As of 2011, 37 Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with Johns Hopkins, and the university’s research is among the most cited in the world. It is one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
And congratulations to your President Bill Powers and his recent election as Chairman of the Association of American Universities!
LikeLike
I saw the article. All of their “paranoid” stuff didn’t quote anyone. What they quoted from McCombs didn’t talk about being “paranoid.” While you aren’t alone, your view is a tiny minority on the boards I visit. People are mainly concerned about what Texas is doing or not doing, not what other schools are. They’re concerned Andrew Luck, RGIII and Johnny Manzell weren’t recruited to be a QB at Texas while we have QB issues.
LikeLike
I agree with vp19: The issue is not if the Big Ten would take Texas (it surely would), its if Texas would want to join, knowing it would get the same revenue share as Purdue and Northwestern (doubtful).
LikeLike
Big Ten Fan: Oh yea, absolutely, the CIC is a very attractive plus. The B1G has a lot to offer, no doubt about it. We’re all proud and excited for President Powers down here in Texas heading up the AAU. BTW, I love the Johns Hopkins addition. Great job.
Bullet: I know and talk to a lot of Texas alumni, and there are very few that think aggy is not making inroads on Texas as a member of the SEC. Don’t get me wrong — there are some that think A&M in the SEC is no big deal. But not many.
Plus, I can tell you that the Dallas News, IMO, tends to be more aggy oriented than Longhorn oriented, although that’s maybe me just being paranoid. But here’s the take-away from that article: It’s the money. You cannot argue with the money. Nothing gets the attention of Texas’ PTB than does money.
You also cannot argue with the new A&M stadium. If you don’t know how twisted that’s going to make Texas brains, then think about this inexact analogy: How do you think Michigan folks would react if Ohio State was going to build a 115,000 seat stadium? Now pretend those schools were in the same state, thus fiercer rivals than they already are, and tOSU had just defected to the SEC. Does this help?
At any rate, I’m here in Texas, I’m a Texas alum, I know lots of Texas grads, and of those who follow Texas’ sports, the clear majority of my admittedly unscientific sampling have concerns about a perceived “aggy rise”. Still, I suppose your mind is made up so on this point we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your thoughts though. Thanks.
LikeLike
If I were Delany, I would focus on Texas. Texas can be had if Delany elected to expend the energy.
You write as if Delany is the decision-maker. He is not.
LikeLike
When it comes to making decisions in the Big Ten (or any of the other top 5 conferences), the power belongs to the university presidents. If they don’t want Oklahoma because it’s not AAU, there’s not a thing Texas (or any of you “king”-oriented posters) can do about it. If the Pac doesn’t want Texas because of the Longhorn Network, and UT doesn’t want to go to the SEC (which A&M would probably block, anyway), its only alternative to remaining in the status quo of a gradually weakening Big 12 is to pull off a Notre Dame-like deal with the ACC where it’s independent for football, but an ACC member in all its other sports the conference sponsors, with a few football games against ACC rivals as part of the agreement. (This is something both the ACC and ESPN might like, since ESPN could then assimilate the LHN into some sort of ACC network with relatively little difficulty.)
LikeLike
That also could set up a scenario where if Texas moves to the ACC, Oklahoma may decide that they’ll follow Aggie into the SEC. Then the B1G would have to decide whether Kansas and ____ are worth going after.
Now it may well be that the presidents are in the position where they can let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good” and not suffer so much. But the SEC is a real threat to their bottom line, long term. At some point, the after effects will pierce even the toughest of ivory towers. Universities, even those who are moving to online classrooms, depend on young people to sustain them. If young people increasingly see SEC and ACC institutions as places to go to because of better opportunities, then that should wake up the academic elites in the Big Ten. The old saw about southern schools not being able to educate is slowly going away. There’s still a gap it’s more of a perceived one. Some ACC schools already run circles around the Big Ten in terms of undergraduate education. The real issue is, long term, all the institutions of the Big Ten would have to use their institutional knowledge to come up with a plan to encourage new enterprising people to move into the Big Ten states and start families, and that would have to start ASAP.
If it about the next 50-75 years, then I wouldn’t sleep on schools like OU and TT, while they don’t have the “proper credentials” are in a position where they can take advantage of the influx of new young people and new resources created from energy and applied technology. The next 10-15 years will be interesting as, by then, we’d know if the conference can still combine competitive athletics and academics or whether factors, both outside of their control and those they could have done something about sooner, would force them into a humiliating comedown.
What would happen if, let’s say, a few renowned schools who are outside the AAU, decided that they should start a competing group? What if ND, Syracuse, UConn, BC, Richmond, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Oklahoma, Miami, Georgia, Utah, Tennessee and a bunch of other decent schools decided that it will form their own political group, which is what the AAU is essentially is? If enough schools successfully challenge the power of AAU, which would come after some AAU schools join said group, that would be a major game-changer. I think a lot of privates, like NYU and Cornell, might look at such a group favorably.
LikeLike
The old saw about southern schools not being able to educate is slowly going away. There’s still a gap it’s more of a perceived one. Some ACC schools already run circles around the Big Ten in terms of undergraduate education.
Duke is the only ACC school ahead of the entire Big Ten. But in the US News survey, Duke is 7, Northwestern 12. In the Thomson Reuters World University survey, it’s Duke 17, Michigan 18. You’d hardly call such a small difference “running circles” around the competition.
In USNews, the next cluster is UVA (23), Wake (23), Michigan (28), UNC (30). In Thomson Reuters, it’s GT (28), Illinois (29), Wisconsin (30): again, pretty close.
But of course, the schools at the top have always been good. It’s not as if the world only just recently discovered that Duke and UVA were good schools.
The real issue is, long term, all the institutions of the Big Ten would have to use their institutional knowledge to come up with a plan to encourage new enterprising people to move into the Big Ten states and start families, and that would have to start ASAP.
Reversing long-term population trends is a feat beyond the skills of even such smart people as the Big Ten presidents.
LikeLike
Marc, are any SEC schools in those neighborhoods? Other than Vanderbilt and possibly Florida or A&M, I would be surprised.
LikeLike
A few weeks ago I posted some data on undergraduate student quality — I can’t remember if it was on FfF or another blog. In summary, on this dimension of undergraduate quality the SEC is weak, Their lower quartile scores are really low — Alabama, Mississippi (and State) Arkansas and LSU are especially weak. The surprise is that too many Big 10 schools have fixed their need for increased operating revenue by allowing their low quartile to slide downward — higher than the SEC — but not great — and the trend is not good. As Transic mentions, the ACC fares significantly better in this analysis. Why do quartiles matter — it provides an insight into the size of the pool of students that will ultimately be difficult to place in top jobs or who will enroll in top graduate programs — it is a first-indicator of where your brand reputation will be held back. It is only a first indicator — students and schools find ways to mitigate this problem. Still, over the long haul, the single best predictor of undergraduate reputation (and even to a lesser extent, overall institutional reputation) is the 25% – 75% split. Internationally, our competitors strictly adhere to this playbook. The determination and announcement of the national cut-off scores for entry into the top schools is followed (and bet on) in the same way that we follow college football recruiting. First, these schools secure top students then they build top facilities and or maybe top faculty — but it is always student quality first — no matter how small you have to keep the size of the class to reach your quality goals. In two to three decades — your school will then have a top tier reputation.
I don’t know how you would assess the graduate programs and the graduate student quality — it is more differentiated and there are more relevant criteria. However at the undergraduate level, I am not aware of one university in the SEC, Big 10 or ACC that has explicitly adopted the “open university” or “CUNY” model — instead they all announce that they seek to enroll a top undergraduate pool — and for those schools 25% – 75% provides a good first assessment of where you stand.
LikeLike
Well, sure, Delany has his Presidents he has to answer to. Naturally. My thought is that if Delany doesn’t like an expansion idea, however, that idea never makes it to the Presidents level for ultimate approval or disapproval. The expansion project must appeal to Delany first. Delany is pretty important in the process.
If Delany presented the Presidents an expansion proposal wherein Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma were involved, perhaps the Presidents would dismiss the idea out-of-hand, given OU’s non-AAU status. Then again, if Delany liked the idea maybe he could persuade the recalcitrant Presidents to his pov?
It’s probably just me and my hubristic “Texas-centric” mindset, but Texas academics are pretty close to world-class. Kansas academics are good enough to be AAU. OU athletics are first-class. If you’re a B1G school President and you could add all of those schools to your athletic conference — at a time when you are actively seeking to expand — do you just nix the idea out-of-hand because OU is not AAU? Especially if you get two other schools that are AAU and which bring a lot of value to the B1G?
Texas is going to be out of the B12 and in another conference in the future. A&M is forcing Texas’ hand. Wouldn’t B1G Presidents at least like a proposal from Delany that they could reject as they saw fit rather than no proposal at all?
LikeLike
Well, sure, Delany has his Presidents he has to answer to. Naturally. My thought is that if Delany doesn’t like an expansion idea, however, that idea never makes it to the Presidents level for ultimate approval or disapproval.
Actually, no: when the Big Ten considered Texas a few years ago, Bill Powers got in touch with E. Gordon Gee directly, and Gee passed it along to Delany. The presidents meet regularly in academic settings where Delany is not present. It’s not as if, without Delany, they’d never know who is interested in the Big Ten.
It’s probably just me and my hubristic “Texas-centric” mindset, but Texas academics are pretty close to world-class. Kansas academics are good enough to be AAU. OU athletics are first-class. If you’re a B1G school President and you could add all of those schools to your athletic conference — at a time when you are actively seeking to expand — do you just nix the idea out-of-hand because OU is not AAU? Especially if you get two other schools that are AAU and which bring a lot of value to the B1G?
No one would dispute that Texas is world-class. The status of KU and OU is not so clear. Kansas is AAU, but near the bottom of that cohort. Some might say that, by virtue of not being in the AAU, OU is “second-class” by definition. I’m not choosing sides, just pointing out that it’s arguable.
There’s also the LHN issue. The Big Ten is traditionally an “all for one, one for all” conference. I could understand the reluctance to admit a full-time member who, for the first time in league history, does NOT have the same deal as everyone else. That could be a recipe for long-term instability. Even in the Big XII, the LHN has been a contentious topic.
Bear in mind, we don’t actually know that the B1G is “actively seeking to expand.” We do know they’re open to it, if the conditions are right. What those conditions are, is unspecified. “Open to it” and “actively seeking” aren’t the same thing. Of course, in your scenario there would need to be an 18th school, and we don’t know who that would be.
Texas is going to be out of the B12 and in another conference in the future. A&M is forcing Texas’ hand.
I’m a bit skeptical of that argument. A&M is having a good run at the moment. It’s an open question whether it lasts after Manziel leaves for the NFL. Historically, the in-state pecking order (in Texas or any state) is extremely durable in the long term, notwithstanding brief periods when the #2 is temporarily the top dog.
Wouldn’t B1G Presidents at least like a proposal from Delany that they could reject as they saw fit rather than no proposal at all?
I don’t think Texas can break the GOR at an acceptable cost, so Delany’s got a good 10 years to work on that proposal.
LikeLike
Good thoughts all. Thanks for your input.
LikeLike
I think that the Big 10 may be much less eager to wait on Texas than many of you seem to think based on their experience with Notre Dame. The Big 10 waited for decades for Notre Dame to change their minds and join. They never have and show no signs of changing their minds in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the Big 10 could have had 20 years of championship game revenue. If the Big 10 decides that it’s Texas or bust than it’s going to be the same exact situation. Texas already turned down an offer from the Pac 12 that as Frank has said was the very best expansion package that UT was ever going to get offered from anyone. If Texas was willing to turn down a division with four long-term division/conference rivals (TAMU, TTech, OU, and OSU) and three comparatively close schools in states with relatively similar cultures as Texas (CU and the Arizona schools) plus the possibility of hosting a league championship game in Austin, what could the Big 10 (or SEC for that matter) possibly offer that would convince Texas to move? You could argue money and academics, but that Pac 12 proposal would have rivaled the Big 10 in both (though probably not exceeded in either).
LikeLike
Excellent comments, Jeffrey, but indulge me while I address a few things that I perceive differently than you do.
One of the big things that wound up circumventing the 2010 PAC deal was that A&M had let Texas know that it wouldn’t be going to the PAC with Texas and the others. A&M had settled on the SEC. The PAC had Kansas ready as a backup plan to A&M, because at the last minute the aggy wasn’t coming. I don’t know if this information changes your basic thoughts, however.
Being a Texas alum, I’m not quick to embrace your idea the Texas’ culture is similar to the AZ schools culture. Maybe they are similar. Certainly Texas is similar to CU culture. OTOH, I think the whole “culture” thing is vastly overrated. In the end we’re talking about football, decent academics, exposure, money, and similar state flagship schools.
As for culture, UT and Austin are bastions of liberalism. As such, I’m sure Texas’ culture is similar to Stanford, and Cal, and many other PAC schools, but aren’t B1G schools basically like Texas? I have always historically compared Texas, the school, to Ohio State in the B1G (now here’s a comment likely to make me many enemies on this blog!). Anyhow, I think Texas’ culture fits in just fine with both the B1G or the PAC, but probably not so much the SEC, FWIW. My impression, possibly uninformed, is that SEC schools (such as A&M) tend to be Tea Party type oriented.
Moving on, the PAC deal really wasn’t all that sweet. I don’t think it was “sweet” at all. The PAC money was virtually identical to that paid by the B12. The PAC deal would have locked Texas in the “desert division” of the PAC with games in, for example, San Francisco, once every 8 years or so. The “desert division” would get the Tempe Fiesta bowl (big whoop) while the “Old PAC-8 division” would get the Rose Bowl (huh?). Basically the PAC would get its wet dream of recreating the old PAC8, while isolating all the late-comers in the “desert division”. Most of Texas’ games would be in low exposure areas, with the exception of the State of Texas, which Texas owns anyway. Then there is the huge problem of the time-zone twice shifted west. There is really no need to treat your student-athletes so shabbily. Really crappy deal, all in all, IMO.
As for the B1G having to “wait” on Texas, yea, that’s a potential reality. The B12 GOR is not particularly restrictive, if you read it. The GOR could easily be complied with even if Texas (or any other B12 school) changed conferences, still making the new conference a ton of money (at least if the school moving is a school like Texas, OU, or KU). No, the GOR is not the problem — it’s the B12 Bylaws that are the problem in that it is the Bylaws that contain the ferocious forfeiture language. I can see no way around the Bylaws except via buyout or league dissolution (unlikely).
I feel certain that Texas would not exit the B12 via a lawsuit attacking the Bylaws to obtain some kind of settlement. That is not Texas’ style. Such a suit would probably be grounded on a theory that a private entity (the B12) cannot seek to otain a forfeiture of future earnings against a governmental entity (a state university). But, again, Texas won’t go there, IMO.
I could see Texas maybe buying its way out of the GOR/Bylaws, but that would probably mean at least $300M, maybe more. So … most likely, Texas will have to remain parked in the B12 for several more years unless there is some other option out there of which I am unaware.
Perhaps by then Texas thinking with respect to A&M will have reached a happy equilibrium, suggesting that this period of initial concern was overblown. But I think not. I think A&M made an excellent choice in migrating to the SEC. Soon aggy will be building their new 100,000+ stadium, and that will keep Texas tightly wound up for 2 or 3 years. And if A&M can actually fill the stadium? I think Texas will continue to feel it is forced to change its circumstances even if it has to wait a few years to do so. Texas must do something to change the “excitement paradigm”, and staying in the B12, with its small provincial footprint, and unexciting schedule, is not the recipe for creating excitement.
As for the B1G waiting on Texas — who knows? — maybe they won’t. But I suspect one out of the B1G, SEC, or PAC will have interest in Texas when the time comes. And if I were in charge of one of those leagues, I would begin courting Texas right now and lay the foundation for that day early on. A chance to add a Texas, and an Oklahoma, and a Kansas don’t come along very often. JMO.
LikeLike
I agree with @JepHJuergens that the Big Ten is probably not going to wait 20 years for Texas, the way it waited for Notre Dame. But I am not really sure whom the Big Ten passed over during those 20 years. The league’s stated position was that if they expanded, it had to be compelling, and they weren’t going to take just any 12th team. For most of that time, Nebraska wasn’t interested, and I am not sure who was.
The rationale for expansion is even weaker now, because they can never again get the uptick from a CCG. Any addition needs to stand on its own merits. And every addition has an opportunity cost, since there is probably some point past which they can no longer expand.
So I don’t think they’ll take the two best teams on the board, no matter who they are. If the two best are not good enough, by whatever definition, then they’ll do nothing.
The B12 GOR is not particularly restrictive, if you read it. . . it’s the B12 Bylaws that are the problem in that it is the Bylaws that contain the ferocious forfeiture language. I can see no way around the Bylaws except via buyout or league dissolution (unlikely).
I don’t recall seeing a copy of the GOR, but I agree with your bottom line. Whether it’s the GOR, the bylaws, or a combination of the two, no school is going to try to get out of it this early. Maybe when there’s a year or two to go, but not before.
LikeLike
I think you’re mistaken about the GOR. Penalties are s speed bump compared to the mountain of a GOR. Penalties have stopped no one from leaving. A GOR has yet to be broken, and it may not be in anyone’s best interest to prove that it can be (if it can be).
You don’t think the PAC (in their own interest) wouldn’t have arranged to have UT/OU in frequent competition with the Cali schools?
No. The pac16 champ from whatever division would be the Rosé Bowl rep, unless selected for the BCS, or now “playoff”.
LikeLike
You don’t think the PAC (in their own interest) wouldn’t have arranged to have UT/OU in frequent competition with the Cali schools?
No. The pac16 champ from whatever division would be the Rosé Bowl rep, unless selected for the BCS, or now “playoff.”
At the very least, a Pac-16 would be perfect for a pod system — Northwest (UO, OrSU, UW, WSU), California (Cal, Stan, SC, UCLA), Mountain (Ariz., ASU, Colo., Utah), Southwest (Okla., OkSU, UT, TT). How they would set up those 8th and 9th conference games would be left for them to decide.
LikeLike
I’m not even sure a grant of rights enforces anything. It’s more of a line in the sand that no one has yet dared to cross.
LikeLike
It “enforces” the retaining of all home media money by the conference for the term of the grant. Huge cost at the beginning, not so much near the end.
LikeLike
I’ll see if I can put up a link to the purported B12 GOR.
For now, let me paraphrase what it says. The GOR says that for all home B12 games, the B12, through the networks, collects all money for each school. At the point when disbursements are to be made, disbursements are made. Period.
In other words, there is no forfeiture language in the actual GOR whatsoever. Zero. Nada. The entire B12 GOR is about 3 pages long. It’s a fairly simple, straight-forward contract.
Furthermore, given the way the B12 television contract is structured, each school retains full television payment for one Tier 3 home football game and 8 home basketball games. This is the so-called “Tier 3 retention”, unique to the B12, which has been the source of much discussion over the past couple of years.
With this in mind, and for purposes of illustration, let’s assume Texas joined the B1G prior to the expiration of the GOR (and not taking into account the B12 Bylaws). Since there is no forfeiture in the B12 GOR, under the GOR Texas is entitled to its full share of TV revenue collected by the B12 each year.
That would mean that the television revenue for Texas’ home games (less the one retained Tier 3 home game), which would include some B1G games that are played in Austin, would be paid to the B12, calculated into the B12’s gross television revenues, and disbursed to B12 schools, including Texas, at the time of disbursement.
Obviously this B12 revenue could be paid over the the B1G, and Texas reimbursed from gross B1G television revenue according to some negotiated formula. Note that all Texas’ away games would produce revenue for the B1G since away games are the property of the home school, not the B12 GOR. Furthermore, Texas would still be able to produce revenue for the one retained Tier 3 game, which is not necessarily a “bad” game when you consider that Texas packs in 100,000 for virtually all home games, and, as such, is always televised.
To summarize, the B1G would likely receive:
1. Texas’ yearly B12 GOR revenue disbursements.
2. All Texas’ away television revenue.
3. Texas’ one Tier 3 home football television revenue (plus 8 basketball games.
4. Texas receives a sum of money to be negotiated, plus, presumably, its LHN.
While the GOR is not exactly benign, it is not the show-stopper that many think it is. The show-stopper is the B12 Bylaws.
When the GOR was signed, the B12 changed the Bylaws. The Bylaws say that all television revenue is “forfeited” (Bylaw terminology) for the remaining term of the GOR if any school leaves the B12 prior to the GOR’s expiration. I personally question whether a private entity (the B12) can work a forfeiture of future unearned revenue from the sovereign (a state school), but probably this is some weak tea legally.
Interestingly, the B12 Bylaws provide that a school forfeits its GOR revenue if it so much as talks to another league, or, if a majority of the other B12 schools think the target school is talking to another league. Talk about some ferocious Bylaws!
LikeLike
It would be nice if you can find a link to the GOR, but it hardly matters, right? We all agree that some combination of the GOR and the bylaws make it practically impossible for Texas to move, without a long legal battle, the results of which no one can confidently predict.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, my link is no good. However, I do have my copy of the GOR and relevant sections of the B12 Bylaws, along with some of my thoughts and commentary. Here ya go:
First, we all owe Kyle Lamb a debt of thanks for obtaining and publishing the B12 GOR.
Assuming Kyle’s GOR to be an accurate copy of the B12 GOR, and I have absolutely no reason to conclude otherwise, to me, the most important take-away from the GOR is section 8, entitled “Acknowledgment”, because that section is clear that this GOR does not impose any kind of forfeiture of future, unearned revenue for any school that might leave the B12. Any departing school would remain subject to the GOR, but assuming performance on the part of the departing school, that school would still receive its share of conference revenue until the school is released from the GOR. Release could occur by consent from all B12 schools (probably not likely without a significant buyout) or by termination of the GOR in June 2025.
Other important provisions appear in sections 4 and 5, which protect a departing school’s Tier 3 rights and revenues. The GOR is clear that it pertains to a school’s home games only, but not the school’s Tier 3 football game (or its Tier 3 basketball games).
What follows is the exact language of the B12 GOR, provided by Kyle Lamb, with my stab at commentary where I think same is pertinent. Your thoughts and comments are invited whether you agree with mine or not, so don’t be shy.
The Big 12 Bylaws that pertain to the GOR are short, and it is these bylaws which contain the forfeiture language.
************************************************************************
Here are the Big 12 Bylaws, key points:
Section 1.4.1. “Rights of Members. Except for any Member that has Withdrawn (as defined below), or is subject to Sanctions (as defined below) to the contrary with respect to any right, each Member, in its capacity as a member of the Conference, shall have the right and obligation, and only the right, to: (i) certify to the Conference the name of its Chief Executive Officer (as defined below) and have such individual automatically appointed to serve as a Director on the Board of Directors; (ii) receive distributions of Conference revenue in accordance with these Bylaws and the Rules; and (iii) participate in Conference athletic events in accordance with these Bylaws and the Rules.”
SECTION 3
WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.
************************************************************************
AMENDED AND RESTATED
GRANT OF RIGHTS AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED GRANT OF RIGHTS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is executed on September 7, 2012, effective as of July 1, 2012, by and among The Big Twelve Conference, Inc., a Delaware not-for-profit corporation (the “Conference”), and (i) each of the following entities: Baylor University, a Texas non-profit corporation; Iowa State University of Science and Technology, an institution of the State of Iowa; Kansas State University, an institution of higher education and an agency of the State of Kansas; Oklahoma State University, an institution corporate under the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma; Texas Christian University, a Texas non-profit corporation; Texas Tech University, an institution of higher education in the State of Texas; The University of Kansas, an institution of higher education and an agency of the State of Kansas; The Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma, a constitutional entity of the State of Oklahoma; The University of Texas at Austin, a Texas public institution of higher education; and the West Virginia University Board of Governors, on behalf of West Virginia University (collectively, the “Current Members”), and (ii) any entities that are admitted as new members of the Conference hereafter and which become bound by this Agreement by executing a signature page or joinder agreement hereto as a condition to such admission (the “Additional Members” and, together with the Current Members, each a “Member Institution” and collectively, the “Member Institutions”).
WHEREAS, the Conference and each of the Current Members entered into, or upon joining the Conference as members became parties to, that certain Grant of Rights Agreement dated November 1, 2011 (the “Original Grant of Rights Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, each of the Current Members irrevocably granted to the Conference certain of their rights through June 30, 2018;
WHEREAS, contemporaneous with the execution of this Agreement, the Conference is entering into: (i) that certain Amended and Restated Agreement with American Broad-casting Companies, Inc., ESPN, Inc., and ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ESPN/ABC”) effective as of July 1, 2012 (the “ESPN/ABC Agreement”); and (ii) that certain Amended and Restated Telecast Rights Agreement with FOX Cable Networks, Inc. and FOX Broadcasting Company (collectively, “FOX”) effective as of July 1, 2012 (the “FOX Agreement” and together with the ESPN/ABC Agreement, the “Telecast Rights Agreements”);
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Conference (the “Board”) has authorized and approved the Conference’s execution of the Telecast Rights Agreements;
WHEREAS, as a condition to the agreement of ESPN/ABC and FOX (collectively the
“Telecast Partners”) to execute the Telecast Rights Agreements, each of the Member Institutions is required to, and desires to, irrevocably grant to the Conference, and the Conference desires to accept from each of the Member Institutions, certain rights granted by the Conference to the Telecast Partners pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements, on the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Conference and each of the Member Institutions desire to acknowledge that all Retained Rights (as defined below) of the Member Institutions are retained by the Member Institutions and are not granted to the Conference; and
[Commentary: This clause refers to various Tier 3 revenues, including, as will be made clear further below, television Tier 3 for one home football game and the requisite basketball games.]
WHEREAS, the Conference and each of the Current Members desire to amend, restate, and supersede the Original Grant of Rights Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein, effective as of July 1, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the covenants set forth herein and in the Telecast Rights Agreements, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the undersigned each hereby agree with the Conference and with each other as follows:
1. Grant of Rights. Subject to paragraph 4 hereof, each of the Member Institutions here-by (a) irrevocably grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the “Rights”) necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and (b) agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution that are expressly set forth in a Telecast Rights Agreement. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 includes, without limitation, (A) the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the Telecast Rights Agreements;
[Commentary: We do not have a copy of the “Telecast Rights Agreements” (TRA), and that’s too bad because obviously the TRA contains additional im-portant contractual provisions.]
(B) subject to paragraph 9 hereof, the right to access such Member Institution’s facilities for the purposes set forth in and pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements; (C) the right of the Conference to create and to own a copyright of the audiovisual work of the Selected Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements) of or involving such Member Institutions (the “Works”) with such rights being, at least, coextensive with 17 U.S.C. 411(c);
[Commentary: 17 U.S.C. 411(c) pertains mainly to suing for copyright violations.]
and (D) the present assignment of the entire right, title and interest in the Works that are created under the Telecast Rights Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt (1) the term “Rights” shall not include any Retained Rights or any other rights granted to or reserved by a Member Institution pursuant to any Telecast Rights Agreement and (2) the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall not be deemed to encompass or accomplish the assignment of an ownership interest in copyrights otherwise owned by a Member Institution. The Conference and each Member Institution acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, including, without limitation, the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1, shall not be interpreted or construed as an agreement, understanding or commitment by a Member Institution to grant to a Telecast Partner any right or license to distribute Member Institution Ancillary Programming (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements).
[Commentary: Again, we do not have a copy of the “Telecast Rights Agreements” (TRA). The TRA contains provisions dealing with Tier 3 matters, including television Tier 3 football and basketball game, which is made clear in section 4 below. The last sentence of this clause repeats that the member school “owns” its Tier 3 property rights as “Ancillary Programming”.]
2. Copyright Assignment and License. The Conference and each of the Member Insti-tutions acknowledge that the Conference owns or will own the copyrights to the Works. Each Member Institution hereby grants to the Conference the right to create a copyright Work and, for the entire duration of the applicable event, the copyright in such Works.
[Commentary: The terms used are “Conference owns”, but then it goes on to say only for the “entire duration of the applicable event”. I am not sure how to construe this language. Your thoughts?]
Effective immediately after the conclusion of each Selected Game, the Conference here-by assigns to each Member Institution that is the home Member Institution for such event any and all of the Conference’s rights in and to the copyrights in the Works for such event,
[Commentary: This clause sets forth that it is home games that are the subject of the GOR.]
and such Member Institution hereby grants to the Conference and the other participating Member Institution for each such event (i.e., the away Member Institution) a royalty-free, non-exclusive, limited right and license to use any such Works during the period that such Member Institutions are members of the Conference, which assignment and license in each case are subject in all respects to the use and other restrictions and rights set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements, which use and other restrictions each Member Institution agrees to comply with in all respects. Additionally, the Conference has or will have a license from the Telecast Partners to utilize certain associated elements (pre and post game production, halftime and other non-game elements) and herein sublicenses, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive basis, those associated elements to home and away Member Institutions. The Conference shall have the right to seek relief under 17 U.S.C. 411(c) for any interference with the Conference’s federal copyright ownership interest in the Works created and/or Works to be created under the Telecast Rights Agreements until such time as the Conference assigns to the home Member Institution its rights in and to the copyrights in the Works for an event in accordance with this Section 2, and after such assignment the Conference may exercise such right only after such home Member Institution consents thereto. Each Member Institution agrees to cooperate with the Conference in any such action, but at the Conference’s sole expense. For the avoidance of doubt, the Conference’s right to bring actions under 17 U.S.C. 411(c) with respect to the Works shall be non-exclusive with respect to the home Member Institution’s concurrent right to bring such actions (if and to the extent permitted under 17 U.S.C. 411(c)). The rights assigned include, but are not limited to, all rights under the United States and/or foreign copyright laws; all reproduction, performance, display, distribution, and other intellectual property rights; the right to modify, distort, or alter the Works and future Works; and also-called moral rights. To the extent moral rights may not be assigned, each Member Institution hereby waives the benefit of protection of same.
[Commentary: I have no idea what is meant by the terms “moral rights”, but I appreciate the lawyering in “waiving” the “benefit of protection” of same. Very clever language.]
3. Execution of Additional Documents; Registration, Maintenance of Copyrights. Each party hereto hereby agrees to execute and deliver all documents reasonably requested by another party hereto to effectuate the intent of this Agreement, at the requesting party’s expense. If requested by a Member Institution, the Conference will assist that Member Institution in preparing, filing and maintaining with the United States Copyright Office (and other similar government offices requested by that Member Institution) the copyright applications and registrations related to the Works to be assigned to that Member Institution after the conclusion of the event. If the Conference provides such assistance to a Member Institution, then such Member Institution shall reimburse the Conference for any documented out-of-pocket expenses the Conference incurs in providing such assistance.
4. Retained Rights. The Conference and the Member Institutions acknowledge and agree that each Member Institution retains all such Member Institution’s Retained Rights. For the avoidance of doubt, no Retained Rights are granted to the Conference pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise, and no other rights are granted to the Conference pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise, that would limit, reduce or impair any Member Institution’s Retained Rights. “Retained Rights” means, collectively, each Member Institution’s rights to produce, distribute and otherwise exploit the following via its Permitted Member Institution Outlet(s) (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements) on a worldwide basis throughout the Term: (a) any Member Institution Retained Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements);
[Commentary: Clause (a) makes it clear that television Tier 3 rights are governed by the TRA.]
(b) highlights and re-telecasts of Selected Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements); (c) ancillary sports-related programming (including without limitation coaches’ shows, sports highlight shows, and magazine-style shows); (d) non-athletics programming; and (e) any and all content and programming not expressly granted to a Telecast Partner in the Telecast Rights Agreements.
[Commentary: Clauses (b) through (e) applies to programming subject to each school’s Tier 3 rights; ownership of which remains with each school and is not subject to the GOR.]
Should circumstances dictate, the Conference may propose inclusion of certain Retained Rights in Telecast Rights Agreements and Member Institutions will consider such proposals in good faith; provided, that a Member Institution may grant or withhold inclusion of its Retained Rights in any Telecast Rights Agreement in its sole discretion. The Conference shall not, however, take any action that, directly or indirectly, limits reduces or otherwise impairs a Member Institution’s Retained Rights or Permitted Member Institution Outlet(s) without the prior written consent of all Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference.
[Commentary: I think these sentences prohibit a majority of B12 schools ganging up on a single or a minority of B12 schools. For example, if a school left the B12 to go to another conference while the GOR is in place, the remaining B12 schools could not affect the departing school’s Tier 3 retained rights without the consent of the departing school.]
5. Amendment of the Telecast Rights Agreements. The Board, after consultation with each of the Member Institutions, must approve any amendment, modification, extension, renewal or replacement of any Telecast Rights Agreement in accordance with the Conference’s Bylaws (the “Bylaws”); provided, that the Conference shall not enter into any amendment, modification, extension, renewal or replacement of any Telecast Rights Agreement that grants rights to any Telecast Partner that are more favorable to the Telecast Partner, or imposes obligations or conditions on any Member Institution that are more restrictive to such Member Institution, than those set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements as in effect on the Effective Date (as defined below) without the prior written consent of all Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference.
[Commentary: Again, if a school left the B12 to go to another conference while the GOR is in place, the remaining B12 schools could not enact a different TRA to “punish” the departing school without the consent of the departing school. The TRA is a critical document, which, unfortunately, we do not have a copy of, and cannot therefore analyze same.]
6. Additional Members. The Conference shall not admit a new member to the Confer-ence unless and until (a) such new member agrees to become bound by this Agreement by executing a signature paper or joinder agreement hereto as a condition to such admission and (b) grants to the Conference pursuant to this Agreement all Rights of such Member Institution.
[Commentary: If you are not a member of the B12, but want to join the B12, you have to agree to the B12 GOR.]
7. Term. The “Term” of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until June 30, 2025.
[Commentary: This appears to be the most current version of the B12 GOR since it expires on June 30, 2025. That is, this GOR is the GOR that was recently extended.]
The “Effective Date” means (a) for the Current Members, July 1, 2012, and (b) for any Member Institution other than the Current Members, the date on which it becomes a Member Institution admitted to membership in the Conference in accordance with the Bylaws and this Agreement. At the end of the Term or upon other termination of this Agreement, the Rights granted by a Member Institution to the Conference hereunder shall automatically revert to such Member Institution.
8. Acknowledgement. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire Term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term re-gardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a full member of the Conference in accordance with the Bylaws.
[Commentary: IMO, this section is the most important part of the B12 GOR because it is clear that this GOR is not a “forfeiture GOR”. That is, a school may depart from the B12 for another conference if it wants to, but the revenue from, and production of, its home games, save its televi-sion Tier 3 football game (and Tier 3 basketball games), is paid over to the B12 for eventual distribution to the participants of the GOR, including the school (or schools) that leaves the B12 for another conference.]
9. Reasonable Access. Without any additional consideration or compensation to the Member Institutions, each of the Member Institutions agrees throughout the Term to provide the Telecast Partners with reasonable access to its property and facilities, with appropriate ingress and egress, parking, facilities, utilities and lighting, and other support and assistance reasonably required by the Telecast Partners to exercise the Rights as and to the extent provided in the Telecast Rights Agreements.
10. Miscellaneous. This Agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then Members of the Conference.
[Commentary: This provision seems to say that the GOR may be changed by “then Members of the Conference”, emphasis added. If a school leaves the B12 for another conference, it would seem from the plain language of this clause that the remaining B12 members could change the GOR, but probably not television Tier 3 or the TRA, referenced above in sections 4 and 5, due to the rule of contract construction wherein specific clauses rule over general clauses. Mischief and lawsuits could emanate from this ”then Members” provision, however, as it appears to conflict with sections 4 and 5.]
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and delivered by electronic or facsimile transmission. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and, effective as of July 1, 2012, supersedes all prior agreements and understandings among or between any of the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, including without limitation the Original Grant of Rights Agreement.
[This page is intentionally left blank]
[Names of signers on last page]
LikeLike
@XOVERX – I don’t read the acknowledgment clause the same way. Conference distributions such as TV revenue are governed by the bylaws and that document explicitly states that a withdrawing school will not receive any revenue from the rights that it has granted as part of the GOR. So, that acknowledgment clause taken together with the bylaws has the effect of the withdrawing school not receiving any TV revenue for games subject to the GOR for the entire GOR period.
LikeLike
XOVERX:
“Since there is no forfeiture in the B12 GOR, under the GOR Texas is entitled to its full share of TV revenue collected by the B12 each year.”
The GOR, by defination, is forfeiture. A school no longer in a conference is not entitled to conference distributions. That is what it means to grant the rights to the conference. The grantor has given away those rights for the duration of the agreement. A GOR that leaves UT entitled to its full share simply is not a GOR but is a worthless assemblage of words.
LikeLike
And what you are missing is that the Big 10 would lose conference games to the Big 12. Ohio St. at Texas would be on the Big 12 TV package if the GOR is enforceable. That is simply an unacceptable risk to the Big 10 and to their TV provider. A GOR has risk to the acquiring conference, not just to the school leaving.
Some common sense questions on any GOR will be voided or bought out discussion:
Why didn’t they invite them before the GOR?
Why didn’t they leave before the GOR?
If the Big 10 can wait 20 years to add 12 and a ccg, why wouldn’t they wait 10-15 years so they don’t have to mess with a GOR?
LikeLike
“And what you are missing is that the Big 10 would lose conference games to the Big 12. Ohio St. at Texas would be on the Big 12 TV package if the GOR is enforceable. ”
I agree. An argument can be made that scheduling more away games, or only playing kings away, “might” be enough to create an offset of the media income. But that doesn’t account for what UT would lose in gate and game day revenue which is still significantly more than the media revenue attributed to those games.
LikeLike
Sorry for the confusion, guys, but my comments and commentary on the GOR in the post above was written by myself at a time that preceded my knowledge of the existence of the Bylaws problem.
I simply noticed early this morning that Shepherd seemed to want to read the GOR, and then I remembered that I had copied the GOR, along with part of the Bylaws, and a prior post from another site, so I threw the whole thing up before hitting the salt mine.
Without the Bylaws I think my interpretation of the GOR is correct as appears in my post upthread. With the Bylaws, however, it appears pretty ironclad that a B12 school forfeits the television revenue. So, yea, I agree with Frank and Shepherd that the two documents taken together = television forfeiture.
Re-reading that post tonight, I also notice that I didn’t copy the sanctions portion of the Bylaws because that’s where the really ugly forfeiture language lives. I mean, the sanctions are really ugly. If you’re interested the sanctions portion of the Bylaws they can be found with google.
At any rate, without the Bylaws I don’t think the GOR is an insurmountable obstacle to a B12 school changing leagues. It’s not completely benign, no, due to the problem pointed out by cc and bullet, but without the Bylaws a significant portion of the revenue for B1G schools playing at Austin would be recouped during the disbursement of the GOR.
But then, the Bylaws do exist and they must be read in conjunction with the GOR, and that joint reading is not good. That’s why I say the league must either (a) disband, (b) a buyout arranged, or (c) sue on some kind of theory, and the only theory I can think of is some kind of “private entities can’t forfeit money of the sovereign”. While the lawsuit theory is weak, it’s also moot because Texas is not going to file a lawsuit over the GOR/Bylaws IMO.
Having said all this, I repeat: It is my opinion that Texas can be had. Most Texas folks are becoming increasingly apoplectic over aggy ascendency (rational or not) and we’re not going to accept A&M “catching up” (so to speak) by embracing the status quo.
What does that mean for the B1G? I don’t know. I just know there is a window of opportunity to lay a foundation for the future. Is it too attenuated? Perhaps. But there is a new thinking in Texas that has never before existed. Take FWIW.
Thanks for everyone’s feedback.
LikeLike
XOVERX,
I am curious as to how the Big Ten could work closer with Texas w/o Texas switching conferences. Would more OOC games against them be a good idea? Last I looked, Dodds seems to have a great affinity with ND, which might explain in a recent YT video how he thought the ACC would be a good home for them if the B12 had completely collapsed.
IMO, if we can’t bring Texas and Oklahoma on board, the next best thing would have been a B1G/B12 football challenge every three years. This would be a good excuse to bring B1G teams to play critical games in the state of Texas for recruiting purposes. Say what you will about TCU and BU but they’re located in some key areas in northern and central Texas. If Houston had been in the B12, it would have nice to have B1G teams get some good exposure in that area as well. Iowa State already plays Iowa, so that part is covered. Somebody has to play WV. RU could fill that spot, as they’ve had a history together in the old Big East. Nebraska renews its war with Oklahoma, so that’s covered. I would like Texas to rotate between Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, home and away, so as to keep the challenge fresh. As for the rest:
Kansas – Here I see Illinois or Northwestern. Distance wouldn’t be too great from their standpoint
TCU – Wisconsin or Michigan State
Baylor – see above
Tech – least attractive from my standpoint. Minnesota just played at New Mexico St this year. So them playing the Red Raiders is not far-fetched
OK St – Purdue
Kansas State – Indiana
LikeLike
vp19: A PAC pod system might have worked well, it’s true. But that wasn’t the deal back in 2010.
The PAC deal was for the old PAC8 schools to have its own division (those schools were giddy over the recreation of the PAC8), with AZ, ASU, and CU shifting over into the new division (which I derisively called then, and now, the “desert division”) with the B12 schools. There would be interdivision play, but the interdivision schedule worked out to a home-and-home something like every 8 years or something. Pods were simply not part of the equation at all, which really had me scratching my head.
It was a crap deal for Texas, IMO. I was actually depressed Texas had gotten suckered into such a bad deal. I couldn’t believe it. We were actually joining a league where many of our conference members would be ending their games at 1 or 2 in the morning on Sundays. Can you imagine? When I woke up on Monday and learned the deal had cratered, I was a very happy man. Thank you Colorado and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Having said all this, I repeat: It is my opinion that Texas can be had. Most Texas folks are becoming increasingly apoplectic over aggy ascendency (rational or not) and we’re not going to accept A&M “catching up” (so to speak) by embracing the status quo.
Fine, but the price you’re going to have to pay is to learn how to play with others and cede some authority, or at least your alpha dog status; that isn’t how the Big Ten works. If Austin isn’t willing to do that, I think most Big Ten (and Pac) would prefer to see UT wither on the vine in the Big 12, or flee to football semi-independence in the ACC a la Notre Dame. Yep, those football games with Wake and BC would really threaten aggy.
LikeLike
Having said all this, I repeat: It is my opinion that Texas can be had. Most Texas folks are becoming increasingly apoplectic over aggy ascendency (rational or not) and we’re not going to accept A&M “catching up” (so to speak) by embracing the status quo.
Texas can be had…how? It seems you agree that the GOR and the bylaws, taken together, are not breakable. Or at least, not breakable under any legal theory that UT and the B1G would be willing to test.
It seems therefore that both sides have to wait until the early/mid-2020s or so. They can meet for tea and crumpets all they want, but they can’t actually do anything, except maybe schedule some OOC games, which of course they could’ve always done.
By then we’ll all know whether Aggie ascendancy is permanent or merely a temporary blip. A&M is obviously in better shape in the SEC, but we’ll see if they’re consistent winners post-Manziel. I am not so sure about that.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/10/24/Media/NFL-Thursday.aspx?app_data=%22pi%22%3A%2238048_1382633097_736088441%22%2C%22pt%22%3A%22twitter%22
8 game Thursday night NFL package could be worth up to $700 million a year.
LikeLike
@frug – That plan makes a whole lot more sense than having Thursday night doubleheaders. TNT would love it – they could get the early season games and lead them right into their NBA coverage. FS1 and NBCSN would kill for those games, too.
LikeLike
These kind of numbers are what I think of when I make the case that colleges aren’t close to pro income levels. Just because entire conferences can command what looks like big bucks (spread over more than a decade, and for multiple sports), colleges are simply not in the same area code as professional sports, not even really on the same continent.
LikeLike
Jesus H Christ – Mizzou pulled a Mizzou. They’ll still have a nice season. Injuries, injuries, injuries, seem to mark the ups and downs of the SEC, especially, this year.
LikeLike
Hate to see a team lose on a kick off the cross-bar. Hate to see Spurrier win. But since I root for UGA also, I’ll take it. Had they won that one, they would only have needed 2 out of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ole Miss and A&M even assuming the UGA/Florida winner won out (in other words 1 out of TN, MS and A&M). Announcers jinxed the kicker talking about SC’s being a freshman and the Missouri kicker a veteran.
LikeLike
S.Car played terribly. Here is a drive summary:
punt
punt
missed FG
Davis fumble lost
Davis fumble lost
Thompson Intercepted
over on downs; stuffed on a 4th and 1 rush
over on downs; incomplete pass on 4th and 6
punt
TD (needed a 4th down conversion; got 10 on 4th and 4)
FG
TD to tie it.
1OT
Mizzou gets a TD with four rushes, 13, 3, 8 and 1 yards.
S.Car. Pass for 16, sacked -6, incomplete pass, incomplete pass, pass for TD
2OT
S.Car: incomplete pass; pass for 3; incomplete pass; FG
Mizzou: rush for 17, rush for 0, incomplete pass, rush for 2; FG NO GOOD.
S.Car did not deserve to win that game.
LikeLike
“S.Car did not deserve to win that game.”
True, but Mizzou deserved to lose it.
LikeLike
Mizzou’s playing without their senior star QB, James Franklin, and is playing with a RSFR QB who obviously needs some work. He had a rough game.
SC struggled until they brought their starter, Conner Shaw, back in. He didn’t look too hurt to me. Played like a champ in OT. 4th and goal on the 18 in OT and somehow he gets the TD to send it to double OT.
If we had James Franklin in there it might have been a different story.
I can’t complain though b/c Mizzou has been facing teams with injury issues for the last few weeks. This week was our turn to get bit by it.
Mizzou’s all SEC safety was out for this game too, among others.
There have been a ridiculous amount of injuries in the SEC this year.
LikeLike
A gutty Performance by Shaw is why South Carolina won. 4th & Goal from the 15 in OT says it all. Great Comeback. Watching Fresno now, very underrated team.
LikeLike
I’m still trying to figure out why Shaw didn’t start the game. USCe would’ve won it fairly easily if Spurrier hadn’t started Thompson.
LikeLike
Evidently he thought he wouldn’t need to. Shaw is at risk of reinjury. Spurrier was hoping he could take care of Mizzou without using Shaw, but he couldn’t do it.
Mauk did great for Mizzou against Florida, but he struggled pretty badly in this game. Franklin is supposed to be back in 1-3 weeks. I hope it’s sooner.
LikeLike
I keep hearing that, but wasn’t he only 18/36 passing? He may have made some good plays, but 50% completions doesn’t strike me as outstanding.
LikeLike
295 yards passing in his first ever start against a top 3 nationally ranked defense is pretty good.
Yeah, his decision making needs improvement. Makes a lot of dumb throws. The sooner James Franklin gets healthy the better.
LikeLike
One of the worst performances in Penn State History. I do not think we could have beaten U Conn tonight. I expected a loss after the Michigan Game but not this. Speaking of bad, is there a worse School than Southern Mississippi? Winless last year, winless this year, and beat 55-14 in back to back weeks?
LikeLike
One of the worst performances in Penn State History. I do not think we could have beaten U Conn tonight. I expected a loss after the Michigan Game but not this.
Penn State is playing with FCS scholarship levels. Ohio State should be a mismatch. Michigan frankly should too, if the Wolverines hadn’t choked away that game.
LikeLike
I’d like to think OSU deserves a little credit for PSU’s (lack of) performance.
LikeLike
Rice makes front page of ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9887475/jayson-carter-4-foot-9-walk-debuts-rice-owls
LikeLike
Bravo!
LikeLike
Rice is also bowl eligible.
Yay Loki!
LikeLike
Looks like Tulane and Rice are on a collision course for the CUSA west title. Both 4-0 in conference.
LikeLike
A hat tip to Minnesota. People up here knew Kill could coach, but his ongoing battle with epilepsy has clearly been a distraction. I’m not saying Minnesota beats Michigan or Iowa in a rematch, but Kill was not himself in the Iowa game and didn’t even attend the Michigan game.
Ski-U-Mah has found a nice formula – put Kill (aka Jerrysota) in the birds-eye-booth and trust Tracy Claeys on the sidelines. Kill’s stress levels seem to have diminished and he can decode the other team’s game planning. Looking forward to our matchup with IU. Bowl eligible we are.
Now let’s beat BC on the rink today, we lost that damn shootout on Friday, despite dominating the latter 3rd and OT.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2013/team/
Looks like Sagarin changed his rankings again this week. Now he has a “DIMIN_CURVE” (which I believe is new) and it appears that he may have altered his formulas.
LikeLike
Jerry Palm rips into Sagarin because he keeps changing his formula (which is secret) and hasn’t explained himself.
I certainly think that the experts should keep looking for ways to improve the computer formulas, but changing them mid-season is a dubious practice.
LikeLike
Well the new formula he added clearly wasn’t working in football. He needed to change it.
LikeLike
Having broken it…yeah, he clearly had to fix it. But the fact that that could occur mid-season is troubling.
If I had been doing this as long as Sagarin, I’d only change my formula during the off-season, and then I’d run a full regression on several years’ worth of data to make sure it really worked.
LikeLike
Only the final rankings matter, so I don’t have a big problem with him changing it now. I agree that it should be done in the offseason, but this may as well be the offseason with over a month left before his rankings matter.
My issue is that he can make changes and the BCS can’t vet his system for errors. What if he changes before the final week and makes a programming error? Who can catch it in time?
LikeLike
They’ve had errors before in the final rankings. One time it was enough that it placed LSU in front of Boise. The only reason it was found was that it was one of the transparent systems. He used a wrong data set for scores.
They don’t seem to care. Billingsley has some really absurd results but they keep him in. Colley’s was brand new when they included him.
LikeLike
Of course this week he has Northern Illinois #3. Not as bad as Bethune-Cookman at #4, but that still seems a bit high to say the least.
LikeLike
frug,
“Looks like Sagarin changed his rankings again this week. Now he has a “DIMIN_CURVE” (which I believe is new) and it appears that he may have altered his formulas.”
Didn’t he rename the “ELO Score,” which he just introduced last week, to “DIMIN CURVE?” It’s description is the same. It may be slightly tweaked, but not much different.
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 9 run with SoS rank mid season point +2 :
first numbers are Sagarin Rank by week (preseason included)
school name in between
last numbers are Sagarin SoS by week (weakest SoS in group in BOLD)
ACC – Atlantic
018 014 011 008 004 005 003 003 Florida State – 41 / 25 / 70 / 108 / 73 / 57 / 51
002 003 Florida State 42 / 68
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 Clemson 45 / 39
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 Maryland 94 / 83
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 Syracuse 39 / 38
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 Boston College 26 / 22
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 North Carolina State 117 / 87
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 Wake Forest 102 / 85
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 Miami (FL) 75 / 82
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 Virginia Tech 37 / 37
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 Georgia Tech 29 / 35
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 Pittsburgh 57 / 42
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 Duke 92 / 80
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 North Carolina 4 / 18
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 Virginia 35 / 31
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 Ohio State 76 / 69
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 Wisconsin 83 / 90
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 Penn State 63 / 36
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 Indiana 27 / 33
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 Illinois 40 / 34
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 Purdue 21 / 20
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 Michigan State 104 / 92
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 Michigan 85 / 84
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 Nebraska 119 / 110
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 Iowa 47 / 43
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 Northwestern 81 / 59
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 Minnesota 103 / 89
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 Baylor 100 / 96
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 Oklahoma 56 / 44
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 Texas Tech 87 / 79
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 Oklahoma State 54 / 52
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 Texas 18 / 13
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 Texas Christian 8 / 10 Top 10 SoS
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 Kansas State 12 / 19
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 Iowa State 15 / 7 Top 10 SoS
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 West Virginia 14 / 8 Top 10 SoS
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 Kansas 36 / 24
.
PAC – North
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 Oregon 68 / 54
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 Washington 3 / 16
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 Stanford 11 / 9 Top 10 SoS
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 Oregon State 74 / 60
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 Washington State 16 / 15
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 California 10 / 3 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 UCLA 50 / 28
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 Arizona State 13 / 12
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9 Top
035 039 Utah 5 / 4 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 Arizona 55 / 55
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 Southern Cal 22 / 23
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 Colorado 31 / 26
.
SEC – East
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 Missouri 30 / 29
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 Florida 7 / 14
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 Georgia 2 / 1 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 South Carolina 20 / 11
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 Tennessee 25 / 5 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 Vanderbilt 46 / 25
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 Kentucky 6 / 6 Top 10 SoS
SEC – West
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 Alabama 43 / 41
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 Louisiana State 9 / 30
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 Texas A&M 28 / 32
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 Auburn 33 / 51
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 Mississippi 1 / 2 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 Mississippi State 34 / 58
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 Arkansas 17 / 17
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (8 teams) after Week #9 : 8 of 125 = 06.40% of total :
Big 5 schools 6 of 62 = 09.68% of population : 6 of 125 = 04.80% of total
ACC = 02 of 14 => 14.29% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> Miami (FL)
B 12 = 01 of 10 => 10.00% : Baylor
B1G = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : Legends -> NONE \\\\//// Leaders -> Ohio State
PAC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : North -> Oregon \\\\//// South -> NONE
SEC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Alabama
Non Big 5 schools 02 of 63 = 03.17% of population : 02 of 125 = 01.60% of total
MWC = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 01 of 13 => 07.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 00 of 10 => 00.00% : NONE
IND = 00 of 06 => 00.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 00.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 00.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 7 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : 7 – 0 Miami (FL)
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 8 – 0 Ohio State
B 12 : 7 – 0 Baylor
PAC North : 8 – 0 Oregon :::: PAC South : NONE
SEC East : NONE :::: SEC West : 8 – 0 Alabama
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 8 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 7 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #10 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs ACC
7-0 Miami @ 7-0 Florida State | Saturday 8:00 pm | ABC
B12 vs B12
NONE
B1G vs B1G
8-0 Ohio State @ 1-6 Purdue | Saturday 12:00 pm | BTN
MAC vs MAC
8-0 Northern Illinois @ 1-7 Massachusetts | Saturday 12:00 pm | ESPN3
MWC vs MWC
3-5 Nevada @ 7-0 Fresno State | Saturday 10:30 pm | ESPNU
PAC vs PAC
NONE
SEC vs SEC
NONE
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #10 ********
7-0 Baylor
8-0 Oregon
8-0 Alabama
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #9 ********
Missouri lost to South Carolina
Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#7) ********
AAC 6-0 Louisville
ACC 6-0 Clemson
ACC 6-1 Virginia Tech
B 12 6-0 Texas Tech
B1G 6-0 Ohio State
MAC 6-0 Northern Illinois
MAC 6-1 Ball State
PAC 6-0 Oregon
SEC 6-0 Missouri
SEC 6-0 Alabama
SEC 6-1 Louisiana State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#8) ********
ACC 6-0 Florida State
ACC 6-0 Miami
B 12 6-0 Baylor
B 12 6-1 Oklahoma
B1G 6-1 Michigan State
B1G 6-1 Michigan
MWC 6-0 Fresno State
PAC 6-1 Oregon State
PAC 6-1 Stanford
SEC 6-1 Auburn
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#9) ********
AAC 6-1 Houston
AAC 6-1 Central Florida
ACC 6-2 Duke
B 12 6-1 Oklahoma State
B1G 6-2 Minnesota
CUSA 6-2 Rice
CUSA 6-2 Tulane
IND 6-2 Brigham Young
IND 6-2 Notre Dame
MAC 6-2 Buffalo
MAC 6-2 Ohio
SEC 6-2 South Carolina
SEC 6-2 Texas A&M
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 8 according to Sagarin ************
(4) SEC / (3) PAC / (0) ACC / (3) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 Georgia (SEC) 4-3, 3-2
@ Clemson (ACC) + South Carolina + BYE + North Texas (CUSA) + Louisiana State
@ Tennessee + Missouri + @ Vanderbilt + BYE
02 Mississippi (SEC) 5-3, 2-3
@ Vanderbilt + SE Missouri State (FCS) + @ Texas (B 12) + BYE + @ Alabama
@ Auburn + Texas A&M + Louisiana State + Idaho (IND)
03 California (PAC) 1-7, 0-5
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland State (FCS) + Ohio State (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon
Washington State + @ UCLA + Oregon State + @ Washington
04 Utah (PAC) 4-4, 1-4
Utah State (MWC) + Weber State (FCS) + Oregon State + @ Brigham Young (IND)
BYE + UCLA + Stanford + @ Arizona + @ Southern California
05 Tennessee (SEC) 4-4, 1-3
Austin Peay (FCS) + Western Kentucky (Sun Belt) + @ Oregon (PAC) + @ Florida
South Alabama (FCS) + Georgia + BYE + South Carolina + @ Alabama
06 Kentucky (SEC) 1-6, 0-4
Western Kentucky (TN) (Sun Belt) + Miami (OH) (MAC) + Louisville (AAC) + BYE + Florida
@ South Carolina + Alabama + BYE + @ Mississippi State
07 Iowa State (B 12) 1-6, 0-4
Northern Iowa (FCS) + BYE + IOWA (B1G) + BYE + @ Tulsa (CUSA)
Texas + @ Texas Tech + @ Baylor + Oklahoma State
08 West Virginia (B 12) 3-5, 1-4
William & Mary (FCS) + @ Oklahoma + Georgia State (Sun Belt) + Maryland (ACC)
Oklahoma State + @ Baylor + BYE + Texas Tech + @ Kansas State
09 Stanford (PAC) 7-1, 5-1
BYE + San Jose State (MWC) + @ Army (IND) + Arizona State + @ Washington State
Washington + @ Utah + UCLA + @ Oregon State
10 Texas Christian (B 12) 3-5, 1-4
Louisiana State (SEC) + SE Louisiana (FCS) + @ Texas Tech + BYE
Southern Methodist (AAC) + @ Oklahoma + Kansas + @ Oklahoma State + Texas
LikeLike
Results of week #9
AP – Virginia Tech and Nebraska dropped out
AP – Michigan State and Arizona State moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #8 Auburn, #10 Missouri, #11 LSU, #12 TAMU, #14 South Carolina
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #17 UCLA, #25 Arizona State
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #22 Wisconsin, #23 Michigan, #24 Michigan State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #13 Oklahoma, #15 Texas Tech, #18 Oklahoma State
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Miami, #9 Clemson
(2) AAC : #19 Central Florida, #20 Louisville
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #21 Northern Illinois
Notre Dame (132) / Georgia (24) / BYU (22) / Texas (22) / Ole Miss (21) / Virginia Tech (20)
.
…
.
USA – Virginia Tech and Nebraska dropped out
USA – Michigan State and Notre Dame moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #10 Missouri, #11 Auburn, #13 LSU, #14 TAMU, #16 South Carolina
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #21 Michigan, #23 Wisconsin, #24 Michigan State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #9 Oklahoma, #12 Oklahoma State, #15 Texas Tech
(3) PAC : #2 Oregon, #7 Stanford, #19 UCLA
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #6 Miami (FL), #8 Clemson
(2) AAC : #17 Louisville, #22 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #18 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Arizona St (57) / VPI (53) / Texas (31) / Oregon St (22) / BYU (21) / Houston (21) / UGA (20)
.
…
.
Harris – Virginia Tech and Nebraska dropped out
Harris – Michigan State and Arizona State moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #9 Missouri, #11 Auburn, #12 LSU, #13 TAMU, #17 South Carolina
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #19 UCLA, #25 Arizona State
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #21 Michigan, #23 Michigan State, #24 Wisconsin
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma, #14 Texas Tech, #15 Oklahoma State
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Miami (FL), #8 Clemson
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #22 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #18 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
Notre Dame (91) / VPI (79) / Oregon St (62) / Georgia (50) / Texas (40) / Houston (38)
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 02
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #9 Missouri, #11 Auburn, #12 TAMU, #13 LSU, #14 South Carolina
(4) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #21 Michigan, #22 Michigan State, #24 Wisconsin
(4) B12 : #6 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma, #15 Texas Tech, #18 Oklahoma State
(3) PAC : #2 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #20 UCLA
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Miami (FL), #8 Clemson
(2) AAC : #19 Louisville, #23 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #17 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Dropped out : #14 Virginia Tech, #25 Oregon State, and #24 Nebraska
Moved in : #22 Michigan State, #24 Wisconsin, and #25 Notre Dame
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FOUR :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (4-4) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
ACC : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-1 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = FLORIDA STATE / MIAMI
ACC (6-6) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (0-1) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
B 12 : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = BAYLOR
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (4-4) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
PAC : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = OREGON
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (5-5) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (0-1) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 2-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = THREE :: U = ALABAMA
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (4-4) :::::::: FCS (1-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (1-0) : CUSA (1-0) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
.
B1G had 4 teams off and the SEC had 3. SEC also scheduled a FCS school
.
Observations :
Ohio State still undefeated and Sparty is 7-1 – the good
Northwestern has fallen and needs to get up – the bad
Sagarin is not liking the B1G SoS – the ugly
LikeLike
Interesting article on Nebraska’s decline:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20131026/HUSKERS/131028820/1685#chatelain-gophers-reverse-roles-on-once-vaunted-nebraska
LikeLike
Nebraska’s drop is another indicator that the BIG will have to shore up the western division. Nebraska does not have the natural resources (recruiting, location) to maintain elite status. The article is right; they could fall completely off the map. Facilities and tradition can only do so much. College football is about coaching and who you play as much as anything. Big games bring hype and thus big recruits. Case in point, the atmosphere at PSU versus Michigan two Saturdays ago was enough to sway recruits on the spot. You don’t get that kind of electricity without playing big time opponents. Nebraska will always have a strong fanbase but to get the national champion level recruits it has to have more big games in the future IMO.
LikeLike
The article gives the example of Minnesota, which proves it is possible for one of the sport’s kings to become one of its doormats. But the Gophers are the rare exception. Overwhelmingly, kings tend to remain kings.
Nebraska will always have a strong fanbase but to get the national champion level recruits it has to have more big games in the future IMO.
Aside from the Huskers themselves, the Big XII is a two-king league (UT, OU), the Big Ten is a three-king league (UM, OSU, PSU). They’ll have more big games in the Big Ten than they had before.
Nebraska will be fine once it gets the right coach.
LikeLike
The BIG is a better conference than the big 12 and the right coach does fix a lot but Nebraska needs to recruit out of state on a national level because of its poor recruiting grounds locally. That means they have to compete against the the national powerhouses and the SEC with these schools being much more closer to the actual recruits home. Most recruits stay locally but the elite ones have shown to be more mobile. The elite ones are drawn to hype and in today’s world that means ESPN.
The BIG needs to recognize the threat the SEC is posing to its football powers. The hype train, thru its partnership with ESPN which will only grow stronger in the SECN, is ridiculous. Look at current rankings. Texas A&M is the 12th ranked team in the nation with one win against an above .500 BCS team in ole miss. Auburn is ranked 8th overall because it beat the same Ole miss team and Texas A&M. The SEC will be able to close ranks and only play each other soon and not be harmed in the new playoff format. The only way the BIG will be able to compete with that hype is to create its own by staging huge games with giant name brands that ESPN must recognize. The east has it covered with three giant brands and a very good one in MSU. The west only has Nebraska and Wisconsin, two schools without much in local recruits. Those programs need as many big games as they can get.
LikeLike
All good points, but Nebraska’s rise again (with a new coach, as is evident now) will be fawningly covered by the ESPN hype machine. Remember, Nebraska got over 60,000 at its spring game (more than Texas)! Its a program with regional and national muscle that simply needs a new coach to right the ship.
The bigger question is if the school is willing to shell out the cash necessary to entice, say, Kirby Smart, or some other elite assistant to take the reigns.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – I do believe what you’re saying has some validity. There is a lot of focus on the demographics and markets of the east, but the west can’t be ignored. That’s still where the league’s most important market (Chicago) is located and Minneapolis is also the primary growing Midwest market that has avoided the demographic malaise of the Rust Belt (mainly because it was never really a Rust Belt city to begin with). I’ve argued that Kansas and Oklahoma would be an excellent expansion for the Big Ten regardless of how the divisions look, but one can’t also help but notice that the west division looks dramatically different in a positive way just by plugging OU in there. UVA plus UNC or Duke would be wonderful from the academic side along with adding pure markets on paper, but OU and KU would be pretty massive from an athletic standpoint (both football and basketball).
When I say “think like a university president”, that doesn’t mean that ignoring the realities of football power. That football power is what makes expansion and all of that TV money possible and, maybe more importantly, secures that money in a future where TV may no longer be the dominant media medium and markets aren’t as important.
LikeLike
Exactly what sort of threat does the SEC pose to the Big Ten’s football powers?
It’s extremely rare for the two conferences to play one another during the regular season. There are the obvious bowl ties, but that’s a handful of games that provide one small metric. I suppose the other one might be the BCS national championships, which clearly is in the SEC’s favor.
Those of us who have followed college football know that these things go in cycles. That’s not to blindly assume that matters at large are going to swing away from the SEC, but there certainly is precedent.
The SEC schools largely recruit in their area of the country, with a small handful of players from outside it travelling southward. That said, if success breeds success, then the Big Ten could have some recruiting problems.
I would argue that college football has both a national and a regional audience in terms of television. While a major matchup or a big star might draw out of area ratings, I suspect that people who are associated with a team will be inclined to watched their school and/or their conference play as a first choice in terms of their options.
As long as the Big Ten maintains its large and rather loyal fan bases, the television networks will continue to pay handsomely. Now if the SEC was taking money out of the B1G’s mouth, then I’d say they were a threat. But if we see a mega-contract with ABC/ESPN, Fox Sports 1, etc., coming to fruition in 2016 like we expect, then the Big Ten is set for perhaps another decade in the issue that matters most–money.
LikeLike
Cutter,
The threat is in recruiting. It is true the majority of recruits stay locally but the elite ones have been shown to be more mobile. Alabama and USC before it have built their dynasties by picking the cream of the crop from all over, not just in their backyard. According to SCout.com, Alabama’s current class has prospects from California, Minnesota, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Ohio. Their last years class had recruits from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and Utah. South Carolina’s recruiting class last year had kids from Pennaylvania and Maryland. LSU from New Jersey, Nebraska, North Carolina, and California. Georgia from Indiana and Kansas. And these aren’t 2-3 stars prospects but high end guys. Michigan, by contrast, didn’t get a single guy from the SEC footprint. A few lower star Florida guys have made it up to Wisconsin and Michigan State, but Ohio State has been the only BIG team able to get high end guys from down south. Not to mention, right now the South is producing way more elite football players than the north and Midwest so losing elite recruits from the north hurts more than losing some from the South. This problem will only multiply if the SEC keeps winning national championships games and sucking up all the hype that espn can give. At some point the hype won’t be necessary because elite prospects looking for a stepping stone to the pros will view the SEC as the defacto conference of choice while the other leagues will be living off of 2nd tier local recruits. The playoffs could end all this but that is assuming the SEC loses in the playoffs.
LikeLike
@ Wainscott
You said: “but Nebraska’s rise again (with a new coach, as is evident now) will be fawningly covered by the ESPN hype machine.”
@ MS
You said: “They’ll have more big games in the Big Ten than they had before.”
I agree with both ideas here.
The big difference between Nebraska now and Minny then is TV. Minny was a CFB Power before CFB was routinely broadcast on TV and long before hype and marketing were omnipresent. Thus, Minny’s brand was never deeply inserted into the Nation’s consciousness.
By contrast, Nebraska rose to prominence in the 70s and 80s just at the time when Universities successfully wrested away from the NCAA the right to televise their games. And, then, Nebraska had a tremendous run of success in the 90s and was constantly on TV. As such, I think the Nebraska football brand is much more solid than Minny’s.
I just don’t see Nebraska vanishing from the ranks of the elite in the same way that Minny has.
Plus, with the new B1G divisions, even a mediocre-to-good Nebraska will still get ranked (who else is there?) and be in the division race each year. That will sustain the brand until the next Osborne.
Finally, as Wainscott and Mark Shepherd have pointed out, for their own various and respective (and sometimes competing) reasons, the B1G, BTN and our TV partners ESPN, FOX, ABC need to hype and market to pump up ratings. “Nebraska” moves the ratings needle. That too will sustain the brand until the next Osborne.
LikeLike
@ PSUHockey
I agree with much that you’ve said.
The power of the ESpin and CBS hype machines is in evidence every weekend re: A&M and Mizzou. I found it beyond funny that CBS and ESpin hyped the ‘Bama/A&M game by calling it a battle between SEC “powers.” I mean, that’s laughable. Since when was A&M an SEC “power?” Since when was A&M a FOOTBALL power? Geez, one new coach, one Heisman winner and one excellent season in … what?… 2 decades and now you are a “power?”
The point is, as I’ve said before, ESpin is in the process of turning A&M into a king. (This is upsetting the folks in Austin).
If Mizzou had not stumbled, ESpin would be turning Mizzou into a king too. I fully expect the future-Mizzou-hype to be Mizzou-is-an-SEC-East-power.
And I agree that ultimately all the positive hype for the SEC and negative hype for the B1G will hurt recruiting.
But, on the other hand, winning will solve some of these problems. With the playoff format, the B1G will almost assuredly get a zero-loss team into the field of 4. Knock of the SEC teams (yes, plural), then recruits will come flocking.
tOSU and MI have recruited well. PSU I think will start recruiting well again. Neb. needs a better coach before it can start recruiting elite again. Teams like Wiscy and Iowa don’t recruit elite, but they do well in coaching up their 3 star players. All Wiscy needs is that one unique special QB and they are a NC winning team. (Example: Tommie Fraizer).
Further, aside from winning, the B1G is positioning itself to combat the ESpin/ABC bias. The B1G has partnered with FOX which took down the then-reining king of the 24/7 news cycle (CNN). FOX has beaten ESpin in every non-USA market in the world and the “World Wide Leader” is in retreat on every continent. Disney has already pushed the brakes a little on how much $$ ESpin has to spend in buying up sports properties. There is every reason to believe FOX will continue to eat into ESpin’s US market share and, might eventually supplant ESpin as the dominant sports cable content provider.
Further, the BTN is an astounding success. While it may be foolish TODAY to consider saying “F-You” to ESpin/ABC, depending on how things trend in the future, the B1G has given itself options.
Finally, as much as am anti-ESpin, even I must acknowledge that this is not an ESpin-only phenomena. The B1G’s lack of success is noted/hyped/trolled on about every platform. FoxSports.com, for example, (our loving partner against ESpin/ABC) has a weekly column by Clay Travis where he trashes and mocks Ohio State.
Trolling B1G fanbases with disrespect is good for ratings and ESpin is not the only media member doing it.
LikeLike
And its the ESPN hype machine that the Big Ten will want to remain in business with when the tv deals come up for renewal in 2016. I don’t buy for a minute that the Big Ten will move much of its inventory off of the Mouse for another network (Fox).
I mean, the Northwestern-Ohio State numbers alone are proof of what ESPN’s well-oiled hype machine can produce. No way the B1G leaves a vacuum for the SEC to fill.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I agree. For as much as we talk about the ABC/ESPN bias toward the SEC, from a business perspective, the Big Ten actually has as much coverage on the Disney platforms when you’re taking into account ABC. There tends to be an overstatement as to how much the Big Ten is in bed with Fox – while there’s certainly an important relationship there with respect to the BTN, it does NOT override or replace the extremely large amount of money and exposure that ABC/ESPN provides to the conference.
The Big Ten is going for the NFL model here: it wants strong relationships with *both* ABC/ESPN and Fox while flirting with enough others (i.e. NBC, Turner, Google, etc.) to drive/scare up the price. We have to separate the bloviated on-the-air opinions of the Mark Mays of the world (which is what fans typically focus on as “bias”) from whether ESPN respects the Big Ten from a business perspective, and I think they very much do so on the latter. If ESPN is paying top dollar and placing the Big Ten in top time slots (as they do now), then that’s the only “bias” that’s going to matter when it comes to contract negotiations. It’s then up to the teams themselves to actually beat the SEC teams in those top time slots to get the pundit class to change their opinions.
LikeLike
oh, yeah. one additional crucial thought:
success on the football field is not the be-all-end-all for the B1G.
even if the B1G keeps laying eggs in the bowl season, keeps losing Rose Bowls, keeps getting shut out of the NCG, starts losing playoff games, etc. etc. etc. even if this goes on for 20-30 years, the B1G is not going to vanish are decline much.
historically, the B1G has completely sucked in bowl games and that goes back decades adn decades. And yet here we are.
there are too many B1G alums for TV and the bowl games. we are fine; we will be fine.
plus, there are other sports.
plus, even aside from TV ratings and bowl games, we are passionate and our fans are going to fill the football stadiums and watch the games (even if said games are relegated to ESPNU and the BTN). and we will watch even if the players are “only” a bunch of coached up 3 stars.
and academics matters most to the PtB in the B1G.
LikeLike
Listen, if you want the Big Ten to look good, then they have to start winning games against the SEC.
Those big neutral games or bowl matchups? Michigan has to stop crapping the bed, Ohio State has to win a championship. Until that happens, no matter how much coverage and spin the SEC gets (which admittedly is a lot), we can’t complain. We just can’t.
I don’t care if they won’t play up here, you have to slay the dragon on his terms. You have to play sound football all year long and not get shown up by a MAC team.
LikeLike
@PSUhockey-
What you wrote about Alabama could have described USC during the Pete Carroll era, but look at where the Trojans are now on the national radar–dealing with sanctions and a new coaching search. Given where it’s located, Texas should be playing in the national title each year, but now Mack Brown’s on the hot seat. Florida State was in the muck for years in the latter part of the Bowden years–it looks like JImbo Fisher has them in place now for a national run.
What I’m saying is that whlle the recruiting is important, there has to be an outstanding coach (and staff) to lead the team and maintain its edge. Saban clearly has it, but think about his immediate predecessors at Alabama (or the Texas coaches prior to Brown). The Crimson Tide is now the “It” school, but it hasn’t always been that way.
I’m going to expand the “SEC recruiting area” a bit IRT Michigan, but UM’s verbals in Hoke’s three recruiting classes to date have included players from Maryland, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri (with another Floridian plus another Kentuckian with 2015 verbals and, I hope, another Virginian for the 2014 class, i.e. Da’Shawn Hand). Even if you stay strictly in SEC territory (versus what might be described as “The South”), your statement about Michigan not getting players out of the SEC footprint is incorrect.
Television networks buy “promise” when it comes to sports, including college football. NBC has stuck with Notre Dame for a couple of decades now, through good times and horrible ratings, because ND has the #1 brand in college football. While the B1G may be down vis-a-vis the SEC, the promise is still there (not to mention the demographics for now). Maryland and Rutgers are also now part of the conference for the same two reasons–promise and demographics (not to mention research dollars and synergies with the other CIC members).
LikeLike
Cutter,
Was refering to last years Michigan’s class. I should have been more specific.
You are right that “it” teams come and go by right now the SEC is becoming the “it” conference. 7 straight titles, a huge majority of NFL drafted players compared to other conferences last year, 3 out of the last 4 heismans (4 of 6 dating back to Tebow). When USC was the “it” school, the PAC wasn’t talked about nearly as much as the SEC is being hyped now. The big east was an afterthought when Miami was the “it” school. I know conferences rise and fall but what is going on with the SEC seems unprecedented. The world has changed a lot in college football with social media, recruiting services, espn, and a talent shift south. Can these changed keep the SEC on top?
It’s interesting you brought up Notre Dame. Notre Dame has the most exposure of any team in the country. But does exposure equal talent? Notre Dame was in the championship game last year but was not even in the same ballpark talent wise as Alabama. So even with the BIg getting a lot of exposure, it won’t necessarily being getting enough talent to win championship games.
Notre Dame does have a flaw though with its exposure IMO. Since it is not in a conference, their games either have national title implications or no meanings at all. Once Notre Dame loses two games, they are really playing for nothing. The first 6-7 weeks of their season is where they play their big games against MSU, Michigan, who will be replaced with an early season game against Texas, and either Stanford or USC at home. So the likelihood of being undefeated by midseason is small. They end the season against either Stanford or USC, so unless either of those teams are undefeated or challenging for a national championship, that game is not being talked about. So besides last season, Notre Dame football, though still getting a ton of exposure, is not being hyped after midseason. The big conference games take center stage. So is exposure or hype more important for recruiting? Last year Notre Dame finished at #5 according to scout. The 4 years prior from 2012 back: 16, tied 8, 19, 23.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
Minnesota declined as a result of the arrival of the Vikings as well as the rise of Iowa and other schools, combined with a reduction of in state talent. Minny of old, the 1930’s and 1940’s, were fueled by homegrown Scandinavian descendants who were simply bigger and stronger than other teams, plus the school cherry-picked the best players from Iowa. But as Iowa and other programs rose, and as the game advanced, the mere size advantage they had was not enough.
Fun fact; Minny is the 1960 national champ, but it lost the Rose Bowl. Back then, champions were crowned before the bowl games.
As to your broader point, schools have joined and fell from the status of Kings over time. Depending on how far back you go, you have the obvious example of Chicago. In the 20’s and 30’s, schools like TCU and Illinois were Kings, but are no longer. Since WWII, you have Army, Navy, some of the Ivies, and Syracuse that were supplanted by the rise of Penn State, Florida State, Miami, and others. Its been a little more fluid than we realize, though that’s because there are also some constants (Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, Mich, Ohio St., and others).
Minny is an exception only because of the extent of its fall, but “King” status is more flexible.
LikeLike
I don’t think its been very fluid since WWII. Florida, FSU and Miami have moved up. But that has been fueled by population growth in Florida. Minnesota has fallen. Tennessee was probably a “king” and has fallen to prince. But not much else has changed. Since the 60s when they went to full platoon football and the Vietnam War fueled major growth in the big state Us, its been remarkably constant.
LikeLike
@ Andy:
thanks for posting this. it’s a good article. aside from the substance, it is a very nice example of good rhetoric. the chant like intonation of “just because it was doesn’t mean it will be” was really well done. just a nice piece of writing. As I will say in other replies, I think he is overly pessimistic.
LikeLike
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/legal-procedure-critics-cry-foul-nfl-defends-nonprofit-status-8C11412804
For all the talk about NCAA and its members receiving tax exempt status, but it is worth noting that the NFL is also technically a non-profit.
LikeLike
The NFL league offices, not the teams, or owners, or jersey sales, etc.
LikeLike
SI, citing Chip Brown, claims that it will be Oliver Luck
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/28/oliver-luck-expected-texas-athletic-director/
LikeLike
“Brown reports that Luck is the favorite among candidates that include Arizona State athletic director Steve Patterson, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick”
I believe Patterson might be a candidate. The others…?
LikeLike
I could have given you this list a month ago with zero inside info. Throw in Jurich, delete Bowlsby (that wasn’t going to happen).
LikeLike
I would like opinions on this:
A group of 12 Division I coaches’ associations in such sports as soccer, volleyball, and swimming is urging the NCAA to increase the number of sports and the amount of financial aid a university would have to offer if it sought to join any new “super division” comprising the most-powerful institutions.
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/10/28/coaches-associations-propose-more-teams-and-scholarships.htm
LikeLike
It’s only fair. If you’re making the most money, you should sponsor the most sports, too — don’t fritter it all away on an arms race.
Who would be most supportive of this? Most opposed?
LikeLike
Supportive – B10, P12, coaches and players of the lesser sports
Opposed – everyone else
The only way this gets support is if the big 5 see this as a way to drive out the smaller conferences while getting lots of positive PR.
LikeLike
The SECS would be most opposed. They sponsor significantly less on average compared to the BIG, PAC, and many ACC schools. They can dedicate a significant portion if their resources just to football.
LikeLike
Psuhockey – the problem with adding sports in the SEC is that the SEC already sponsors all the women’s sports that are prevalent in the South. In order to add wrestling and men’s soccer (sports that are played in the South), sports like field hockey and rowing (sports that are not played in the South) would probably have to be added to comply with Title IX. Additionally, a critical mass of area schools would all have to agree to add particular sports to make them feasible from a scheduling and travel perspective.
The SEC has recently added equestrian as a sport, and a few SEC schools have recently added sand volleyball.
LikeLike
And similarly with Texas, which I believe offers the most sports of any of the Big 12 schools. They offer women’s rowing, which is not very prevalent, because of the number of scholarships they can offer to offset football. The only other sports they could offer with any prevalence would be men’s soccer, women’s gymnastics and wrestling. Adding those 4 would only put them at 25. And there aren’t many men’s soccer programs in the south or southwest. Wrestling is more concentrated in the Midwest and east.
LikeLike
I believe there are nearly 200 D1 men’s soccer programs.
Texas HS wrestling is growing dramatically. Add it and UT could be top ten in less than a decade. But there is no guarantee they could ever overcome Iowa, Minn., PSU, OU, OkSU consistently.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there are any college wrestling programs in Division I in the south. Maybe in the Carolinas and Virginia. Oklahoma, of course, has them. SMU may be the only Texas school with men’s soccer. Houston Baptist used to have a program, but they are adding football so they may not anymore. I think Missouri and Kentucky are the only SEC schools with men’s soccer.
Penn St. adding hockey is probably one of the very few times since the 80s a major school has added a men’s program. Football seems to be the only men’s sport that gets added (and the major schools already have programs). With increasing women’s enrollments, the proportionality test is hard to meet for Title IX.
LikeLike
As I said wrestling is in HS in Texas. There just aren’t many college programs. There are actually quite a few girls wrestling programs in Texas HSs. But there are only handful of women’s wrestling programs in college. I think I read somewhere a while back that there were 4. On one of the Texas boards, FWIW, someone claimed UT was concerned about liability, the cost of insurance and injury issues in wrestling and gymnastics and so wasn’t inclined to add either of those.
LikeLike
bullet – wrestling and boy’s soccer are played throughout the South at the high school level. That was my point. But for Title IX requiring adding corresponding girls sports that nobody plays or cares about, wrestling and men’s soccer could be added at more schools.
Since my son is a pretty good wrestler, I was looking at schools somewhat close to home that offer wrestling. The only southern D-I school that’s not on the east coast is Tennessee-Chattanooga. The only D-II schools are Ouachita Baptist in Arkansas and Kings College in Tennessee. There are also six teams in the South that compete in D-I of the NCWA. That’s about it.
LikeLike
@bullet
Oklahoma sponsors the most sports in the Big XII (19). UT and TCU are tied for second with 18.
LikeLike
Not to rehash T9 impacts, partially because I believe it was more often than not simply an excuse to reallocate resources to FB programs, but the majority of the SEC has sponsored wrestling and then cut them in the last 30-40 years. LSU got cut when a top five program. Around 150 programs is now about 80. There was (I submit still is) a population that was being served, and now isn’t.
Now we have straight forward advocacy of reducing/limiting offerings based on resource allocation, without even feigning the need for T9 compliance. This is not, in my view, the mission of or justification for college athletics.
LikeLike
Texas sponsors 20 (I was thinking 9M+12W=21, but its 9+11).-football, men’s & women’s basketball, M&W golf, M&W swimming, M&W X-country, M&W indoor track, M&W outdoor track, baseball, softball, M&W tennis, W soccer, W rowing, W volleyball. If you aren’t counting indoor track, maybe OU gets to 21.
LikeLike
Ohio St. offers everything UT does +
M&W fencing
M&W gymnastics
M&W ice hockey
M&W lacrosse
M&W pistol
M&W rifle (that’s not a sport-that’s a way of life in Texas)
M&W cheerleading
W field hockey
W synchronized swimming
M wrestling
M soccer
M volleyball
Their philosophy is to offer pretty much everything possible in intercollegiate sports. But if there is little local high school interest, the question is why?
Texas does have 44 club sports, 5 of which are also varsity intercollegiate sports (W soccer, baseball, tennis, running, W volleyball). Texas is world champion in Quidditch (seriously, they beat UCLA for the championship-people run around with a broom between their legs). IMO that makes the most sense for sports like fencing, sailing, rugby, lacrosse, quidditch and the like.
LikeLike
My bad, that’s what I get for trusting Wikipedia…
LikeLike
It’s only fair. If you’re making the most money, you should sponsor the most sports, too — don’t fritter it all away on an arms race.
Who would be most supportive of this? Most opposed?
Honestly, I don’t care either way. There are hundreds of colleges and universities in America. Why should a committee of bureaucrats set a national standard as to how they ought to spend their money? If a school wants to be a sports supermarket…let them. If a school just wants to focus on a few that it can do really well…let them.
LikeLike
I think that way too many sports are being offered by most schools as it is. I think that schools should focus all their resources on a small number of sports so that they can be as competitive as possible in those sports. I disagree with vp19. I don’t think it should matter how much money you make, you should be able to spend it however you want to, and not be forced to share the wealth.
LikeLike
So the educational mission of college athletics is win at whatever cost?
Nobody would be forced. They would be choosing to join a certain group, and abide by the requirements for membership.
LikeLike
What’s the point in competing in anything if you don’t do everything possible to win?
LikeLike
Do what you can within the particular framework you chose. Are you encouraging under the table pay for pro prospects to postpone going NFL? Fixing grades? Open admission? Why require school at all? If you don’t get caught it isn’t a violation?
I don’t find anything desirable, or of value in such “victories.”
LikeLike
I didn’t mean cheating. I mean spending the maximum resources and effort. Personally, I would rather have my school sponsor six sports that it invested extremely heavily in and was regularly in championship contention in, than 30 sports that it invested moderately in and was occasionally competitive in.
LikeLike
And the next guy says why waste resources on six? Concentrate on one or two.
LikeLike
Frankly, I would have no problem with a school offering one men’s sport and one women’s sport like John’s Hopkins does.
LikeLike
@JepHJuergens:
“Frankly, I would have no problem with a school offering one men’s sport and one women’s sport like John’s Hopkins does.”
With all do respect, do you any research whatsoever before posting? Or do you post what makes you feel good, without regard to accuracy?
Please see: http://www.hopkinssports.com/#00
From my count, JHU offers 12 men’s sports and 10 women’s sports, or 10x the number of men’s sports you claimed it offers, and 12x the number of women’s sports that you claimed. A list on Wikipedia lists 24 total sports offered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_Blue_Jays)
LikeLike
JHU competes in one D1 sport for each gender men’s and women’s lacrosse. All of their other sports are D3. Their men’s lacrosse was grandfathered in when D1 changed membership rules.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean cheating. I mean spending the maximum resources and effort.
Hardly anyone spends the “maximum”, whether it’s sports or anything else. Georgia Tech and UVA both have English and Chemistry departments. This is just a guess, but I’d bet that GT spends more on Chemistry than UVA, UVA more on English than GT.
You can’t be a king at everything.
LikeLike
ccrider – what’s the point of offering scholarships for sports that nobody in your state or region compete in at the high school level and that nobody cares about?
LikeLike
Women’s rowing and equestrian are added for no reason other than Title IX compliance for schools with football. If there was no Title IX and there was no discrimination against women athletes, there would probably be no women’s rowing or equestrian programs in any colleges.
LikeLike
I believe crew predates T9. 😉
From wiki: “The first American race took place on the Schuylkill River in 1762 between 6-oared barges. As the sport gained popularity, clubs were formed and scullers began racing for prizes. Professionals were rowing against clubs and each other before the civil war. Races were often round trips to a stake and back, so that the start and finish could be watched. The public flocked to such events, and rowing was as popular in America during the 19th century as other professional sports are today.”
“In 1843, the first American college rowing club was formed at Yale University. The Harvard-Yale Regatta is the oldest intercollegiate sporting event in the United States having been contested every year since 1852 (except for occasional breaks due to major wars, such as World War II and the US Civil War).”
LikeLike
I understand to an extent. There are (at least a few years ago) far more women’s college scholarship crew teams than HS nationwide. Yet programs are being/have been added. Hockey, from LA to Fla makes no sense.
However, who is the “nobody” that don’t care. Do we measure by media attractiveness? Or by HS participation rates vs college opportunities? If the former then we have football and basketball, plus hockey in the north and baseball in the south (with pockets of gymnastics, wrestling, and a nebulous track an field offering). If the latter we are dramatically under serving the populace.
There can only be one most popular, but does that mean the others lose all value?
LikeLike
Couple of interesting Forbes articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2013/08/26/what-notre-dame-athletics-teaches-us-about-creating-eduring-brands/
I think the Delany article which follows and the source of Notre Dame’s success point to the risk for Notre Dame long term. Holding on to past success when much is based on a nation when only a handful of games were on TV and Irish Catholics felt discriminated against rather than being main stream.
LikeLike
Not sure why this Notre Dame link isn’t working, but you can access it by scrolling down the Big 10 article, which link IS working.
LikeLike
Delany article makes it sound like Maryland and Rutgers were designed to STOP realignment.
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2013/10/29/what-the-big-ten-conference-teaches-us-about-making-critical-decisions/
LikeLike
@ Bullet: thanks for posting these links. this is not an attack on you, but, now having read some of Belzer’s drivel, I find these articles interesting in the manner of looking at a 3-eyed fish or a 2-tailed goat.
Just to give everyone some inkling of what to expect: Belzer gives us an undocumented unsourced “history” of the B1G since Jim Delany came aboard in 1989.
According to Belzer, Delany decided to add Penn State to the B1G “just a year into his tenure” so that “if he [Delany] was to make a potentially controversial move, he should do it fairly early on in his tenure when his superiors would be more forgiving of a mistake …” After all, Delany “did know that his time as commissioner was not guaranteed for very long…”
Woooo! Good move there, Delany. Act quick before you get fired !! No need to involve anyone; just go ahead and decide to add Penn State. Wooooo. #Powerful.
Then Belzer tells us that Delany “and his staff” rushed into adding Penn State and, essentially, that Delany “and his staff” were lucky (ya, know, by avoiding that bullet to the head playing Russian Roulette). Quote: “… Delany and his staff realized that by rushing into a decision without having any sort of process to insure they were making the right choice was the business equivalent of playing Russian roulette.”
Damn! Stupid Delany!! WTF, man? Where is your process!!! But, damn, shizzel, wooooo! Got lucky, avoided the bullet, man!!!
Delany was also “fortunate” that “… other conferences remained largely unreactive to the Big Ten’s acquisition …”
Woooo! Delany dodged the bullet and then dodged the other bullet of other conferences reacting. Wooooo!!
Then, according to Belzer, Delany “and his staff [God!! don’t ever forget Delany’s staff !! and God. don’t ever mention the CoP/C !!] spent the next decade building a foundation of trust and cooperation amongst their member institutions through a series of progressively more important decisions …”
Wooooo! So many buzzwords!!! Foundation !! Woohooo. Trust and Cooperation!! Wooooo!! Ooo, and “member institutions!!” Can you give me a TEAM?!!! Then “progressively more important decisions.” Woooooo!!!
Ugh, this is a pile of buzz-word filled tripe made worse by his 86-word shameless self-promotion at the side of the article.
And, as said, it is interesting as an example of that.
LikeLike
Well he is right about PSU being rushed. ADs didn’t find out until it was a done deal and threw a fit. Its hard to get to Happy Valley.
LikeLike
It wasn’t the AD’s call to make.
LikeLike
Yes, but normally they get consulted first instead of being thrown into a mess and told to go fix it.
LikeLike
Perhaps the Mich AD’s attitude was known, and they wanted to avoid attempted opposition to something the wanted to do whether ADs agreed or not. I doubt it was something they did on a whim.
LikeLike
Mizzou/South Carolina was ESPN2’s highest rated game since Sept 9, 2012:
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/10/college-football-abc-saturday-night-football-most-viewed-game-of-week/
LikeLike
2.5 isn’t very good for the highest rated game of the day. The high cities for the Ohio St./PSU and USC/MU games were interesting. Kind of supports the people who say Cincinnati isn’t much of an Ohio St. town and St. Louis is not particularly pro-Mizzou (Cards on other channel?). But KC is. And Jacksonville loves college football no matter who is playing. Interesting that Birmingham was #2 or #3 for Oregon and Missouri’s games.
“The top four markets for ABC’s Saturday night coverage of Penn State at Ohio State were located in the state of Ohio, led by Columbus with a 38.0 metered market rating. Dayton was second with a 19.5 followed by Cleveland (16.9) and Cincinnati (6.5). The top 10 was rounded out by Pittsburgh (4.5), Ft. Myers (3.5), Philadelphia (3.2), Orlando (3.2), West Palm Beach (3.2), Detroit (3.1) and Jacksonville (3.0).
Portland, averaging an 18.3 metered market rating, was the top market for ESPN’s UCLA at Oregon telecast. Birmingham was second with a 7.9 rating followed by Seattle (6.7), Los Angeles (5.6), Louisville (5.2), Las Vegas (4.4), Greenville (4.4), Knoxville (4.0), Jacksonville (3.7) and Norfolk (3.7).
Greenville was the top market for ESPN2’s Saturday night South Carolina at Missouri telecast, averaging a 13.3 metered market rating. Kansas City was second with an 11.0 rating followed by Birmingham (10.8), Knoxville (8.7), Jacksonville (6.5), Charlotte (6.4), St. Louis (5.3), Nashville (5.2), Atlanta (4.9) and New Orleans (4.0).”
LikeLike
Cards were playing in the world series at the exact same time. Kind of hard to compete with that.
As I said, it was the highest rated game on ESPN2 in over a year. But keep trying to spin that as a negative. You always do.
LikeLike
Normally an undefeated #5 team vs a conference rival at #12 or w/e isn’t on ESPN2 at 7pm because they figure non die hard fans want to watch the game. That’s more an indictment of both teams playing that PSU/OSU was expected to do better, despite PSU not being as good this year.
LikeLike
It’s more of an indictment of the stupidity of ESPN for putting OSU/PSU ahead of what was obviously one of the best and highest ranked matchups of the night. Hopefully after that ratings performance they learned their lesson.
They have Mizzou on ESPN (not ESPN2) this weekend so it looks like they’re catching on.
LikeLike
Missouri vs South Carolina did bring good ratings but only on mars is it smart to put it ahead of PSU vs OSU, two of the biggest brands in the sport. The PSU OSU game drew the most for the day even though it was over after the 1st quarter and Penn State fans turned it off in droves. That 2.5 rating was pretty much just Ohio State fans.
LikeLike
The point is moot, anyway. Disney *cannot* move any SEC games to ABC. CBS has exclusive over-the-air rights, so they couldn’t have put Mizzou-South Carolina there even if they wanted to (which they wouldn’t have anyway since even with ESPN’s SEC favoritism, a top 4 national king playing another national king would still take precedent). I’m not sure what people were expecting with what turned out to be a blowout and going directly against the World Series.
LikeLike
@Andy
Its just that what you have done in the past and your past ratings is what drives viewership. CBS picked Georgia/Vanderbilt over Missouri/Florida the week before. Missouri wasn’t on anyone’s radar before the UGA game. Broadcasters aren’t out to give the shaft to particular schools.
LikeLike
Incidentally, Birmingham will watch about any college football game. That city appears in the Top 10 markets for almost every game. And the penetration for an SEC game is simply off the charts.
It was the second highest market for UCLA-Oregon! (but was not in the top 10 for the PSU-OSU massacre).
Amazing.
LikeLike
It’s not “ESPN hates Missouri” so much as “Networks prefer traditional brands:”
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/10/why_cbs_has_passed_on_airing_s.html
The article is 15 days old, but it attempts to explain why Missouri has yet to appear on CBS, and mentions the USC game in question.
LikeLike
@Aaron Morrow – Thanks for pointing out that article. It shows that showcasing the top brand names means just as much in the SEC as it does in any other conference. The fact that CBS has had at least one of Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU and Tennessee involved in 47 out of its last 50 SEC games is telling.
LikeLike
Yeah, good article. A few other notable tidbits:
“CBS, which has the first pick of SEC games, cited several factors for its selection choices: national rankings, standings, star power, injuries, rivalries, tradition, and past ratings.”
Add to that list: “risk of blowouts.”
“CBS often picks the highest-ranked available team, particularly if that school is ranked No. 1. Alabama has been No. 1 all year, but has so far appeared only once on CBS.
Alabama-Tennessee offers more recognizable names than Missouri. On the other hand, there’s the risk of an Alabama-Tennessee blowout that could cause viewers to tune out.”
I think that is very interesting that ‘Bama has been on CBS only once thru week 7? (since that article is two weeks old).
Personally, I think it was a mistake to not broadcast FL-Mizzou. Florida definitely moves the ratings needle and that was the first week that Mizzou was up against one of the SEC East traditional powers. I tuned in only to find it not available on any of my cable stations. I am not a TV exec, of course, so what do I know. Also, I don’t remember what the other choices were, but I remember sitting in my chair thinking, “geez, I have three hours to kill.”
One last quote: “CBS was slow to broadcast the rise of SEC newcomer Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel last year and aired the Aggies only once, for their late-season win over Alabama.”
LikeLike
Even more telling is this part:
“The exceptions over the past four years: Missouri-South Carolina in 2012 (2.5 rating), South Carolina-Arkansas in 2012 (1.8 rating), and Mississippi State-Arkansas in 2011 (1.9 rating). Those rank among CBS’ lowest-rated SEC games over that period.”
(The Kramer Bowl (Arkansas vs. South Carolina) got only a 1.8? Yikes.)
It demonstrates that national networks want national names for broadcasts, which is not altogether shocking. What were the last Big Ten conference games on ABC prime time that didn’t feature any of Michigan, Ohio St., Wisc, Penn State, Mich State, Nebraska, or Iowa?
Of course, if ratings on CBS truly mattered to the SEC, then it would have taken FSU (a national brand, a’la Nebraska) over Mizzou (a regional brand useful for SEC Network purposes, a’la Maryland and Rutgers).
Though, good arguments could be made that taking a national brand such as like FSU would have also increased the amount of top-to-bottom quality inventory for the SEC Network, potentially allowing for even higher coverage fees in SEC markets (and higher rights fees from national networks), but I assume the SEC ran those numbers and concluded a pure market-play was more advantageous and profitable in the long run.
LikeLike
(Btw, yes I am aware that Purdue played Notre Dame on ABC earlier this year, but that’s not a Big Ten conference game, but an out-of-conference matchup with the most identifiable brand in college sports.)
LikeLike
To partially answer my question, since at least 2005, and based on quick internet research, there has not been a prime time ABC Big Ten Conference matchup without one of the 7 B1G teams I mentioned above (in 2006, Purdue vs. Minny was on ESPN2).
Purdue vs. Notre Dame has been televised several times, but that doesn’t count, as Notre Dame is not in the Big Ten.
More proof that national brands matter to national networks.
LikeLike
Alabama has had low ratings on its games that are expected to be blowouts. Just for example, Alabama/MSU prime time last year drew a 2.1 on ESPN while Tennessee-South Carolina drew a 2.6 the same day. Alabama-Tennessee the week before only drew a 2.5. Alabama/LSU a week later drew a 6.8. People want to watch interesting games, not blowouts.
The prime SEC games (3:30 or prime time-noon games tended to be lower rated when there was a later game-TN/SC vs. AL/MSU was an exception) ratings on CBS last year:
AL/LSU 6.8
AL/AM 6.1
FL/LSU 4.6
UGA/FL 4.2
AL/AR 3.2 (in September when Arkansas was expected to be good)
FL/SC 3.1
UGA/TN 2.9
and the bottom 4-all expected to be one-sided:
AL/TN 2.5
MU/SC 2.5
AL/AU 2.4
AL/MO 2.3
AL/MSU 2.1
LikeLike
Kansas fan Wainscott couldn’t stick to Frank’s request that people stop bringing up bashing posts on Missouri on here. Had to go there. I knew it wouldn’t last. Too many Kansas and Nebraska fans on here.
Missouri’s game against SC got low ratings because it was a blowout. Mizzou was down by 3 touchdowns or more throughout the game. Blowouts tend to get bad ratings.
The rematch this year was the highest rated ESPN2 game this year or last because it was a close and exciting game.
Mizzou does just fine in the ratings when it’s between two ranked teams and the game is close. As I’ve shown numerous times on here, Mizzou can clear 6, 7, even 10 in ratings in the right game.
LikeLike
@ Aaron Morrow, Mizzou was on CBS twice last year. Got blown out badly both times to Alabama and SC. It’s a truism that when a team gets blown out by 3 or 4 touchdowns the ratings will be poor. Especially if there’s a 90 minute rain delay as was the case in one of those games.
Mizzou’s ratings have been above average for an SEC team this year.
They also had several very highly rated games in 2007, 2008, and 2010 ranging in the 6.8 to 10.1 range.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Missouri’s ratings were bad last year. They sucked. Mostly due to injuries, but still, they sucked. They weren’t competitive. People don’t want to watch that.
LikeLike
wow, I’m reading something from like 2 weeks ago, aren’t I. That makes much more sense. Hadn’t seen these until now.
LikeLike
2.5 is a very good rating for ESPN2
Overall the SEC is dominating college football TV ratings (to nobody’s surprise).
LikeLike
2.5 is what Ohio St./Penn St. got. That is much lower than they normally get for the highest rated game of the day.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity, what other matchups have aired in the Saturday 7pm timeslot on ESPN2 between Sept 9, 2012 and last Saturday? Anyone have such a list handy?
LikeLike
Fox has released its list of announcers for the Big East basketball games:
http://fangsbites.com/2013/10/fox-unveils-announcers-for-big-east-basketball-games/
LikeLike
On Nov. 5, the University of Maryland College of Journalism holds its annual Shirley Povich Symposium (he was the legendary Washington Post columnist whose byline was seen from the 1920s up to his death in 1998; his son, Maury Povich, was a former D.C. local news anchor before beginning his infamous TV talk show), and the topic is “Maryland to the Big Ten: Charting the Future; Remembering the Past.” Among those attending will be Jim Delany, Terrapin AD Kevin Anderson, College Park alums Tom McMillen and Bonnie Bernstein and former student Scott Van Pelt (I presume he didn’t get his degree). More information is at http://www.merrill.umd.edu/events/maryland-big-ten-charting-future-remembering-past.
LikeLike
that actually sounds interesting. R U planning to go? If so, please take notes and give us a rundown when you get back to your computer.
LikeLike
Can’t make it, alas. If anyone’s in the D.C. area that day, I hope they do attend. It may well end up on YouTube or the university website.
LikeLike
Maryland actually sent me some info on this symposium. You can watch the stream here:
http://ter.ps/Povich2013
LikeLike
So: the NCAA Division I Leadership Council has met, and surprise! They oppose splitting the larger, wealthier schools into a new division.
Of course, it is not a surprise that the group that has stood in the way of change all along, is still trying to do so. Obviously, they realize that they have to offer something, but they’re hopeful of doing so within the current Division I framework:
Of course, it was their refusal to yield on these issues in the past that led the wealthier schools to suggest a split to begin with. Now that the others finally realize they blew it, they’re suddenly open to being more “flexible”, in the hopes they’re not too late. We’ll see how that works out for them.
I think the train has left the station, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
LikeLike
My favorite line
Almost everyone agrees that health and safety and the student-athlete experience — through access to championships and other opportunities — should continue to be priorities.
[em. mine]
Almost? Seriously, who disagreed with that?
LikeLike
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/22/anticipated-hearings-impeachment-investigation-beg/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions
Public hearings being held in the impeachment investigation of Wallace Hall, Bill Powers primary nemesis on the UT BOR.
LikeLike
http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/4/11/4213856/the-bill-powers-situation
For those interested, this story stream covers major events in the Bill Powers drama going back to April.
LikeLike
Has this been discussed? (see link)
LikeLike
oops:
http://www.hornsports.com/forums/burnt-orange-board-bob-57/texas-big-10-a-2703/
LikeLike
No, I don’t remember seeing it. Pertinent quote: “Oliver Luck learned yesterday that UT had entered a non-disclosure agreement with the Big10 a few months back and have been hammering out details for UT to join the Big10 with another school(GT-according to what Luck was told) to make 16. The LHN, which was once considered the biggest hurdle to overcome, would remain UT’s and Espn’s but BTN would also get UT content-just not as much as the other 15. UT would take a smaller share of BTN revenues …”
My first reaction is, “yeah, right, whatever.”
But upon closer examination, there is an interesting thought among this likely-dreck. Quote: “I won’t pretend to understand how the big10 plans on skirting the GOR but everything I’ve been hearing is hinting that the answer is in the details of what the networks are actually paying for-yes, they are TV rights to a university’s athletic games-but those games have a specific name and description.”
This is consistent with a thought I had when I first read the BXII GORs Agreement. As has been pointed out several times, the GOR references other agreements and Bylaws and to really know what the GOR means/says, you have to have the other agreements/Bylaws. If, in fact, the rights and obligations under the GOR were tied to definition(s) contained in a separate agreement, then one way to avoid the legal thrust of the GOR would be to change the definition(s) of that separate agreement.
LikeLike
I have a feeling that BlueGoldSports.com is affiliated with, or employs, or is owned by, The Dude and/or his pals.
Plan accordingly.
LikeLike
BTW, a copy of the B12’s By-Laws, as per its website:
Click to access Bylaws.pdf
LikeLike
And a copy of the B12 Conference Handbook:
http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/ConferenceHandbook.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410
LikeLike
And here is a detailed press release of the B12 agreement with Fox:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205680799
LikeLike
This is from MHVer3. Even the Dude of WV was dissing him on this rumor.
LikeLike
Just looked on Twitter and it looks like The Dude is in a huge feud with BGS.
LikeLike
Sorry if this thread has been addressed, but I am wondering: If Oliver Luck becomes AD at Texas, would that mean that a move to the PAC12 or B1G is less likely, ie would his relationship with WVa predispose him to be against a Texas move that could be perceived as hurting WVa? I believe Texas should move, and my personal preference would be for a UT/OU/Tech/OSU move to a PAC 16
LikeLike
He will be hired by Texas to do what is best for Texas, regardless of what happens at WVU.
LikeLike
I saw this bit on Deadspin that Marshawn Lynch, when drafted by the Bills in 2007, was surprised to learn that Buffalo was not in or near New York City, and I thought of the debates regarding B1G and the Buffalo Bulls.
http://deadspin.com/marshawn-lynch-had-no-idea-buffalo-was-not-in-new-york-1454884873
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmancave.com/major-hendricks-version3-0-rumor-round-up/
Sports Man Cave really must not care about credibility as they now employs both The Dude and MHver3.
LikeLike
frug,
A quote:
Expansion is still on the horizon for the Big10
My take: It absolutely is and as we get closer to their contract renegotiation it will rear it’s ugly head again. I have talked with several sources at different institutions in the Big10 and while the teams I hear as candidates change somewhat from one person to the next, they all agree on two things: 1. The Big10 wants to expand again 2.They want to stop at 16
UT and GT. Done deal.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/10/29/ncaa-wake-forest-president-nathan-hatch-restructuring/3297215/
As high-ranking college athletics officials gather today and Wednesday to discuss a new governance structure for the NCAA, Div. 1 Board of Directors chairman Nathan Hatch told USA TODAY Sports in an exclusive interview he did not envision the process resulting in a new subdivision for the wealthiest football-playing schools.
“From what I’ve heard in the association, I think people would like to have one Division I, but in some ways, a structure that will make certain differentiations between small conferences and big conferences,” said Hatch, president at Wake Forest University. “I think people like having one division.”
Maybe he’s just worried Wake Forest won’t get invited…
LikeLike
Wasn’t that D1-A and D1-AA were years ago? Now there is a need for a D1-AAA. FCS=D1-AAA, FBS divided between D1-A and D1-AA and viola, we have semantically retained D1.
LikeLike
I-A was FBS
I-AA was FCS
I-AAA was non-football schools
LikeLike
The stuff I read from last week sounded like really minimal changes. I suspect the P5 wouldn’t be happy with that.
LikeLike
You didn’t expect the non P5 schools to build the scaffold did you? They will fight to salvage as much as they can without fomenting a complete divorce. They’ll play the game behind the game (but without the media contracts to broadcast it).
LikeLike
Thought this news is interesting:
Canada’s own Andrew Wiggins is one of college basketball’s top prospects, and he takes centre stage on TSN this season as the network delivers complete coverage of every Kansas Jayhawks game – all the way to NCAA® MARCH MADNESS®.
Canadian hoops fans can follow Wiggins and his nationally-ranked Kansas Jayhawks every week throughout the regular season, beginning on Friday, Nov. 8. The majority of games will air live with some having same-day coverage on TSN platforms (see below for November broadcast schedule, and visit TSN.ca for the full broadcast schedule as it becomes available).
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1250825/wiggins-fever-hits-tsn-with-every-game-featuring-andrew-wiggins-and-the-kansas-jayhawks
Maybe the B1G hockey league is a way they could further penetrate the Canadian market. This is going to be something to keep an eye on, as more schools attempt to exploit the market up north.
LikeLike
Being a born and bred North Carolina boy—I am a huge fan of all 4 of the state of North Carolina’s “BIG 4” ACC schools!
So Let’s Go Wake Forest “Demon Deacons”, North Carolina “Tar Heels”, Duke “Blue Devils” and North Carolina State “Wolfpack”!
I would also like to WELCOME our 4 new ACC schools—Syracuse “Orange”, Pittsburgh “Panthers”, Louisville “Cardinals” and Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” to the great Atlantic Coast Conference!
Plus, goodbye and good riddance to our 1953 charter member university and traitor—the Maryland “Terrapins”!
Good luck in the BIG 10 Maryland “TWERPS”–you’ll need it! The ACC is much better off with the Louisville “Cardinals” taking your place in the ACC!
ACC—EST.1953—Greensboro, North Carolina.
LikeLike
Pingback: Will an ACC Network Be Obsolete Before It Launches? – MorganWick.com