Conference realignment at the power conference level has seemingly ground to a halt after what has been nearly four years of rumors, Tweets and blogs speculating on apocalyptic moves. When I created the Big Ten Expansion Index, there seemed to be endless possibilities of how the college sports world would shake out. Now, tools such as grant of rights agreements have at least temporarily paused any realignment within the power conference ranks. However, there’s still a nagging feeling that the 10-member Big 12 won’t stay at its current size. While any belief that some outside force would demand that the Big 12 expand (i.e. the SEC or other power conferences in the new playoff system) should be discredited as completely erroneous (as every conference wants to respect each others’ full autonomy in determining its membership levels), the practical reality is that the Big 12 is the odd duck in a world where other conferences are seeking size and depth in terms of brand names and TV markets while adding conference championship games (as opposed to eliminating them). Just as there will continue to be speculation about the Big Ten expanding to 16 members until it actually does so (particularly with comments such as the recent ones in Inside the Hall from Indiana Athletic Director Fred Glass calling 16 schools a “sweet spot”), the Big 12 is going to face the same questions until it gets back up to 12 schools.
With the peripheral rumor mongering noise dying down for the most part, I though it would be a good time to take a step back and create The Big 12 Expansion Index to assess where the viable candidates for that conference stand. To be clear, the purpose of this post is not to endorse the expansion of the Big 12. It’s perfectly reasonable for a Big 12 partisan to see the realistic expansion candidates as the equivalent of looking at a bar full of butterfaces at 3 am while “Closing Time” is playing in the background and saying, “No thanks. Call a cab for me to get the hell out of here.” Personally, I believe that the Big 12 needs to expand in the long-term regardless of any short-term revenue splitting implications, but this analysis can just as easily serve as justification for the conference to not get larger.
I. ASSUMPTIONS
In examining the Big 12 candidates, the following assumptions will be applied:
- ASSUMPTION #1 – Think like a university president and NOT like a sports fan.
This was the most important rule when constructing the Big Ten Expansion Index and it continues here with the Big 12. Conference realignment decisions aren’t driven by which school is most highly ranked in the latest BCS standings, who the fans like, or even what coaches and athletic directors may want (no matter how powerful they might be at their respective schools). Instead, university presidents are the ones that ultimately make realignment decisions and they’re looking at the long-term off-the-field big picture much more than short-term on-the-field issues that fans are generally focused upon. To be sure, how well a school plays football (and to a much lesser extent, basketball) is certainly relevant, but TV markets, demographic changes and academic rankings are factors that really get university presidents get much more engaged.
- ASSUMPTION #2 – The Big 12 lacks the ability to raid another power conference.
A number of Big 12 partisans wanted to believe over the past year that the league would be able to poach high profile schools from the ACC such as Florida State and Clemson. However, that prospect was simply never realistic due to a number of issues that the Big 12 needs to address, namely the demographics of the league outside of the state of Texas (which will be explained further in the index criteria below), overall academic reputation and national football brand names beyond Texas and Oklahoma. The Big 12 was able to save itself due to Texas wanting the Longhorn Network over the creation of the Pac-16 and Fox and ESPN paying a lot of money to keep the league together, but it is a paper tiger when it comes to expansion. As a result, the schools being evaluated in the index are all from the “Group of Five” non-power conference ranks.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BIG 12 EXPANSION INDEX
The Big 12 Expansion Index assesses candidates on a 100-point scale. Please note that the schools are being graded on their values relative to only other Gang of Five schools. So, it doesn’t mean that if a school that receives a perfect score in the index that it would be as valuable as Florida State or USC. These values also have no relation to the figures that were calculated in the Big Ten Expansion Index*. This is only measuring the distinctions within the Group of Five universe that serves as the realistic pool of Big 12 expansion candidates. Here are the categories:
Football Brand Value (30 points) – As it was with the Big Ten, this is the most heavily weighted category as a reflection of the reality of the college sports landscape. The revenue generated from football is so massive in comparison to the other sports (including basketball) that it is the ultimate driver for expansion in every conference (including more historically basketball-focused ones such as the ACC).
It must be emphasized that Football Brand Value puts much more weight on the long-term history and financial underpinnings of a program over short-term or recent success. Thus, Team A that has sold out stadiums for years whether it wins or loses is much more valuable than Team B that only sells out a 40,000-seat stadium when it’s in the national championship race, even if Team A has had a mediocre seasons recently and Team B happens to rank in the top 25 of the BCS rankings this year. A lengthy tradition of playing football at the top level also carries more cache compared to being a noveau riche program. The “What have you done for me lately?” attitude of most sports fans doesn’t apply here. Instead, the proper question is the opposite: Even if the target school goes 0-12 in a season, will it still attract TV viewers and attendance? In other words, the true value of a football program is really measured by how much attention it still receives when it’s down as opposed to how much attention it gets when it’s up. Granted, it is much more difficult to find schools under this standard at the Group of Five level compared to at the power conferences, which is a large reason why those Group of Five schools aren’t in power conferences in the first place as of now.
National TV Value (15 points) – The calculation for TV values is a bit different for the Big 12 compared to the Big Ten. With the latter’s Big Ten Network, there was more of an emphasis on the value that schools would bring to that channel (which meant it was fairly large market-focused, albeit the Big Ten still ended up small market Nebraska first when all was said and done because of its extraordinary national TV value). The Big 12, though, is more concerned with the value of its national TV contract above all else since the league doesn’t have a conference network (and in fact, grants third tier TV rights to its individual members who then keep all of that revenue to themselves). Losing Nebraska was a major hit on that front and it led to the Big 12’s decision to add West Virginia instead of Louisville in 2011. As with the Football Brand Value category, there is much more weight on programs with longer histories of being national TV draws as opposed to the flavors of the moment. The issue with Big 12 expansion, of course, is that there are really only a handful of Group of Five schools that have any national TV value at all with respect to football.
Local TV Value (10 points) – While national TV value is more important to the Big 12 with respect to expansion candidates, there’s certainly still an interest for the Big 12 to expand to new TV markets (as the national TV contract can be impacted by local TV market coverage). The defections from the Big 12 over the past 4 years caused the conference to lose its only two top 25 TV markets that were located outside of the state of Texas (Denver and St. Louis). For this category, 10 points will be granted to a top 25 market, 7 points to a 26-50 market, 3 point to a 51-75 market, and then 0 points after that. Please note that any school that is already located in a Big 12 market will receive zero points in this category no matter how large its local market might be.
Demographics/Recruiting Value (20 points) – This was a category that wasn’t included in The Big Ten Expansion Index, but it would have been if I knew then that Jim Delany was going to use the word “demographics” in conjunction with expansion more than any other word over the past 4 years. While there’s some correlation between demographics and local TV value (as a larger market generally means more favorable demographics), the word “demographics” is really a code word for a very tangible concern for football fans and coaches: football recruits. It always irks me whenever I see comments to the effect that the Big Ten’s additions of Rutgers and Maryland didn’t do anything for the conference in football. Quite to the contrary, that expansion was very important for on-the-field matters because New Jersey and Maryland, according to a study by Football Study Hall, happened to be the top two non-Sun Belt states not already in the Big Ten footprint in terms of producing Division I football recruits (and it wasn’t even close).
The very real danger for the Big 12 compared to the other power conferences is that its coverage in the state of Texas (which is the nation’s top football recruiting state and a beast in terms of population growth) has masked its completely poor demographics in the rest of the conference. There’s no demographic depth at all in the conference once you get beyond the Lone Star State, which has come so close to collapse on multiple occasions over the past few years. Without Texas, the Big 12 dies (whereas each of the other power conferences might be severely wounded if their very top brand name school left, but they would likely still find a way to carry on since they have fuller slates of markets and populous states). In this category, 20 points go to any school in a state that is in the top 5 of Division I recruits annually under the Football Study Hall study (as there’s a huge gap between #5 and #6), 15 points go to any school in a state ranked 6 to 10, 10 points go to any school in a state ranked 11 to 20, 5 points go to any school in any other state that produces at least 20 Division I recruits per year, and 0 points for states under 20. As noted by Football Study Hall, the states that have 20 or more Division I recruits per year have produced 93% of all Division I football players since 2008, so any state under 20 isn’t helping the Big 12’s demographic cause. As with the Local TV Value category, any school that is already located in a Big 12 state will receive zero points in this category.
Academics (5 points) – The Big 12 would certainly like to add top tier academic schools, but it won’t necessarily nix any expansion candidate on those grounds. This is in contrast to the Big Ten, where the Academics category was weighted heavily enough to effectively exclude any school that didn’t meet the threshold as being a viable candidate. For the purposes of the Big 12, 5 points will be assigned to any school that has at least 2 of the following 3 qualifications: an AAU member, ranked in the top 100 of the US News undergraduate rankings and/or ranked in the top 300 of the ARWU world graduate school rankings. A school that has 1 of those qualifications will receive 3 points. Everyone else will receive zero (as the Big 12 would likely only be swayed by truly exceptional academic reputations).
Basketball Value (5 points) – As I stated in the Big Ten Expansion Index post, personally, there’s nothing that would make me more delirious as a sports fan than Illinois winning the national championship in basketball. However, when it comes to conference expansion discussions, basketball has been even less of a consideration than I originally thought 4 years ago. This is too bad since there is a whole slew of excellent or even elite basketball programs available in the Group of Five (much more so than football programs). That being said, if all things are relatively equal in the other categories, then basketball considerations could be the tipping point. An elite program and/or fan base will receive 5 points and a solid program and/or school with a fair amount of tradition will get 3 points.
Geographic Fit/Need (5 points) – Normally, this is a category that is based on pure geographic proximity. However, the Big 12 also has a geographic need to bridge the distance gap between West Virginia and the rest of the conference. As a result, schools in states that are located within that gap along with other states immediately adjacent to the current Big 12 footprint will receive 5 points, while everyone else will receive zero. This is an all-or-nothing category – either a school meets the geographic need or it doesn’t.
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power (10 points) – This is a category that wasn’t considered for the Big Ten since it was really looking for established old money schools. In the Big 12’s case, though, its realistic expansion candidates almost all have warts of some nature. In fact, there are quite a few candidates that would be looked at in an entirely different light in a positive way if they were merely competent in on-the-field football performance (much less being powers). As a result, much like an unpolished prospect with a lot of athleticism in the NFL or NBA draft, the upside potential of a school should be taken into consideration by the Big 12. This is especially true for a school that could potentially have “monopoly power” of being the only power conference program in its home state. Other factors include whether a school is a flagship or academically elite, has a proven basketball fan base, or has made a lot of recent investments in football facilities.
(* Note that the Mutual Interest category that was in the Big Ten Expansion Index was eliminated here. Any Group of Five school would join the Big 12 in a heartbeat.)
III. EVALUATION OF BIG 12 EXPANSION CANDIDATES
The candidates are listed in reverse order from least desirable to most desirable. Once again, for the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that the only viable Big 12 expansion candidates are not currently power conference members and the calculations are based upon comparisons only to other schools within that non-power conference school group.
A. ALL HAT, NO CATTLE
RICE
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 0
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 5
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 35
Overview: Fantastic academic institution with a lot of history with the former Southwestern Conference teams in the Big 12, but the lack of a new market or recruiting area is a killer for its candidacy. It would take some massive on-the-field accomplishments (i.e. winning the Group of Five bid to a top bowl in the new College Football Playoff system multiple times) for Rice to move up here.
UNLV
Football Brand Value – 10
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 0
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 37
Overview: The Runnin’ Rebels score low right now due to a horrid stretch of on-the-field football performances over the past several years, but they’re a program to watch if it can get a new state-of-the-art football stadium into place. This is a school that provides the highest profile sports teams in the Las Vegas market with a strong basketball fan base, so their value skyrockets if they can avoid complete ineptitude in football.
COLORADO STATE
Football Brand Value – 10
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 10
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 5
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 43
Overview: It’s a mystery why Colorado State doesn’t ever seem to be able to get its act together on-the-field. On paper, this is an institution that ought to be attractive to a power conference with its solid academics and location in fast growing and demographically desirable Colorado, yet their putrid football performances over the past decade have nixed them from any type of consideration. CSU, like UNLV, is looking to build a new football stadium to increase its chances to move up in the athletic world.
SMU
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 0
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 43
Overview: The issue with SMU (and any other Texas-based school) is that they’re not bringing any new TV markets or recruiting areas that the Big 12 doesn’t already have blanketed. Now, that isn’t an automatic disqualifier for a Big 12 candidacy (see the addition of TCU in 2011), but it would likely take perfect scores in the Football Brand Value and National TV Value categories to make that happen.
NEW MEXICO
Football Brand Value – 10
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 45
Overview: New Mexico is in a very similar situation to UNLV with an excellent basketball program and fan base with potential monopoly power in its home market… but its on-the-field football product has been unacceptably terrible for a long period of time. The Lobos actually have a leg up on UNLV in terms of academics and being a geographic fit with the Big 12, so they’re a school that can rise rapidly in the pecking order with merely some football competence (much less prowess).
HOUSTON
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 0
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 3
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 48
Overview: See the comments about SMU, only Houston has more basketball tradition. There is also the wild card that the Big 12 may want a physical presence in the Houston market in the same way that TCU is located in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, but the Cougars would still need to have some overwhelmingly extraordinary football success for this to be a possibility.
MEMPHIS
Football Brand Value – 10
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 10
Academics – 0
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 7
Total: 49
Overview: Memphis is essentially an Eastern mirror of UNLV: large urban basketball school with historically terrible football over the past decade. The advantage that Memphis has by comparison is that it’s located in a rich football recruiting area and aids in bridging the geographic gap between West Virginia and the rest of the Big 12. Memphis has shown that they have excellent basketball fans – if they can get that to translate to football, they have quite a bit of upside. The main drag is being the midst of heavy SEC competition.
B. INTRIGUING, BUT NOT PRACTICAL
BOISE STATE
Football Brand Value – 30
National TV Value – 15
Local TV Value – 0
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 0
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 7
Total: 52
Overview: From a national TV contract standpoint, Boise State might be the single most valuable school that is outside of the power conferences as of today. The question that university presidents will always ask, though, is, “How long will this last?” As you can see, Boise State doesn’t bring anything else in terms of demographics, academics, basketball or geography. This is a school whose attributes are purely based upon on-the-field football performance, which is actually exactly what university presidents tend to shy away from since such success is difficult to maintain even when a program has all of the financial resources in the world (see Texas and USC right now and Alabama prior to Nick Saban coming in). There might be a point where Boise State becomes the Gang of Five equivalent of Nebraska where markets and demographics become completely irrelevant with having such a strong football brand, but we aren’t there yet.
TEMPLE
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 10
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 15
Academics – 0
Basketball Value – 3
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 53
Overview: This is an interesting potential play for the Big 12 by going directly east of West Virginia. The good news is that Philadelphia is a massive market with access to an excellent football recruiting state*. The bad news is that Philly is a tepid college football market (and those that follow college football there tend to follow the king program of Penn State) and there’s a sense that Temple won’t ever develop into much more than what is now (which isn’t satisfactory for the Big 12). The school has had plenty of chances to become a legit power program and never succeeded.
(* For fans of “Friday Night Light”s (the TV series), just picture that fantastic final scene in the finale with the football in the air transitioning from Texas to Philly. If only conference realignment were as smooth.)
CONNECTICUT
Football Brand Value – 20
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 0
Academics – 5
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 57
Overview: In a vacuum, UConn is arguably the most power conference-like school that isn’t in a power conference today. If this were an ACC Expansion Index, then UConn would be close to a perfect score. Frankly, there’s still a part of me that’s surprised that UConn isn’t in the ACC already, but I perfectly understand why Louisville got the nod last year. The problem with the prospect of UConn going to the Big 12 is that it’s not a good fit for what the conference is seeking in expansion. UConn has actually performed aptly in football over the past decade outside of the last couple of years, yet the New England region is a black hole when it comes for football recruiting (particularly considering how it’s a high population area) and the school’s men’s and women’s basketball prowess probably has the least value to the Big 12 out of any of the power conferences (as hoops mainly benefit conferences that either have networks like the Big Ten has or strong basketball syndication deals like the ACC). Now, UConn’s Big East pedigree and relatively strong brand name means that the school has a large amount of upside, but it may not matter to the Big 12 with Connecticut being so far geographically from the conference’s core.
C. NEEDS WORK, BUT KEEP AN EYE ON THEM
TULANE
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 5
Local TV Value – 3
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 15
Academics – 5
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 58
Overview: Tulane has been in the on-the-field football doldrums since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, but the Green Wave might be resuscitating itself at just the right time. The school is building a brand new right-sized on-campus stadium and the football team is bowl eligible this season. Tulane’s academics are arguably the best of any school in the Group of Five besides Rice and the state of Louisiana is one of the best pound-for-pound football recruiting areas in the country. Honestly, out of all of the schools on this list, Tulane has the best chance out of anyone to realize its Tremendous Upside Potential and moving up to the top.
D. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
SOUTH FLORIDA
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 10
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 63
Overview: The allure of USF is purely about a demographic play – athletic directors and coaches fall all over themselves over the thought of combining the recruiting territories of Texas and Florida. (Note that this is a bigger reason for any fan of a school that’s not in the SEC to be scared of how successful that league can integrate Texas A&M.) USF has shown some flashes of football ability, but it’s been inconsistent. There is also extremely heavy power conference competition within the state of Florida (with Florida, Florida State and Miami gobbling up market shares), so there’s a limit to how large of a fan base that USF can realistically build.
CENTRAL FLORIDA
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 10
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 7
Total: 65
Overview: UCF has the exact same overview as USF above (just switch USF with UCF) except that UCF has a bit more upside as (a) being one of the largest schools by enrollment in the country and (b) having fresh chances to perform at higher levels of college football (whereas we’ve already seen what USF was and wasn’t able to do in the old Big East).
SAN DIEGO STATE
Football Brand Value – 15
National TV Value – 10
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 0
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 67
Overview: San Diego State has similar attributes as UCF and USF on the opposite coast when it comes to football, but the Aztecs have the advantage when it comes to basketball value and the fact that it is the primary Division I sports school in the San Diego market. While Florida and Florida State have statewide fan bases in the Sunshine State, California is much more fragmented by market, which means that SDSU has more potential to “deliver” its home market despite the on-paper proximity of UCLA and USC compared to the AAC’s Florida schools.
E. THE ONLY CHOICES TODAY
BYU
Football Brand Value – 30
National TV Value – 15
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 5
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 0
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 75
Overview: BYU has strong enough of a national brand to garner an independent TV contrac with ESPN, a massive worldwide fan base, its own TV network and a solid football tradition. My criteria for demographics and academics likely undercount the true value of BYU, as its relevant demographics are really related to the world’s Mormon population and it has top tier undergraduate academics. Boise State might have the best record of recent on-the-field achievements out of any non-power conference school, but BYU is the one institution at this level that legitimately looks, feels and acts like a power conference program.
CINCINNATI
Football Brand Value – 30
National TV Value – 15
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 90
Overview: I’ve been mentioning Cincinnati as a strong Big 12 expansion candidate for awhile, but it wasn’t until constructing this index did I see how the school really does hit virtually every metric that the conference should be seeking. Among the Group of Five schools, its Football Brand Value is strong with multiple BCS bowl appearances and consistent performances over the past several years despite a number of coaching changes. The state of Ohio is a football recruiting powerhouse with only one in-state power conference competitor (albeit a massive one in the form of Ohio State). The school’s academics are solid, it has a great basketball history and its location is in a major market with probably the best geographic bridge to West Virginia of any viable candidate. The only question with Cincinnati is whether it can really perform any better on-the-field that it already has in football during the past few years. Still, that’s a minor issue compared to how the school has created a consistently competitive football program.
So, if the Big 12 were to expand today, it’s clear that Cincinnati and BYU have a huge gap over the rest of the field. Whether that type of expansion would be compelling enough to the Big 12 to make a move at all is still an open question.
(Image from Wikipedia)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
PSU < tOSU
LikeLike
😦
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
BYU is not joining a conference. So that leaves the Big 12 to add Cincinnati….and who?
That’s why the Big 12 isn’t expanding anytime soon. They need a partner for Cincy. It doesn’t exist right now.
LikeLike
What are you talking about? BYU is independent right now but if the Big 12 invites BYU then BYU is joining. Obviously you’re not a BYU fan and know nothing about BYU
LikeLike
They’ve been invited/explored several times in the last three years, and the requirements of both sides were unacceptable to each other. Unless things have changed dramatically the LDS leaders aren’t interested in acquiescing.
LikeLike
Not true per Tom Holmoe, the BYU AD. My paraphrase and best distillation of his comments is that there never were any formal “negotiations”; nothing got so far as a real discussion of terms and an offer to take to the Board of Trustees. Not so long ago, a fan threw that up to him at a Q&A session, for about the millionth time. Holmoe’s a nice guy, but he’s tired of fielding the same issue, and giving the same answer. His exasperated comment: “Read my lips! There was nothing to turn down. WE-WERE-NEVER-INVITED !!!!!” My take is that they’ve always wanted to come to the Big-12; they’re a better geographic fit for the PAC-12, but a huge cultural clash there, versus a natural cultural fit with the Big-12 institutions.
As far as “unacceptable requirements” are concerned, Sunday play is the only issue that could be a deal breaker, but it shouldn’t be. It’s not that tough to schedule around, especially in football and basketball. And in truth, it’s not that tough to schedule all sports around it either, as the NCAA has done in championships for years. Besides that issue, the fit is excellent. The way the Big-12 handles 3rd tier rights fits BYU’s in-house TV network perfectly — no clash there, the issue was settled with UT and the Longhorn Network. The travel distance is a negative, but no worse than WVU. The school brings an entirely new footprint in terms of markets and fanbase, and their regional and national fanbase is considerable. They draw well on the road wherever they play. They’re competitive right now; they wouldn’t win the league, but they’d challenge for an upper division finish right away in both football and b-ball. (In the last 6 years they’ve had 5 b-ball NCAA bids and 1 NIT bid.) They draw 60k+ in football and 15k+ in basketball on average, which would put them above average in league attendance on Day 1 as well. They bring enough TV audience to keep ESPN happy with an independent TV deal, so they’re likely to at least hold their share of the weight in future TV contract negotiations. They’re ready to go right now, turnkey, without having to hope for something to develop after they join. The more you look at them, the less there is not to like about the fit. And they’re out there for the taking — at least for now.
Rumor has it that T Boone Pickens and some of the folks at Baylor and in the conference office weren’t nuts about the idea. Who knows; rumors in this stuff aren’t worth much. Suffice it to say that the conversation never got past preliminaries — no offer was ever extended, by definition nothing was ever turned down, and by all accounts BYU is keeping their ears to the ground, and their options open. BYU and Cincinnati are slam-dunks and both would join tomorrow; the league should have pulled the trigger on both of them a long time ago.
LikeLike
There ar never ‘formal negotiations’ until after a deal is already done.
LikeLike
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=B-9LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9OwDAAAAIBAJ&dq=big%2012&pg=4801%2C6649676
This link from the birth of the Big 12 may be just as applicable today…
LikeLike
People misplace BYU’s negotiations with the Big East. BYU did play hardball with the Big East, before Louisville and Rutgers left…and rightfully so. BYU would jump to the Big 12 in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
That would leave the Big12 to add nobody, at least until the 2020’s, unless and until one or more of the “upside potential schools take leverages that potential. Mizzou may have left, but the Big12 has every reason to stick with “Show Me” for the balance of the decade.
LikeLike
Sean:
I would not put it so. Rather, I would say BYU is in no hurry to join a conference.
Right now, they’ve got a sweet deal with ESPN. Their Independent schedule with ESPN’s help has been quite good, perfectly respectable. Plus they aren’t involved in the politics that is inherent in all conferences, some more that others.
Yes, people are talking about going to super conferences, and are saying that BYU, Notre Dame and other Independents had better jump aboard or get left behind. Personally, I’m in the camp that doubts the super-conferences will come. As other people on this blog have pointed out, 10 to 12 members seems to be the sweet spot for conferences. Any bigger, and the inevitable conflicts and divergent interests tend to cause giant conferences to become unstable and split apart. It’s been that way for decades. I see no real reason for it to change any time soon.
LikeLike
We now have, for the first time, two 14 team “major” football conferences. That’s the relevant history.
BYU will do what the church leaders deem is in the church’s best interest.
LikeLike
Except that this is year one of ACC at 14 and year two of SEC at 14. And the ACC just lost a member (Maryland) and the SEC seems to be dealing with a decent amount of scheduling tensions relating to how infrequently some of the schools will see each other. There’s no way to know how stable or unstable 14-16 team configurations would be in such a short timeframe, but there have at least been minor signs of trouble. The SEC and B1G have more than enough cash to paper over issues for a while, but the ACC doesn’t, and you do have to wonder how stable that setup is for all but the very richest leagues.
LikeLike
That’s pretty much true of all colleges, wouldn’t you say? Each and every one of them will do what they see best in their interests.
That is perhaps the biggest reason I see super-conferences as unstable in the long run; there are too many competing individual best interests. The friction and heat generated by so many divergent agendas tends to drive them apart.
LikeLike
Here’s the big thing that needs to get across: BYU did NOT reject the Big 12. As of now, the Big 12 has passed on BYU. Everything that I’ve seen suggests that BYU would take a Big 12 invite very readily and all TV issues would be worked out. (No Sunday play is non-negotiable for BYU, but it’s exaggerated as a factor. MWC schools had plenty of complaints about BYU, but the rule about not playing on Sundays was fairly easily mitigated and never came up as a major problem.) However, independence is vastly preferred to joining any Group of Five conference.
The LDS leaders want a lot of control, but they do understand the difference of being in a power conference and the exposure that brings the Church. They’ll take a complete hardline against the AAC and MWC in a way that wouldn’t occur with the Big 12. Ultimately, it’s the Big 12’s decision.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B12 was willing to grant the media demands of BYU. The church leaders don’t care about athletic championships. They care about the ability to expand the church recruitment and their current deal fills BYUtv with attractive inventory. Would the non UT/OU schools accept the media demands? How does it help them? I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the leaderships goals. They may not see the B12 as a stable long term increased visibility and control home. And without such, why sacrifice what they now have?
LikeLike
PMark,
“BYU will do what the church leaders deem is in the church’s best interest.”
“That’s pretty much true of all colleges, wouldn’t you say? Each and every one of them will do what they see best in their interests.”
That’s the big difference. Other schools would do what’s in the best interest of the school. BYU will do what’s in the best interest of the church.
LikeLike
This reminds me of the old Hebrew National ad slogan “We answer to a higher authority.”
LikeLike
Brian:
I always find this a rather strange point to make. What does this mean exactly? Except for Sunday play, where does what’s best for the church diverge from what’s best for the University?
TV rights? What college out there doesn’t want as much control over their TV rights as possible?
BYUtv? BYU has an international channel that is in nearly every home in the country and countless other homes around the world. They want to put as much BYU sports on it as possible. What university, if they had a similar channel wouldn’t want the same thing?
Revenue? BYU and the church wants as much revenue as possible. What college does not?
Joining a conference? Nearly everyone BYU fan I’ve heard from thinks that Independence is far and away better than being in the MWC, WAC, or any other lower rung conference. BYU gets a better schedule, better TV deal, equivalent or better bowl tie-ins, better revenue, more national exposure and no intra-conference politicking. It’s a win-win-win-win-win-win. What college in BYU’s position would want to go back?
Accepting a B12, PAC, or any other P5 invite? If they made allowances for Sunday play, I cannot think of where BYU’s interests here would diverge from the LDS church’s either. Can you?
Perhaps my point can be best illustrated by what happened the last time realignment touched BYU. When everything started to hit the fan, BYU’s President and AD briefed the Board of Trustees (those infamous “LDS leaders” you hear so much about) on the situation. The AD later reported that the BOT essentially gave them carte blanche to proceed as they (the BYU people) saw fit. The BOT didn’t get involved again until the final deals needed to be approved and the papers signed. Does that sound like a governing body that is overly-anxious to micromanage the affairs of their university, to interfere with the best interests of the school?
So in all seriousness, I would love to hear all the areas where the best interests of the LDS church are different from the best interests of BYU.
LikeLike
Well, as to TV rights, BYU would likely maximize its revenue by being a part of a major conference vs. its deal with ESPN and BYUtv carriage fees. But moving athletic contests from its own TV channel might cause it to lose some carriage fees/lead to the channel to be dropped by some providers. That channel is critical to the larger LDS mission.
So that’s an instance where what’s best for BYU as a school hurts the broader LDS mission.
LikeLike
“What college out there doesn’t want as much control over their TV rights as possible?”
The school doesn’t control. The church leadership does and with the church in mind, not the school.
“Revenue? BYU and the church wants as much revenue as possible. What college does not?”
Revenue isn’t a primary (or secondary) concern to them. They’d be in the B12 yesterday if it was.
“So in all seriousness, I would love to hear all the areas where the best interests of the LDS church are different from the best interests of BYU.”
They aren’t different. The school (and its athletic teams) are an arm of the church. This is fundamentally different than how most other major schools function. We don’t get to evaluate what would be best for them through the prism of most every other D1 schools shared goals and/or benefits.
LikeLike
PMark,
“That’s the big difference. Other schools would do what’s in the best interest of the school. BYU will do what’s in the best interest of the church.”
“I always find this a rather strange point to make. What does this mean exactly?”
It means exactly what it says. The church will make decisions for BYU that are best for the church, not necessarily best for the school.
“Except for Sunday play, where does what’s best for the church diverge from what’s best for the University?”
So except for that 1 major example? The honor code is another. The importance of BYUtv is another. There are more. BYU makes sacrifices for religion and more exposure at the cost of more potential revenue. That’s not in the best interest of the school, but it is for the church.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
Could be. However, BYUtv isn’t much of a sports station. LHN / BTN it ain’t. It exists primarily as an education tool for its students, and as a world-wide outlet for the church. If you ever watched it, you would quickly see that it is kind of a cross between a religious channel and a PBS channel. The church, wanting to get its message out to as many people as possible, provides it at a very low cost. As a result, nearly all providers carry it in their block of religious channels.
So if BYU sports disappeared from it, the impact upon its availability would be nil. It was doing just fine before independence. It will do just fine after if it meant losing BYU sports. Obviously having sports is better than not having sports.
So my point still stands, BYU — as any other college would if they were in the same position — wants to keep as much of their sports programming on their network as possible.
—
ccrider55,
“The school doesn’t control. The church leadership does and with the church in mind, not the school.”
Oh come now. Yes, you are technically correct, but let’s not play semantic games. Under your definition, the University of Texas doesn’t control their rights either, the State of Texas does.
“Revenue isn’t a primary (or secondary) concern to them. They’d be in the B12 yesterday if it was.”
How can that be true when they weren’t even invited? The discussions never got beyond the “feel out” stage.
Yes, they wish to live by their morale principles, and as such they are not willing to give up on Sunday play or fielding players who have violated the Honor Code. So in that sense, yes, revenue is not a primary issue for them. But if Sunday play was dealt with, I suspect you will find them just as eager for the buck as anyone else. If the price was right, I suspect they would even give up most of those wonderful TV rights they currently have. They are valuable to them. How valuable, who knows? But for sure they are negotiable.
But when it comes to TV rights, that is why I suspect the B12 is likely a better fit for them than any other P5. The B12 has already dealt with the LHN. I don’t see much in BYU’s TV package that would be that much different than the one given to the Longhorns. A tweak or two here and there, and voilà! You’ve got it.
The point I am making is that when I hear people talk about BYU not doing what’s in their best interest but the church’s, I think it’s a bit silly. Apart from Sunday play and playing players who are in Honor code violation, the interests of the BYU in the buying and selling of their athletics are not all that different from the interests of nearly every other institution of higher learning out there.
LikeLike
PMark,
“So my point still stands, BYU — as any other college would if they were in the same position — wants to keep as much of their sports programming on their network as possible.”
No, many schools chose a conference network over a private one.
“How can that be true when they weren’t even invited? The discussions never got beyond the “feel out” stage.”
Nice straw man. Nobody ever gets invited officially until it’s a given that they’ll accept. That way nobody ever looks bad.
“The point I am making is that when I hear people talk about BYU not doing what’s in their best interest but the church’s, I think it’s a bit silly. ”
Sure you do. Of course, you start by exempting the most glaring examples and minimizing the TV issue. If we all looked through those same blue-colored glasses we might share your POV.
LikeLike
“BYUtv isn’t much of a sports station. LHN / BTN it ain’t.”
Precisely. It’s a proselytizing tool. Sports are a supplement to draw a larger/broader audience, as well as provide as much coverage as possible to the already converted (at no additional cost).
LikeLike
Brian,
What possible bearing would not playing athletes under honor code violations have on joining or not joining a conference? Do not other schools and other teams have rules which if an athlete violates, they can get suspended? Whether they do or not, that is an internal affair between the school and the student and really shouldn’t affect their negotiations for joining a conference. I wouldn’t expect the B12 negotiators to tell BYU, “As a condition to joining us, we want you to stop suspending student athletes for having sex with their girlfriends”. I can see them talking about about abandoning their Sunday play policy, but I really can’t see them touching upon honor code violations. Can you?
So once again I ask, except Sunday play, where does the LDS church’s best interests lie counter to BYU’s interests as a university in negotiating joining a conference? Sunday play, I’ll grant you free and clear. That’s a given. But where else?
—-
ccrider55,
I had to chuckle a bit when I read your “proselytizing tool” remark. Have you ever watched the LHN? I view it a fair amount since that I live in Texas and try to follow the Longhorns. Believe me, there is far more “proselytizing” done on that channel — blatant, over-the-top proselytizing — than is ever on BYUtv. They really lay the UT propaganda on thick.
I can’t say that I blame them much. They’ve got the channel. Why not use it?
What’s the BTN like? I don’t get it so I’ve never watched it. How much proselytizing for the B1G is on it?
Humor aside, how does wanting to put as much as possible of the most attractive programming available (BYU sports) on the University’s own network constitute placing the church’s interests over the interests of the school? The network serves the University’s mission well. Students produce most of the content. They do most of everything from the control booth to the camera work to the makeup and lighting to the video vaults. It’s all under the watchful direction of their teachers. It gives the students valuable hands-on experience for when they go out into the world looking for jobs in their chosen field of media production. BYU sports production does the same thing in the area of sports broadcasting. How would dropping BYU sports from BYUtv be in BYU’s best interests, the best interests of its students and those of its alumni?
LikeLike
“…how does wanting to put as much as possible of the most attractive programming available (BYU sports) on the University’s own network constitute placing the church’s interests over the interests of the school?”
One last attempt:
So long as you accept that the purpose/goals of BYU, the programs, and the students is to serve the mission of the church then their interests are the same. But the same decisions made for almost any other school would be seen as hurting their own competitive interest (not joining a P5 conf, not having multiple auto bowl tie-ins and championship access, easier scheduling, etc).
The church ended intercollegiate athletics at BYUI (formerly Ricks) because it wasn’t promoting the “proper” morals and goals.
There is a difference between promotion/propaganda at LHN and proselytizing.
Are you from Missouri?
LikeLike
ccrider55
Okay, now I see what you are getting at. The owners of a university can do things that may not be seen as in the best interests of the university.
When the old SWC was collapsing and the B12 came into being. UT wanted to join the PAC and TAM wanted to join the SEC, but the State of Texas (their owners) forced them to join with the old BIG-8 and take Baylor and TT with them.
Plus I read stories a couple of years ago about how the PAC wanted OU, but the State of Oklahoma (their owners) insisted upon OU and OSU being joined at the hip. Supposedly the Texas legislation also interfered with UT’s PAC flirtation, as well.
So, yes, the LDS church could step in and put their best interests ahead of BYU’s. As history has shown, there is always the danger of the owners doing that sort of thing. However, at this point I don’t see their interests as being all that far apart.
By the way, I watch BYUtv and LHN about equally and even in terms of promotion not proselytizing, the LHN does far more of that sort of thing that BYUtv does. Why, I don’t know, but I am guessing that BYUtv pretty much assumes that the vast majority of its viewers are either LDS or BYU alumni, and they don’t waste the efforts promoting the school or the church. What’s really sticks out are the food storage and wedding ring ads. The WCC fans get a real kick out of those when they tune in to watch their teams play BYU. 🙂
Thanks for taking the time to get your point across.
LikeLike
Glad to help, you’re getting close.
“So, yes, the LDS church could step in and put their best interests ahead of BYU’s.”
You still don’t seem to grasp that they don’t step in, they are the purpose for BYU. All decisions by the school are made in this light. Athletics are a promotional tool that a significant group of leaders would rather do without, but have enough promotional value that they continue to be supported (far more by their fans).
LikeLike
cc,
Surely you have learned by now that people seldom, if ever, only consider one thing in making a decision. How often do you, yourself, do something for one reason, and one reason only? It’s simply not done by anybody.
Is “promotional purposes” the only purpose you can come up with for BYU to support student sports?
LikeLike
“Is “promotional purposes” the only purpose you can come up with for BYU to support student sports?”
It’s the only one that justifies the expense of intercollegiate competition, the chase of money, winning as a primary goal, consorting with those who have opposite ideology, etc.
See how athletics are supported at BYU-I.
Hint: look under activities.
http://www.byui.edu/
LikeLike
cc,
Ricks college dropped their intercollegiate sports when they became BYU-I for one simple reason — money.
It’s a little know fact, but the LDS church requires intercollegiate athletics at their universities to be self-sustaining. It must pay its own way in sports with no help from the church. Why? To put it in a nutshell, it could be awkward to ask a Utah Ute fan to pay tithing to support BYU football.
In the case of BYU, the problem is moot. The school is big enough, strong enough and good enough to be fully self-sustaining in sports. BYU-I is not. They could never compete at the level where that would be possible. So they dropped intercollegiate sports all together.
They still have a very strong intramural program in many different sports, but intercollegiate sports are gone.
To construe their actions in this case as LDS leadership not liking sports for the reasons you gave takes some serious leaps in logic. If they were so much against competition as you appear to postulate, why would they support such a strong intramural program at BYU-I?
LikeLike
“President Hinckley articulated the following response: “It takes too much money. It takes a great amount of time and energy.”
I.e. intercollegiate competition is not valued enough to focus on, even with a successful JC/small college history. No mention of self sustaining (are intramural a?).
As to the independence (or not) of schools in the LDS system: “For the immediate future, the president of BYU–Idaho will report directly to the Commissioner of the Church Educational System.” There isn’t really a separation.
http://www.byui.edu/upward/archive/summit/fall-2000/announcement
LikeLike
The LDS Church has 15 million worldwide members that pay 10% tithing. That’s WAY more money than any university or athletic conference. It also has substantial investments and landholdings apart from tithing (LDS Church now owns 2% of Florida’s property).
BYU’s role for the LDS Church is primarily missionary and bridge-building with other faiths for standing up for family and Christ-centered values – establishing Christ’s kingdom on earth.
Money barely makes the lists of priorities for the BYU football and athletics programs, but for the fact that the LDS Church expects BYU’s athletic department to be self-sufficient and not tithing-dependent.
Also, you cannot understate BYU’s current relationship with its WCC brethren. The relationships that BYU and the LDS Church are forging with Catholics and the Church of Christ are exponentially more important to BYU than BYU’s results in WCC men’s basketball.
I still think BYU would jump at the right opportunity to join the Big 12. But it would be done to give BYU and the LDS Church the opportunity to expand and broadcast the LDS Church’s mission; and would have very little to do with conference and TV payouts.
LikeLike
“….and who?”
Next team on the list by total index points is San Diego State. Making a play for California would be a smart move for the Big XII
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Cincinnati seems a little marginal outside of market (don’t know if I’d put them so high at football brand value or national TV value), but I’d have to think WVU would be doing backflips trying to get into Ohio. Even Iowa State and, to a lesser extent, the Kansas teams, would likely be happy. Ohio has always been a good spot for Midwestern teams to hit in recruiting, but most Big 12 teams have been non-factors in the state (all focused on Texas).
BYU has to be the default choice. No one among the other viable candidates has their football infrastructure and their commitment to competing at a high level in the sport.
Beyond that, they pretty much just have to root for UNLV and Colorado State to get their acts together in a sustained way, or for one of the California or Florida second-tier programs to get a god-send of a football coach that leads them to sustained greatness and doesn’t want to leave for greener pastures.
LikeLike
Though bear in mind that the football brand value and national TV value is declared up front to be relative to Go5 schools ~ in that context, I think the ratings given are at least arguable.
LikeLike
Spartans>Rodents
LikeLike
If BYU joins, it will probably be football only due to Sunday play issues with the Olympic sports. So that might change the analysis.
LikeLike
Yeah, the no play on Sundays would be a really big issue for a conference whose members would span three time zones and tend to be located fairly far from major airports. And I’m not really sure how open the Big XII would be to adding BYU as an FB only member since it could set a precedent for Texas to eventually try the opposite.
LikeLike
Football only is not an option as B12 bylaws require a program participate in at least five total sports plus Football.
LikeLike
Louis D,
“Football only is not an option as B12 bylaws require a program participate in at least five total sports plus Football.”
If the B12 wanted BYU for FB only, they could easily change the bylaws.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 wanted to expand with any of the available candidates they would have done it by now. Under current circumstances, BYU is the only viable option, and only in football. If in the future a conference championship game is considered necessary, the conference would construct a list very similar to this one, but it would be surprising if it happened anytime soon.
LikeLike
I feel sorry for Kansas- they, unfortunately, were left without a chair after the music stopped. I don’t think they were happy with their situation in the Big 12, but maybe now that it’s stabilized they can breathe a sigh of relief. Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri all got the elusive golden tickets out while they were basically stuck on what was, at the time, a dumpster fire.
LikeLike
@Bjork:
I’d say you were Andy’s Scandinavian cousin, but you expressed genuine sympathy for Kansas.
Also, true, Kansas is in genuine danger if the B12 one day implodes.
LikeLike
You’re right, I have no sympathy for Kansas fans like you. You’re even more obnoxious than I am.
LikeLike
2 things:
1) I was unaware I am a Kansas fan, but ok.
2) Surely being called obnoxious by you is a badge of honor. Like a ruler praising a disciple.
LikeLike
Big 12 made a short sided decision by not adding Louisville. Frank’s article shows Cincinnati is qualified to be in the Big 12. Choosing the short term money over the long term stability of a 12-team conference with Louisville & Cincinnati will come back to hurt them when the TV contract expires.
This would have have been an interesting scenario:
SEC = 14
B1G = 14
ACC + UConn = 14
PAC + BYU, UNLV = 14
XII + Cincy, Lville, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, USF = 16
+ Notre Dame = 73 BCS Power 5 teams with only UNLV, Memphis, Tulane & UCF promoted from Group of 5
Hypothetical Big 16 pods:
Texas
Baylor
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Louisville
Cincinnati
West Virginia
Memphis
Tulane
Central Florida
South Florida
LikeLike
“Choosing the short term money over the long term stability of a 12-team conference with Louisville & Cincinnati will come back to hurt them when the TV contract expires.”
It will only hurt the schools that are stuck and will not be able to join a power conference. Texas and OU will make out fine because they will simply join a power conference once the B12 TV contract expires.
LikeLike
My guess is that Kansas will be okay, too.
LikeLike
The problem with Louisville, most likely, was that, unlike WVU, UL wasn’t prepared to sue their way out of the BE.
The B12 couldn’t wait on UL to be “honorable”, and wait the time prior to departing the BE.
The B12 was at 8 and had to get to 12 before the 2012 season in order to preserve their (probable) inflated television deal that they were able to garner after the defection of NU and CU.
Had the B12 had the presence of mind to expand after NU and CU left, maybe they could have added UL and WVU. But the B12 had no plan. They were caught with their pants down.
So when they hit 8 schools, TCU suddenly looked good because they could join at once. And WVU looked good because Luck assured the B12 that WVU would be there for the B12 for the 2012 season. So far as I know, no such assurances were made by UL.
The B12 has only itself to blame. And now, it is my firm opinion that the B1G (and, possibly, to a lesser degree, the SEC) has itself set up for big things in about a decade.
LikeLike
Had the B12 had the presence of mind to expand after NU and CU left, maybe they could have added UL and WVU. But the B12 had no plan. They were caught with their pants down.
Key point. If they added and got right back to 12 they would have never lost the CCG and they would have added a Card team peaking at just the right time to bring power the Big 12 at a time when their public image was damaged. Louisville beat a SEC football team, ran second in the women’s basketball, won the men’s basketball, and put a team in the CWS.
While you may think the Big 12 was caught with their pants down my thought has more to do with the balance of power. With Nebraska and Colorado out, putting Louisville and West Virginia back in does nothing to swing votes to the Texas block. Louisville was clearly supported by Oklahoma and if granted Big 12 membership would ally with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. West Virginia had long term history with Louisville so they would side with the Louisville when it came to voting blocks. If Texas really wanted a conference where they held full sway then adding non TX schools would clearly dilute their power.
Adding TCU – a small private school in a pre existing footprint – may protect the TX schools but it clearly is not the best thing for stability in the conference as a whole. Adding Louisville and West Virginia might actually keep Missouri from leaving even if Texas A&M departed for the SEC. Look at it this way.
Big 12 = 12
– Nebraska
– Colorado
Big 12 = 10
+ West Virginia
+ Louisville
Big 12 = 12
– Texas A&M
+ Cincinnati
Big 12 = 12
North division
West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State
South division
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri (TCU if MU leaves)
Even if Missouri still goes to the B1G or SEC the Big 12 can fall back and add TCU at that point but they have already picked up 3 new footprints first. If realignment taught us anything it was driven by new markets to drive TV dollars. Under that guide, expansion to new territory should have been the first priority even if it weakened the grip of Texas early on to accomplish it.
LikeLike
The Big 12 held together in June. I think they were all catching their breath when A&M decided to leave the next summer. They were working on the TV contract, revenue sharing and GOR. UL looked a lot better the following year than they did in 2010. At that point UL was on a streak of 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6. They would have one more 7-6 season before their Sugar Bowl season. And w/o UL, WVU is not geographically continguous. In 2011, WVU was simply far and away the best available choice, so geography was ignored.
Its revisionist history to say they should have expanded in 2010. There really was no time. 2011 maybe, but Missouri was leading the drive to hold the conference together. A&M was saying one thing but thinking another. The rest of the conference had historically been open with each other. Texas told Nebraska about the Pac 16 deal before it got close.
LikeLike
bullet,
Realignment was being discussed back in 2009 so when June rolled around the Big 12 should have already been prepared. In the bigger picture Louisville already had a decade or so of support from ESPN and they had already put in motion a full rebuilding of their facilities.
Baseball stadium, new in 2005 and CWS in 2007
– Final Four in 2009
Basketball arena, new in 2010 and Final Four in 2005
Basketball
Field Hockey, new facility in 2000 and NCAA in 2006
Football stadium – new in 1998, 13,000 expansion during realignment (spring 2010)
(Cards had won the Orange Bowl in January of 2007 and drew ~74K)
Softball stadium, new in 2000
Trager (football training facility), new in 2006
Marshall (other sports training facility), new in 2008
Basically, everything at Louisville was brand new and showed the Cardinals had made the investment for the future. With all that new infrastructure it was clear they were building for the future. Since ESPN already supported Louisville (and why I still feel they wound up in the ACC) they would have possibly established a much scaled down version of the LHN for Louisville so ESPN would have 2 properties to trade content with and double their inventory. If Texas got 15 million from the LHN, ESPN could have piggybacked the Cards for 3-6 million per year. Again, the value of a network is not only the football properties, but the content provided in the months when football is not played.
At the Tier III level Louisville had all kinds of content and their basketball program was near elite status and they were building the biggest new arena in the country. Indianapolis (NCAA HQ) is just a couple of hours away so YUM provides a close venue. When Texas won the Volleyball Final Four last year, they did it in YUM Center! You can claim revisionist history all you want, but the blame for not being prepared lies squarely at the foot of Big 12 leadership and Deloss Dodds if you subscribe to the theory Dan Beebe was just a puppet figurehead.
Look at the timeline :
Blair Report leaks in late 2009
Nebraska and Colorado leave in June 2010
By March of 2010 the Big 12 should have already developed not only a primary plan, but a second and third option as they had at least 3 months notice. Even so they had at least another 3 months to backchannel to implement them. 6 months is not revisionist history, it is time wasted and poor planning by institutions that are supposed to be filled with smart people.
LikeLike
Lets be clear. Until the Sugar Bowl, Louisville was a lousy football product and an afterthought in their own state. They aren’t even #1 in Louisville. And without UL, Pitt and WVU look like islands. Noone else besides Pitt and WVU really made sense at the time and their geography didn’t make sense. And they might not have been interested. Pitt would rather have been in the ACC and WVU in the SEC.
Were they properly prepared? Don’t know. But being prepared wouldn’t have resulted in a different decision. They would still have stayed at 10.
LikeLike
@bullet: “Texas told Nebraska about the Pac 16 deal before it got close”
Sure it did, after it came out as public speculation via media reports/rumors. Texas didn’t even tell A&M it was arranging a deal with the Pac-10 that included A&M. No matter how badly you want to revise history, the fact of the matter is Texas was the first B12 team to negotiate a potential exit from the B12. Powers’ deception led to the eventual exit of NU, CU, A&M and Mizzou.
LikeLike
The Pac 16 wasn’t in media reports. Pearlman did hear the rumors from people he knew (obviously Pac 10 connections) before Texas told him about it. Pearlman said he always had a good, honest relationship with Powers. Texas told A&M about the Pac 16 deal before it got serious.
Texas was talking to the Pac after the Big 10 announced it was searching for new members.
In any event, schools are always talking and evaluating their options and comparing numbers. At least they should be if their AD is doing his job. Most of it isn’t serious.
LikeLike
Missouri was at one point in favor of bringing Pitt into the Big 12 but for whatever reason OU balked.
Then again Missouri was negotiating with the SEC at the same time so maybe they were just looking for someone to replace themselves.
LikeLike
lol at duffman and his “even if Missouri still goes”, like adding WVU, UL, and Cinci would have stopped Missouri from leaving. That’s a joke.
LikeLike
I disagree that the “sweet spot” for a conference is 16 teams.
Four 18-team conferences (Big XII is the easiest to spit up) results in four conference football championships/National Quarterfinal Games. With each conference division having 9 teams for football, there would be no unbalanced schedules within a conference. Conference championships would never be rematches! Also, no great team would be penalized by playing, and losing to, another great school from another conference. If you win your division/conference, you play on. Polls would be for trolls.
Basketball could be a 17-game schedule, annually alternating home-and-home. If conferences want mirror games, go ahead.
Best of all! If Notre Dame (and BYU), want to play for a National Championship they will have to play by everybody else’s rules – join a conference!
LikeLike
This is all cute, but your criteria is soooo flawed. See TCU. Flash in the pan, brings no additional TV revenue, no tradition. Jumped right in.
LikeLike
You have to remember though that when the Big XII added TCU circumstances were very different. First, in 2011 the Big XII had far less leverage than it does now. There was no GOR, no big long term TV deal and (most importantly) the Big XII had expand and quickly; A&M was leaving and without 10 members the Big XII couldn’t meet its inventory obligations to its TV partners. As such when the Big XII look around they found the best school available on short notice was TCU (remember, they weren’t expecting to lose Mizzou and didn’t want to mess around with the Big East’s 27 month waiting period).
The second big issue was that in 2011 it was really important that A&M be replaced by another Texas school which would ensure that everyone got two games in Texas every year. If the Big XII expanded again the conference would already be sacrificing Texas access, so another school in Texas would be less useful.
LikeLike
Yes, and TCU was an awful addition that added virtually no incremental value.
I don’t think Frank’s analysis flawed, but the TCU addition just shows that the Big 12 struggles to make logical decisions.
LikeLike
TCU was fresh off a #2 finish in the final poll and a Rose Bowl victory over Wisconsin. I would guess the TV people told them TCU brought better ratings than anyone else they could add. The northern schools wanted the 2nd game in Texas for recruiting reasons. TCU was top 5 in winning % over the previous decade. They have been ranked in the final poll in the BCS era more often than Alabama, Tennessee, Penn St. and Notre Dame. TCU had a mass of injuries last year and were still competitive. They were the pre-season favorite to win the conference this year, although they have struggled on offense.
I have doubts that TCU was a good long term choice because I doubt they can maintain success, but there was plenty of logic in choosing TCU. They had football brand, national TV value, local TV value (maintaining B12 dominance in DFW), recruiting value, academic value and fit geographically. And for the immediate term, their recruiting has improved dramatically in the Big 12.
LikeLike
I could be mistaken, but I thought TCU was taken because T. Boone Pickens pushed hard for them (based on the school’s then-recent success) and Texas was under state political pressure to add a 4th Texas school. I don’t recall it being driven as much by TV as much as conference and state politics. Based on those factors, it was TCU. Had SMU just gone to the Rose Bowl, it would have probably been SMU for the same reasons.
LikeLike
The pressure for the 4th Texas school was from the Big 12 north schools for recruiting reasons. If it was Texas politics, Houston would have been selected. TV is my speculation. Ratings are very much what have you done for me lately except for the dozen or so “brands.”
LikeLike
Wainscott – T Boone Pickens grandson was also a TCU student. FYI – Ross Perot’s granddaughter is a freshman at TCU.
LikeLike
@Bullet:
Maybe so, but this article implies that Houston’s political power regarding UH may not be that strong:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Big-12-invites-TCU-not-Houston-or-Rice-2206766.php
But also, the revenue gap between TCU and UH is massive.
LikeLike
My point exactly. Texas politics was not involved.
LikeLike
I stand corrected, as it seemed more Big 12 politics and Texas state politics.
http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/10/07/11/Big-12s-addition-of-TCU-is-a-coup-for-Ne/landing_big12.html?blockID=577118&feedID=9242
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7080495/nebraska-balked-sharing
LikeLike
And given the rather extreme issues TCU has had since joining the Big 12 (not to mention WV’s struggles, plus Utah’s issues in the Pac-12), I’d think the Big 12 would be a lot more wary about jumping into bed with any more mid-majors. TCU had basically been THE mid-major program of the prior decade (Utah, BYU and Boise were strong as well) and has crashed and burned in the Big 12. That’s a pretty powerful “hold your horses” lesson to take I think.
LikeLike
Completely disagree bullet. TCU is a small school that has historically been an afterthought in both Texas and the national spotlight. They strung together a couple great years at the right time, but their value was almost completely dependent on Gary Patterson outcoaching mid-major programs. They are already struggling with attendance in just their second year in the Big 12 despite a new stadium and a great run over the last 5 years. Odds are that the Big 12 just added a new Baylor rather than anything close to an A&M replacement.
LikeLike
Johnny Utah,
“TCU is a small school that has historically been an afterthought in both Texas and the national spotlight. They strung together a couple great years at the right time, but their value was almost completely dependent on Gary Patterson outcoaching mid-major programs.”
Since Franchione started there in 1998 (15 seasons), TCU has 7 conference titles, 14 bowls (9-5), 2 BCS bowls, and 9 top 25 finishes. That’s a better resume than many AQ schools, and it’s under 2 coaches, not one.
They also have ties to several B12 schools from their SWC days.
“They are already struggling with attendance in just their second year in the Big 12 despite a new stadium and a great run over the last 5 years.”
How do you figure?
Capacity is 45,000. Last year TCU averaged 46,047 (up from 33,686 in 2011).
TCU’s home attendance in 2013:
41,170 – NE LA
45,111 – SMU
41,894 – KU
48,212 – UT
Average so far = 44,097
They still have 2 more B12 games at home, including a rivalry game with Baylor so the number will likely rise.
I don’t see 98% of capacity as struggling.
“Odds are that the Big 12 just added a new Baylor rather than anything close to an A&M replacement.”
Nobody claimed they were a TAMU replacement.
LikeLike
“Since Franchione started there in 1998 (15 seasons), TCU has 7 conference titles, 14 bowls (9-5), 2 BCS bowls, and 9 top 25 finishes. That’s a better resume than many AQ schools, and it’s under 2 coaches, not one.”
Racking up wins in various mid-major conferences is virtually meaningless in this discussion. That just shows they had a nice run as a mid-major.
“How do you figure?
Capacity is 45,000. Last year TCU averaged 46,047 (up from 33,686 in 2011).
TCU’s home attendance in 2013:
41,170 – NE LA
45,111 – SMU
41,894 – KU
48,212 – UT
Average so far = 44,097
They still have 2 more B12 games at home, including a rivalry game with Baylor so the number will likely rise.
I don’t see 98% of capacity as struggling.”
See here:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24072486/photo-plenty-of-seats-available-at-tcukansas-game
and here:
http://thebiglead.com/2013/10/12/tcu-is-playing-kansas-amon-g-carter-stadium-is-empty/
and here:
http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/mac-engel/2013/10/in-minor-defense-of-the-absent-tcu-fan.html
It seems pretty obvious that they are lying about their game attendance, so those figures you mentioned (which I imagine are still below average for the power five conferences) are worthless.
“Nobody claimed they were a TAMU replacement.”
Actually quite a few Big 12 fans claimed they upgraded with TCU once A&M left. It was a silly, insecure comment then, and is just embarrassing now.
LikeLike
TCU allows people to leave the stadium and return. Don’t know if that’s the total reason for those pictures, but that is what some people claimed. Apparently it was around 100 degrees that day and people headed to the shade.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that there was a reason for the poor showing: temperature, boring opponent, disappointing season, etc.
But this just provides further evidence that TCU was a poor long-term addition to the Big 12. TCU added a small fanbase in a state that the Big 12 was already in. Looking back in ten years, I think it will be unanimous that the Big 12 whiffed in a panic move.
LikeLike
Sammy Baugh and the ’35 and ’38 National Championship teams would like a word. TCU has had a lot of hard years since then, but if Baylor didn’t have the connections in the Governor’s mansion TCU would have been in the BXII at the beginning as I understand it.
LikeLike
“,.. but if Baylor didn’t have the connections in the Governor’s mansion TCU would have been in the BXII at the beginning as I understand it.”
No, from talking to people who were actually involved in the talks at the time, a more accurate explanation is that if Baylor and TT didn’t have strong active representatives in the state government at the time the SWC folded, there never would have been a Big 12. Texas would have joined the Pac-10 and A&M would have followed Arkansas to the SEC as that was what the schools actually were intending to do when the SWC failed.
Neither TCU nor Baylor are net positives long term for a major conference.
LikeLike
UT’s President Cunningham said both were evaluated and Baylor came out ahead. Baylor’s program was way ahead of TCU at the time. Of course, Baylor had political pull. TCU would not have beaten out Baylor anyway. BYU might have. Not TCU.
LikeLike
Once their hand was forced their was no incentive for Cunningham to be forthcoming, better to claim they went where they wanted rather than admit they were pushed by the politicos.
This is from a DMN article:
————————————–
According to folklore, politicians in Austin made the decisions and forced Texas and Texas A&M to take Texas Tech and Baylor along. That’s the “biggest myth in the west,” according to former Texas chancellor William Cunningham.
Texas Tech would join the 12-team league on its own merits, Cunningham said. The final spot came down to Baylor or TCU. Those two were the only viable choices.
“Baylor had much better attendance at football games, and Baylor’s overall statistical profile was much more positive,” Cunningham said. “When we looked at it and tried to say which one was the logical choice, Baylor appeared to be the more logical choice.”
That’s not quite how former lawmakers remembered it.
Republican or Democrat, political allegiances didn’t matter when the saber rattling began in Austin. It was all about where you went to school. That’s what former House Speaker Gib Lewis still believes today.
The late Bob Bullock, the state’s lieutenant governor, had degrees from Tech and Baylor. Pete Laney, a Tech grad, was the House Speaker in 1994, the year everything came to pass.
“When I left office, you had Laney and Bullock,” said Lewis, who has deep ties to Fort Worth and attended TCU. He was House Speaker from 1983 to ’93. “It was pretty damn obvious that the two guys that happened to be in there went to those schools. I smelled a rat real quick.”
Reached at his office in Hale Center, Texas, Laney recalled that Texas and Texas A&M wanted to go separate ways. UT officials were considering the Pacific-10 Conference, and A&M decision-makers were flirting with the Southeastern Conference. Laney said that would have left Tech “in the wilderness.”
UT and A&M officials “came in and said here’s what are we going to do, and I said, ‘Not without Tech,’ ” Laney said. “Then, they went across the hall, and Bullock said the same thing about Baylor.
“When they came by to visit with us about that, they remembered that they got a lot of revenue from the state for education. You could say they were reminded of that.”
It was reported in 1994 that Bullock held a meeting in his office where UT and A&M officials effectively sealed the deal. Cunningham and former Sen. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate, confirmed being there, and Reynolds said he listened in on a speakerphone.
No one was working behind the scenes for TCU, according to key administrative and legislative figures.
————————————-
Like I said, I’ve spoken with people who were actually involved on the A&M side and they were deep into talks with the SEC at the time, and Texas was headed west. The Big 12 was a shotgun wedding that the state government mandated by waiving their control over the schools purse-strings.
LikeLike
Gib Lewis is just bitter. TCU was not that strong a program at that point in time. As for Laney, that’s the first time anyone has ever said TEXAS was told to go with Tech at THAT meeting. In the stories, Texas was there but didn’t say much.
Cunningham’s story is consistent with Tech having political pull, but he had long been aware of that. Per Cunningham, “the political realities in Texas dictated that any decision UT made and would also have to be acceptable to both Texas A&M and Texas Tech.” And later, “One option that we carefully considered was for A&M to join the SEC, while UT and Texas Tech went to the Pac 10. Bob Lawless, president of Texas Tech, expressed a strong interest in doing that….I kept Lawless up to date on the talks. The problem was that the Pac 10 was not interested in Texas Tech. The Pac 10 looked at a large amount of academic data about Texas Tech and concluded that it would be one of the weakest schools academically in the conference. So once again the possibility of UT heading west fell through.” Later he says “I never received any significant political pressure over whom to take to the new conference. I realize that some people may not believe this, but it is true….He [Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock] was as light-handed with me on this matter as I had ever seen him, and when Bullock really cared about something and wanted something done a certain way, he was not light-handed.”
LikeLike
Actually, Houston was supposed to be the fourth Texas school to join the Big 12, not TCU. Had it played out like it was supposed to, Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, and Texas A&M would have all joined. But Baylor had connections to the governor, so they got in instead of Houston.
LikeLike
Adding San Diego State would put the Big 12 in four time zones, not really a wise move. Since Brigham Young isn’t a realistic candidate and I have an inherent dislike for football-only members, I would add Cincinnati and Central Florida and be done with it. You’re adding two fine recruiting areas for football, plus UC has a solid hoops history. That’s pretty good for the Big 12.
LikeLike
Technically, adding San Diego St would only put the Big 12 in 3 time zones as they don’t have anyone in the Mountain TZ.
Though practically-speaking, having teams in three non-contiguous time zones is probably worse than actually being in all four.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Since Brigham Young isn’t a realistic candidate and I have an inherent dislike for football-only members, I would add Cincinnati and Central Florida and be done with it. You’re adding two fine recruiting areas for football, plus UC has a solid hoops history. That’s pretty good for the Big 12.”
If that was their basic plan, I’d suggest UCF and USF instead. 2 schools in FL to help draw more attention there. More games in FL for everyone, which helps recruiting (WV also recruits FL a lot). Also, it doesn’t leave a I-A newbie program on an island. WV has the strength to endure that for a while, but I don’t think UCF or USF do yet.
LikeLike
No reason for the XII to expand in the next decade. Getting close to the expiration of the GOR, the XII will know how they stack up against the ACC and if they will keep Texas. The candidates listed are acceptable in a future XII where Texas has bolted, but not to the current 10 members. Except for ACC and UCONN, would any of these schools get a look from another P5 conference? By the logic in this post, the PAC was short-sighted turning down OK/oSu, or not going after KS and ISU when the TX+4 broke down. I do not see any incentive for PAC to expand further without a home run like TX, even if B1G, ACC, and SEC go to 16. With the PAC at 12, the XII will be just 2 members smaller.
LikeLike
By the logic in this post, the PAC was short-sighted turning down OK/oSu
The PAC was short-sighted for turning down the Oklahoma schools…
LikeLike
This….a thousand times, this
LikeLike
Except for ACC and UCONN, would any of these schools get a look from another P5 conference?
I think the ACC might consider Cincinnati as a western complement to Louisville, in conjunction with Connecticut, and as a way to put the kibosh on Big 12 expansion for the next decade; that conference’s only alternative would then be to add both Central Florida and South Florida (which would somewhat weaken Florida State and Miami recruiting as well as Florida’s to a lesser extent). The UCF-USF duo would be similar to the Big Ten adding Rutgers, in that much of the move would be based upon potential, not just for those schools but for current Big 12 members as a recruiting ground, since Florida is as fertile as Texas where prep football recruits are concerned.
Texas has a problem in that the only place it might call the shots on expansion is the Pac (almost certainly in a combo with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State) and to a lesser extent the ACC (in a Notre Dame-like semi-independent scenario). It would enter the Big Ten solely on the latter’s terms (sorry, Bevo, but if the presidents prefer Kansas to Oklahoma as your partner, there’s nothing you can do about it), and the SEC is moot, first because Texas isn’t interested, second because A&M now probably owns the same veto power as Kentucky, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina). And any Big 12 alternative will require extensive travel from Austin.
LikeLike
Pac-12 was in a weird situation wrt OK/OK St. Culture/academic mismatch, not a huge market, and a geographic outlier. It works if they KNEW Texas would come too, but they looked at that pair and decided they couldn’t live with a 14-team setup. IMO that was reasonable. It was risky to take them, and it was risky to stand pat and not get better. I don’t think either a yes or a no would have been a mistake.
LikeLike
You want to be careful about reading too much into the Patterson hiring, but it certainly can’t hurt Texas to have an AD with some inside ideas on the Pac. I still believe the Texas/TTech/OU/OkieSt combo is possible — it’s frankly the only realistic expansion ploy the Pac has — but it almost certainly won’t happen before the GOR expires..
LikeLike
Patterson spent many years in Houston with the Rockets/Texans/Aeros. He’s a UT BBA and UT law school grad. He’s been at ASU for 2 years and spent some time as GM of the Trailblazers, but he’s not really a Pac guy.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, I don’t see Patterson as being a Pac-12 guy any more than Bill Powers himself with his history at Cal. Heck, the person in the Big 12 with the deepest ties with both the Pac-12 and Big Ten is commissioner Bob Bowlsby. Besides, these guys are professionals that can flip a switch and compartmentalize prior ties pretty quickly in a highly competitive realm. We’d never suggest that Patterson would have been prone to make more favorable trades to the Rockets while he was the GM of the Trailblazers and his tenure with Arizona State wasn’t very long.
LikeLike
Personally I think they were gunshy after getting burned on the aggressive move of taking CU to cut Baylor off at the pass when they were confident that they were getting Texas.
But I still think going conservative was a mistake. If they had taken OU/OSU, and heck even TT, the Big 12 folds. Even Texas isn’t going to sit in a conference with no other major program to help carry the load. And once the Big 12 imploded Texas would have been left looking for a landing spot and would have been much more willing to negotiate on the LHN issue.
There would have been some risk, certainly, but you don’t win at the highest levels of any competition by shying away from risk.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced the PAC turned them down flat. When the BOR granted the exploration of conference affiliation, rather than take the steps the other movers had, they headed to the B12 meetings with added negotiating leverage. Right up until Larry Scott had the middle of the night announcement that the PAC was staying at twelve.
Is that what happened? As you said, admitting them would have ended the B12.
Or did the PAC not want a coerced UT deciding where its future would lie? Those who know are not sharing, nor are they likely to.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Cincinnati really is a must have. They should invite them now.
I am not convinced on BYU, or that BYU would be willing to move into a conference. The Florida directional schools looks best of what’s left.
I would probably add Cincinnati and explore the others. They messed up in not inviting Louisville as an 11th before.
LikeLike
Going from 10 to 11 would have cut down on the number of available football inventory (it’s mathematically impossible for an 11-member league to play a 9-game schedule, and with an 8-game slate, the total goes from 45 to 44). Adding Cincy as #11 is fine…but you can’t do it without a #12.
LikeLike
How is mathematically impossible for an 11-member league to play a 9 conference game slate?
LikeLike
11×9/2= 44.5 conference games
LikeLike
*49.5 not 44.5
LikeLike
“It was my understanding that there would be no math.”
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76adebate.phtml
LikeLike
No, you want to get to 12. But you want to lock in the one you are sure of ASAP. The B1G did that with Penn State. You can let the 12th work itself out.
You are correct that 11 doesn’t work on a 9 game schedule. So 11 cannot be a long term situation. BYU would be the best 12th, but getting them to join would likely be a multi year courtship and it still might not work out.
I dislike Tulane, mostly because I have a very negative opinion about the long term prospects for New Orleans. It is sort of the Buffalo of the south, a city that is headed from major to minor status. Honestly I like Rice better, they have a massive endowment and have academically placed themselves in the Northwestern, Stanford, Duke, Harvard category; but athletics trails. Sooner or later they will get their act together, and Houston is a great market and leaks into Louisiana. But the Big XII is looking to expand footprint beyond Texas, so Rice may be out..
USF and UCF have some real potential, and deliver the richest recruiting zone. But its not clear which is really better as a 12th. Both have issues to resolve, and neither has what I would call a truly committed Athletic Department – USF makes UConn’s clueless leaders look focused.
So the 12th is the problem. And it could take a few years to settle. But that is no reason not to act on the 11th, even if it means schools have to find one more opponent, or one school play one less conference game (could be Cincy initially to help scheduling of the others).
LikeLike
Assuming you liked #11, which they don’t, the networks won’t allow it because they won’t allow a reduction to 8 conference games. The issue came up with Louisville. The better rumor mongers and some MSM say the Big 12 approached the networks about adding UL as #11 and Fox said no to an 8 game conference schedule. One of the stories is that the delay on WVU was an effort to see if they could add BOTH WVU and UL. Of course, there are other stories, like one that there were some sticking points with Missouri that delayed the announcement. Only the nutty WV Senators thought UL was trying to “steal” their spot.
LikeLike
BBC – New Orleans will never become Buffalo. Think tourism and trade (Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico).
LikeLike
Well think San Antonio only poorer. Or perhaps Charleston and Galveston. Nice tourist traps but not exactly economic powerhouses.
That is only a small sliver of the city, and the “real work” portion of the city is dying much like Buffalo, and for the similar reasons. The French Quarter is not enough. Pro teams really would prefer to move out of New Orleans to a wealthier city with corporate HQs.
The port of New Orleans is not so important. Like Oakland/Alameda California, it doesn’t employ massive numbers of people like in the days depicted in the Glass Menagerie. A relative handful of more skilled crane operators do the work now that armies of Stanley Kowalski’s once did.
The economic facts are clear, New Orleans and Louisiana are in decline, and it is already one of the poorest states in the nation.
LikeLike
The best two for the B12, IMO, are Cincinnati and either UCF/USF, and I like UCF here.
The next two are San Diego State and Tulane.
The two after that would be UNLV and one of the remaining Florida schools, Memphis, East Carolina, or Connecticut. We’re probably talking about Memphis at 16.
The pickins are slim for B12.
Unlike the B1G, the B12 has not studied expansion (except by reaction), and I seriously doubt the B12 expands at all unless forced to 12 by a D4 requirement (when D4 happens). Even then, I don’t see the B12 ever going past 12 so long as UT/OU/KU are in the conference.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the B12 expands at all unless forced to 12 by a D4 requirement
And I seriously doubt that D4 will do anything to force conferences to expand to 12 members.
LikeLike
Once the GOR’s run out either the Big12 or ACC is toast. I see a future with the PAC at 16 and the SEC & B1G each at 20. While the GOR’s keep them safe the Big 12 will expand by at least 2 teams if not more, they’ll want their footprint in Fla and Ohio at the minimum. The ACC acted in self defense grabbing Pitt & ‘Cuse and I see them going to 16 in self defense as well. Picture the B12 and ACC fighting over Cincinnati, it’s going to get weird.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with this assessment at this early point in time.
So long as ND is associated with the ACC, it is possible the B12 and ACC could merge, especially since Texas would love a long-term connection with the Domers.
In the B12 I think it takes 8 of 10 votes to dissolve the league, so most (or all) of the B12 would need to merge with the ACC in order to get the requisite votes.
More likely, if it’s the B12 that crumbles — and it seems most suspect, given its small footprint — we will see a group of B12 schools migrate to another league. If two, then UT/OU to the SEC. If three, then UT/OU/KU to the B1G. If four, then UT/OU/TT/OSU to the PAC.
My opinion is that Texas has thought through the PAC and finds it wanting. I suspect option 1 or 2 is the most likely.
LikeLike
“My opinion is that Texas has thought through the PAC and finds it wanting.”
They have remained in the B12, not chosen another destination. There is only one conf that, at least has in the past, has offered a group rate to four. The politicians in TX and OK aren’t likely to allow little brothers to be set adrift as long as such an offer might be revived.
LikeLike
Texas can weather the politicians if it wants to. Politics is grossly overrated, IMO. A&M gave Texas a pass to move, too.
Remember, what is meant in Texas by the concept of “politics”? That word means PUF money. Who gets PUF money? Texas and Texas A&M.
If Texas wanted to migrate to the B1G or SEC, and if “politics” seriously reared its ugly head (spreading out of PUF money to other state schools and not just Texas and A&M), then Texas A&M would have no choice except to align itself with Texas’ interest.
Viola, “politics” solved because the other schools cannot overcome the combination of Texas and Texas A&M in the Texas legislature. It might or might not take a Horn or aggy in the Governor’s or Lt. Gov’s seat, but Texas can move if it wants to move.
And what if I’m wrong? Texas still garners millions each year by means other than the PUF.
“Politics” is simply a convenient excuse for testing the waters of migration but being able to quote “politics’ as a means of backing out to save face. It’s a variation of the “Tech problem” that Texas loves to use as an excuse for balking on leaving the B12.
LikeLike
Fascinating profile on University of Maryland-College Park president Wallace Loh, the man who engineered the Big Ten move: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/campus/article_00972a14-41ea-11e3-9b2d-0019bb30f31a.html
LikeLike
Really a well written and insightful article. It’s an inspirational, Horatio Alger-like life. Twice an immigrant and rising to the heights of his profession.
As a UVa/ACC fan, it was disappointing that Loh seemed so tone-death to cries over traditions, geography and rivalries when he pushed for the move to the B1G. Reading the article, explains a lot about his focus on the future.
LikeLike
So i typed this up really fast at about 5:45am in an email to some buddies but figured I would post it. Please excuse the multitude of errors, this is not my best performance.
My thing is this. The problem with the Big 12 is they are viewed as weaker than the others. I know 110% that $$$$ is what is most driving all of these conference shifts however I think the key to the Big 12 is not necessarily adding more money to the pot, more notoriety or X but it is adding what the others have that the Big 12 does not – RECRUITING GROUNDS. Look at the map of the Big 12 – being honest about it Texas is pretty much the source of 90% of their in conference recruiting grounds. They are not a diverse conference in terms of recruiting territory they have a firm hand in. You could say that about the PAC but I would argue they have more overall fertile recruiting ground AND they have something the Big12 does not – beaches & beautiful weather to sell. The SEC I don’t have to explain. The ACC is slightly ahead of the Big12 and basketball will put them over the top of them. The ACC also has a great map IMO with a bunch of fertile states and markets. Big 10 has football and basketball and the entire recruiting ground for the types of players that they want “traditionally”.
The key to the Big 12 getting back into the big picture is not about adding BYU – they bring nothing if you ask me. It is about flat out becoming better and that means teams besides Texas and OU being better than their counterparts in other conferences. TCU has fallen some, WVU was a bad choice IMO and Baylor has a long way to go to prove they are here to stay. Because of aTm, the doors to Texas are now wide open and that means more SEC schools will start poaching the kids not only from Texas, but from OU and other schools in the Big12 that recruit Texas. The logical step to gaining respect back which is really what this all is and will drive the $$ is getting your conference into new recruiting territory. To me the choices that make the most sense and frankly are obvious are Louisiana, Florida and I can stretch it to say SDSU but You are more likely to get kids from FL or LA to come to a Big 12 school than you will be to get a California kid to come – I think it is just a way different monster culturally when you talk about the West Coast. I can see why Ohio (Cincy) would be one to look at also in terms of market and recruiting but I frankly don’t think Cincy has the potential or staying power that one of the Florida schools or a Louisiana school would have. I know adding a Cincy or BYU automatically leads to some credibility (I guess) and it leads to huge markets for television which I know drives the $$ but I think it is really the wrong way to look at the picture. Personally I don’t think BYU or Cincy getting into the Big 12 improves their programs that much. BYU is what it is and always will be even if they were in the SEC. Cincy is not an attractive place to live and I think they are highly overrated in terms of potential. I think UCF has way more potential than USF but the fight there is the recruiting market. I would argue being in central Florida is better than being exclusively in South Florida or the panhandle. Tulane is just beaming with potential like TCU was and they have only one other school in state to fight with for recruits if they were to get to a level like TCU. I don’t know, I just look at it differently. It is about the money in a sense but the way to get to that money is not adding TV markets it is about your conference becoming a desirable product for the TV networks (viewing fans) and right now the Big 12 is dead last in that. The way you become desirable again is by becoming relevant with more than just two teams essentially. The other conferences are so well respected and get much more ESPN (let’s face it, they drive it) love is because those conferences are said to have depth and be tough. You need to BEAT those other conferences on the field and you don’t do that by adding a TV market – you do that by adding fertile recruiting grounds which leads to better players for the entire conference which leads to more depth in the conference which leads to turning the tables of respect and perception which leads to becoming of more value to the network partners.
To me the key to the mothership for the Big 12 is simple – Louisiana and Florida. The Big 12 must get their feet into those territories.
I need to take a nap now.
LikeLike
The Big 12 does beat the others on the field.
Big 12 schools have a history of getting some recruits from California. The Big 8 schools did recruit Florida some, but don’t seem to be doing that now. For the various Texas schools, California seems easier to recruit than Florida. In any event, the recruiting base has been just fine. So far there’s been no SEC incursion into Texas. Just A&M continuing to get Texas recruits. Missouri has shifted its focus elsewhere.
Florida is probably the most competitive state for recruiting. SEC, ACC and B1G all recruit it heavily. And, of course, the AAC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt.
LikeLike
Missouri has shifted its focus elsewhere.
Very true. I looked at Missouri’s offer list for 2015. Of the 34 early offers on rivals:
19 are from SEC states (mostly FL, GA, TN, and LA)
10 are from Missouri and surrounding metros (E. St. Louis, eastern KS)
1 from Texas
4 others (2 OH, 1 MN, 1 VA)
Of the 2014 class, only 2 so far are from Texas. The emphasis used to be in-state and Texas, along with a sprinkling of Calif JUCO’s, KS JUCO’s, maybe an Oklahoma kid or two.
LikeLike
tough to recruit in a state where you only play there once every 12 years.
LikeLike
Lamont – it pains me to write this as a Tulane Law alum, but Tulane will never have the New Orleans community’s support the way TCU has the support of Fort Worth.
LikeLike
Lamont is major jealous about BYU
LikeLike
FWIW I think Baylor can stay closer to where they are now than what they were in the past.
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank:
How come you left off Air Force Academy?
I know that reports were they actually turned down an invite to the B12 in 2011, but if true, shows that AFA was wanted (and could be again).
LikeLike
Don’t consider either a possibility at present even if the Big 12 “had” to go to 12, but East Carolina and Northern Illinois would be at least evaluated. Other than that, it seems like a pretty complete list.
LikeLike
My best guess is that ECU would at least rank mid-pack in this index, if not higher.
But the lock for the BigXII, at least according to the delusional portion of their fan base, is Louisiana Lafayette.
LikeLike
loki_The_bubba – not sure if you were talking about me there but when I say Louisiana I mean Tulane – like Frank said. Nobody in Louisiana calls ULL “Louisiana” except the delusional people of that fan base who think that they are actually The University of Louisiana. Trust me on this one, it is a very hot topic around where I am from. The funny thing is Tulane is actually the original “University of Louisiana” but I will save you that discussion. My post was meaning that the Big 12 should look to get into the recruiting areas of Louisiana (Tulane) or Florida (UCF or USF) and possibly California (SDSU)
LikeLike
@Lamont, I understood, not refering to you at all. On some other boards I frequent there is a very small but vocal group that demand to be called Louisiana. So I still call them USL.
LikeLike
The fact that you call them USL still means you are a hero in my book! That is what they will always be to me.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, most of them are too young to remember when they were known as the University of Slow Learners.
LikeLike
Another to at least rank would have been Southern Miss. Sustained football success over the last thirty years.
LikeLike
The Fightin’ Favres!
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I was thinking of including them on the list, but it appears that even if Air Force were to change its tune, it would look for a football-only membership at most. Frankly, I don’t believe that the Big 12 is interested in football-only members (that seems to be more of a fan-based desire), but that option does make a BYU/Air Force football-only combo fairly compelling.
LikeLike
Frank – why wouldn’t the B-12 be interested in football-only members? If not having a CCG works to the B-12’s detriment under the new CFP format, adding a CCG could possibly pay for two football-only members. Adding two “all in” members from your list wouldn’t pay for themselves and I doubt any of the current B-12 members are interested in taking a haircut for the benefit of Cincy, USF, etc.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
I tend to agree with Alan as well. Air Force could go football only in the Big 12 and put the rest of their sports in the WCC like BYU did. Having the Air Force in the Big 12 would add credibility and a spot on the selection committee. Granted it might not have been an Air Force representative but you have to think at least 1 service academy would have a spot reserved. On the other side of the equation they could add Cincinnati – as a pair for West Virginia – and the Bearcats could park their other sports in the Big East or A10.
As football only members they could have much lower entry thresholds and probably easily covered by the added revenue of the Big 12 CCG. The bigger point of course is they would not get a full share so they would greatly limit the drag for all the non football sports. While I can not see the B1G or SEC taking partial members, the Big 12 would be less constricted to create exceptions as we saw the ACC do with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The ACC did it for ND, and it’s yet to be decided if it was a good move. Ask the BE.
LikeLike
It would be a terrible decision for Air Force. They shouldn’t be in a P5 conference. Their AD realized it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
What the ACC got was the 5 games and a contract. The Big East never got that much. The bigger picture is the ACC and Big 12 will have to make more varied deals as they are still more prey than predator.
LikeLike
The more deals you make the more vulnerable you look (and may in fact be).
I don’t think I’d have done it, but I can understand the ACC and ND. There is only one of them, and if they ever do commit to a conference they seem to look more ACC like than anyone else.
LikeLike
Air Force forfeited their chance at becoming a football member of the B12 when they lost to Rice in a bowl game last December. That sort of humiliation will take decades to overcome.
LikeLike
I’m not really sure why people think BYU wouldn’t be interested in joining the B12. A major conference still allows them to have the TV visibility that they craved via Independence, and it gives them SUBSTANTIALLY better bowl and playoff access than going it alone. They can still schedule Utah and the occasional game in the Eastern time zone (or an old MWC foe) in their non conference, and probably have a better chance an national exposure than they do now.
It is worth noting that outside of Houston though, there are comparatively very few BYU graduates living in the B12 footprint, and honestly, not that many Mormons, period. The alumni and potential fan base is very much concentrated in Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California.
LikeLike
Not sure you have spent much time around the BYU fanbase Matt. The brought almost 15k to Houston a few weeks back, and nearly 20k in Austin a few years ago. Games against TCU were usually at least 1/3 cougar fans. Against OU in Dallas they brought just over 15k again. I’ve never seen another program do that consistently 1800 miles from home.
LikeLike
It is true that the population is centered where you say. However they have fans all over the United States. If they didn’t ESPN would not have signed the TV deal with them. They als travel well and bring in the faithful from the local communities.They tend to draw 15,000 plus to the away games they visit no matter where they are, i.e. Virginia, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Washington, Texas (at Texas and at Cowboys Stadium with they played Oklahoma) etc.
LikeLike
I opened this new post and saw that Rice was listed first and thought “Alright!’.
Then I saw it was listed in reverse order…
LikeLike
Loki, at least Rice was mentioned. Your presence is felt.
(obviously Frank neglected to add points for bands)
LikeLike
The B12 is also hampered by the perception that its long term existence is by no means guaranteed, and that it is willing to backfill with lesser schools well beyond its traditional geographic range.
Unlike the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12, the Big XII is likely making moves not for the next 100 years, but for the next 12 or so. It changes the strategy, but also affects the schools that would want to join.
Why would, say, BYU, relinquish an independent TV deal with ESPN, just to be stuck in a potentially Texas-less conference in 12 years, and be saddled with costs and penalties if it tried to leave? It might seem like more trouble than its worth.
Cincy is an prime candidate, primarily because its desperate, and because it would be a good travel partner for WVU. As for the other school, I don’t see one out there that would maintain or increase the TV revenue per school. Maybe Air Force for its rabid fanbase and proximity to Denver, but I wonder if Air Force would actually deliver Denver. New Mexico has Albuquerque which I think is the 44th or so TV market, but zero nationwide brand value.
I could see Memphis, even with awful football, if Fred Smith (of FedEx fame) promises the B12 that he’ll throw money around the football program like T. Boone Pickens 2.0 to fix it. Would be a decent media market, good basketball, good entry into southeast for recruiting, and is reasonably close to both the traditional B12 footprint and also WVU and Cincy.
Either Cincy and Memphis or the two Florida schools (UCF & USF) as a package (neither one does much by itself, in my view, as neither is a flagship in its part of the state, let alone in an entire state). To me, one of these are the logical move.
If I were a betting man, I’d wager on the Florida schools, for the best combo of immediate TV value and long term benefits of having a presence in Florida.
LikeLike
Your comments about long term existence are very true. The expiration of the current GOR’s is the next mile stone. There is a ton of rurmoil now and I don’t think we’ll know the consequences for a few more years.
*GOR expiration
*New playoff system
*Streaming video/a la carte programming possibilities
*New NCAA governance
*Pay for play
*Conference networks
The list goes on. My belief is either 20 will be the new 12 or independence will become more attractive for Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, West Virginia, etc.
LikeLike
“The list goes on. My belief is either 20 will be the new 12 or independence will become more attractive for Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, West Virginia, etc.”
I think this is spot on, and we have to wait a few years to see how everything plays out before we know what the answer will be.
LikeLike
Another point to consider about the Florida schools either as a pair or as either one with Cincy is that they offer better divisional options than BYU, though there really aren’t any divisional setups that are particularly appealing to all Big 12 members in any case. Here are the two real possibilities that I see:
Geography
Division 1 – 4 Texas schools, 2 Oklahoma schools
Division 2 – Everybody else
No cross-division rivalries
This would create the unequal division problem that plagued the Big 12, only it would be much, much worse due to the lack of Nebraska and the periodic high-level success of Colorado and Missouri. It would also cut down on the Division 2 teams members’ access to Texas recruiting grounds and high-profile matchups with UT and OU. On the other hand, the powers at UT an OU might prefer this set-up both for tradition and strength of schedule considerations in a future playoff.
Zipper
Division 1 – 2 Texas schools. 1 Oklahoma school, 1 Kansas school, 2 other schools
Division 2 – 2 Texas schools, 1 Oklahoma school, 1 Kansas school, 2 other schools
Every school gets 1 protected cross-division rivalry game (OU/OSU, Kansas/KState, etc)
This could solve the glaring divisional balance issue that is created by a purely geographic split, but it would potentially eliminate some long-running rivalry games and might not balance the divisions as well as you might think. You do cut down on UT/OU matches for the other schools, but not necessarily to the same extent. You also run into the branding/fan confusion issues that the Big 10 and ACC have had with their non-geographically divided divisions.
In the case of a geographic division, if you add BYU and Cincy, you are reducing recruiting access to Texas and annual games games against both UT/OU in exchange for a biannual trip to Ohio and an annual match up with BYU. That’s not a real great trade. If you did either Cincy/Florida school or two Florida schools, you could provide an annual trip to Florida or biannual trips to Florida/Ohio. Still not great, but I think that expanded recruiting access to Florida / Florida and Ohio makes up for less Texas recruiting access better than BYU makes up for the loss of UT/OU in terms of big name matchups.
In the case of a zipper split, how do you divide Cincy/BYU/West Virginia/Iowa State? That’s two bigger names with almost no recruiting potential, one medium name with good recruiting, and Iowa State. That’s going to leave schools in both divisions unhappy no matter how you go about doing it. What cross-division rivalries between them would you have between those four schools? UCF/USF or Cincy/Florida school divide much more easily and fairly in my opinion. This set up would also provide biannual recruiting trips to Florida and/or Ohio to all Big 12 members.
Although to be honest, looking at these potential divisions makes it seem much less likely to me that the Big 12 will expand in the near future.
LikeLike
I’ve played with potential divisions a few times and I can’t think of a set-up that makes everyone happy and most alignments lean toward making most current members unhappy.
I think there one scenario that I makes a little sense for competitive balance AND recruiting territory but it’s a stretch.
Add Tulane and San Diego State.
South – TX Schools plus Tulane and SDSU
North – OK Schools, KS Schools, Iowa St. and WVU
3 things would have to happen for this to be plausible.
1. OU and Texas would have to be permanent crossovers.
2. OU and Okie St. would have to be guaranteed 1.5 games in TX every year. So 1 game half the years and 2 the other half.
3. OU and Texas would have to be ok with potentially playing each other twice a year.
LikeLike
San Diego State is out of the question as a candidate, and I’m frankly surprised Frank even had it on his list. The Big East was desperate for football members, which is why it (briefly) joined. SDSU’s closest rival in the Big 12 would be Texas Tech. And you thought West Virginia was on an “island”?
LikeLike
I like Tulane, but SDSU is a deathtrap. SDSU doesn’t draw for football — has never drawn for football. They do OK in basketball, but the football program doesn’t get the fan support it needs to be a major program, even in “up” years for the team. They don’t even dominate the San Diego TV market. USC and UCLA dominate the market. A poor choice for the conference that would never improve into a power player; they would always be a doormat to neighboring PAC-12 members.
LikeLike
Friend of mine (Tulane fan) sent me this regarding the Big 12
“This has been my opinion about the Big 12 since we were mentioned. The Big12 does not need another Texas, OU or FSU. Why would Texas and OU want another team that could come in and run this conference? What they need is better schools, better prestige, better tv markets, better recruiting footprint, etc. They do not need another powerhouse as they already qualify and are identified as a power conference. Even last year when Tulane was not winning, it still made sense if a move had to be made. I think another reason that some people talk about is that Louisiana is the only state in football country that only has 1 BCS/P5 team. I do not consider Arkansas and Missouri power football states because they do not produce the amount of athletes that the true Southeast states do.”
LikeLike
oh and he is a home grown Texan
LikeLike
Lamont – are you from Louisiana? What’s your school affiliation?
LikeLike
The other aspect of B12 expansion is the divisional issue. One of the most under-discussed reasons why the B12 imploded was the North division failed to compete with Texas and Oklahoma for a decade. (In hindsight maybe they should have stuck around a couple more years.)
The current 10 need another king to balance out divisions, which is why they were pipe-dreaming for Florida State and Clemson.
Texas and Oklahoma will be against all expansion unless at least 1 entrant is competitively equal. They don’t want to miss out on a conference championship because of losing a one-off neutral site game against a lesser opponent.
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, X, & Y.
LikeLike
“Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, X, & Y.”
This shows why B12 expansion is unlikely. Those schools aren’t going to vote to expand since it means losing regular trips to Texas. Games against Cincinnati certainly aren’t going to make up for it.
Frank, my one quibble with your rankings is it ignores stadium size and fan support. Its hard to see Cincinnati rated so high when they play in a 35k stadium that doesn’t regularly sell out.
LikeLike
Think about it. Size of stadium does not mean squat for TV. 30k or 80k in a stadium does not equal more money. TVs want to see FULL STADIUMS so it looks good on TV they don’t have to be 80k. Hell, TV makes money from people staying home and watching not by the amount of butts in seats. Stadium size is not a critical component. It is important but not to the extent people want to make it out to be and especially not to TV networks
LikeLike
“Size of stadium does not mean squat for TV.”
I’d much rather tune into 80k jacked Clemson fans than 28k indifferent Cincy fans. Or 13k Eastern Michigan fans.
LikeLike
I understand that but full stadiums are more important than big stadiums and we are talking about expansion so the list is clearly limited. My best answer to your Clemson fans to Cincy fans or emu fans is “duh”, but that is not what the expansion options are – Clemson types ya dig. I know for a fact that TV networks advised a school to build what they can fill because tht is more important than building 70k and having 45k in it. They said building 30-40k and being full was more important than 60-70k with same amount in it.
LikeLike
“My best answer to your Clemson fans to Cincy fans or emu fans is “duh””
Then don’t claim it doesn’t matter. It clearly does matter.
LikeLike
Sensitive.
LikeLike
While stadium size does not directly have any bearing on TV, the size of a school’s stadium is generally indicative of overall fan support and popularity.
Schools with 30k stadia generally are lesser programs with fewer fans and limited popularity and prestige than the ones with 80k. Schools will have stadia large enough to fit all who want to come, and will expand as necessary. With a 30k stadium, its a sign that now many more will want to pay to watch that team. If that’s the case, its a reasonable deduction that not as many will want to watch that team play on TV, either.
LikeLike
Part of the attraction of the SEC on TV is the loud enthusiastic crowds.
Most of schools’ money does NOT come from TV. If you have 40k extra, that will be $18 million over 6 games at $75/ticket. And that doesn’t include concessions, parking, mandatory and optional donations. $18 million is more than the budget of some of the G5 schools. Its half or more of the budget of all but a half dozen of them.
Its a problem for a school if they are listening to TV tell them how big to build their stadium. They need to evaluate the additional revenue from selling more seats in the larger stadium vs. the reduction in prices and donations caused by having a supply larger than demand.
LikeLike
Stadium expansion
LikeLike
I think the tabk did a great job. He said to think like a University President and not a fan. To understand it all and where it’s going you have to do that. They are the ones calling the shots.
LikeLike
I get what you are saying there but that is not always true. Schools are in cities and don’t have room for big stadiums unless they use an NFL stadium. A school like Tulane can fit 40-50K on campus and that is plenty.
LikeLike
Average attendance for the last 4 years based on 2015 lineups:
SEC 75,349
B1G 67,112
Big 12 57,697
Pac 12 52,659
ACC 50,045
And non P-5 schools (only BYU is above the average of even the ACC-note that Cincinnati’s 4 year average is already about 50% above their historical norm of 20k so you have to question how much more upside they have):
BYU Ind 61,761
East Carolina AAC 47,403
South Florida AAC 45,521
Connecticut AAC 36,954
UCF AAC 36,646
Air Force MWC 35,767
Navy Ind 34,629
Boise State MWC 33,868
Hawaii MWC 33,736
Cincinnati AAC 32,614
UTSA CUSA 32,374
Army Ind 32,301
Fresno State MWC 31,978
San Diego State MWC 31,756
UTEP CUSA 30,219
Houston AAC 28,987
Southern Miss CUSA 28,562
Marshall CUSA 25,013
Memphis AAC 23,541
Temple AAC 23,134
Louisiana-Lafayette SB 22,949
New Mexico MWC 22,542
Toledo MAC 21,892
Colorado State MWC 21,790
Louisiana Tech CUSA 21,711
Tulane AAC 21,545
Tulsa AAC 21,361
SMU AAC 21,211
Arkansas State SB 20,685
Wyoming MWC 20,501
UNLV MWC 19,949
Old Dominion CUSA 19,818
Rice CUSA 19,711
Ohio MAC 19,682
Nevada MWC 19,071
Troy State SB 19,053
MTSU CUSA 18,922
Louisiana-Monroe SB 18,829
North Texas CUSA 18,434
Northern Illinois MAC 18,107
Central Michigan MAC 17,869
Utah State MWC 17,843
South Alabama SB 17,618
Western Michigan MAC 17,287
UAB CUSA 17,049
Texas State SB 17,026
Florida Atlantic CUSA 16,199
Miami, OH MAC 15,777
Western Kentucky CUSA 15,683
New Mexico State SB 15,451
Kent State MAC 15,283
San Jose State MWC 14,705
Florida International CUSA 14,699
Buffalo MAC 14,518
Bowling Green MAC 14,497
Georgia State SB 14,286
Akron MAC 13,144
Idaho SB 12,460
Ball State MAC 11,957
Massachusetts MAC 11,855
Eastern Michigan MAC 7,273
LikeLike
Wow, didn’t realize BYU had such a high game attendance. How is their basketball attendance?
LikeLike
They draw pretty well:
2013: 15,986 (#13 nationally)
2012: 15,424 (#12 nationally)
2011: 18,714 (#6 nationally)
The facility capacity is listed as 20,900.
LikeLike
16k average
LikeLike
BYU Basketball averaged 15,986 last season, best in the west and 13th nationally. Don’t have the numbers for previous seasons.
LikeLike
Cincinnati has begun an $84 million expansion of Nippert Stadium. Seating will go up over 40,000, which revenue enhancing luxury boxes and ammenities. Replacing the stadium is out of the question. It would be like replacing Wrigley Field. The stadium is historic and located in the heart of the campus. Furthermore, Cincinnati always has the option of playing at the NFL’s Paul Brown Stadium.
LikeLike
The other aspect of B12 expansion is the divisional issue. One of the most under-discussed reasons why the B12 imploded was the North division failed to compete with Texas and Oklahoma for a decade. (In hindsight maybe they should have stuck around a couple more years.)
I entirely agree with you. This is why I do not think the Big XII will expand unless they are presented with an extremely compelling case. I am not even convinced that FTT’s top two of BYU + Cincy would qualify as sufficiently compelling.
BYU probably doesn’t want to be in the Big XII, so their best option right now is Cincy and a less-desirable school. I don’t see the Big XII doing that, because the divisions for football would be terrible, and there isn’t a good enough financial benefit to compensate for that.
LikeLike
Lamont, check your facts (“Cincy is not an attractive place to live…”). Cincinnati is rated one of the nation’s most livable cities/metros, home to Fortune 100 headquarters and a regional hub for major league sports, fine arts and entertainment. Culturally, it’s a blend of midwestern and southern traditions on the Mason-Dixon Line. Planting the B12 flag on southern Ohio soil provides much needed exposure for the conference from the tri-state (KY, IN, OH) all the way to West Virginia and puts the league head-to-head with the B10 (Columbus-100 miles away) and SEC (Lexington, KY-85 miles away) for Ohio recruits–a consistent top 3 to 5 ranked state where the B10 has flourished somewhat uncontested against the other P5 conferences.
LikeLike
Okay. You made a great point.
LikeLike
Agreed on Cinci. I don’t love the city, but if they joined the Big12, it would immediately become the 2nd best place to live in or visit in the conference, after Austin. And third place wouldn’t even be close. In fact, if you drew a line from Tuscon to Kansas City and then down to Jacksonville, there might only be two or three places under the line that could give Cincinnati a competition.
LikeLike
Ordo – you obviously have never visited Fort Worth.
LikeLike
When Tulane played Texas in New Orleans the Longhorns brought 20,000+ fans. In talking with the UT fans they said, ” We’ll play you every year in New Orleans, you never need come to Austen!” I’m sure many other Big XII schools would travel well and enjoy the atmosphere that is New Orleans.
New Orleans is arguably the best FB town in America. Tulane’s new stadium will seat 30,000 and the Superdome would always be available for the ‘Big’ games.
Why is Tulane turning FB around? CJ Johnson THE recruiter is establishing himself as a HC. He is making Tulane what it once was, New Orleans Team. People forget that TU football once led the nation in attendance and would fill Tulane Stadium with 87,000 fans. CJ managed to recruit 4 players from the #1 HS in the country and there are 17 young men from NOLA on the squad and 56 from LA. Add academics and its AAU membership and it is a perfect fit.
Start bringing Big XII teams to NOLA and its a win for everybody.
LikeLike
Why only the Big 12? If the BIG wants some academic cover for taking say Oklahoma, why not take Tulane. Frank mentioned a BIG expansion idea of Rice, Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Tulane, Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would be just as good. Tulane is another state and you would be hard pressed to find BIG fans and alumni not willing to pay for a trip to see their team play in New Orleans.
LikeLike
Or how about a Texas/Tulane combo for the B1G? AAU for both, attractive cities for tourism in Austin and New Orleans, and two strong baseball programs (crucial in luring UT). If I was a Longhorn fan, I’d rather have Tulane as a partner than Kansas if the presidents veto Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Travel time is now an issue for the B1G’s non-revenue sports, like baseball, swimming, gymnastics, soccer, et al. It might be as important as TV audience, AAU membership or football kingship.
These sports are actually played by student athletes with real academic goals. Long flights or bus rides across half a continent would have serious negative impacts on their ability to pursue their studies.
Because of that the best candidates for the B1G are schools located near its centroid: Cincinnati, Kentucky, West Virginia and Pittsburgh. Missouri and Connecticut are marginal, and Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech and any Florida or Texas school is out of the question. No P5 has invited Hawaii to join, not even the PAC 12.
LikeLike
None of your so-called “best candidates,” with the possible exception of Pittsburgh, have the academic and research heft the Big Ten is looking for (none are AAU except Pitt). Hawaii might become a PAC candidate if it gained AAU status.
Ideally, the two best Big Ten expansion candidates where travel is concerned are Virginia and North Carolina…but that opens a different can of worms.
LikeLike
Travel is exactly why, as the Indiana President said, “16 is the sweet spot.” At 16, the B1G breaks into pods of four, and travel is suddenly fairly well-regulated. When you play the far away pod, you’re only talking about 2 away games in many sports.
LikeLike
Travel is exactly why, as the Indiana President said, “16 is the sweet spot.” At 16, the B1G breaks into pods of four, and travel is suddenly fairly well-regulated. When you play the far away pod, you’re only talking about 2 away games in many sports.
I think you’re mistaken. Pods are for football. The scheduling issues in the other sports are totally different.
LikeLike
I’d never considered some kind of package to the B1G that included Tulane. Still seems to be a big stretch, but NO is a helluva lot of fun, plus great it would give all that LA recruiting.
Texas would always prefer Oklahoma, but UT, OU, KU and Tulane? That would be a lot of fun.
LikeLike
Why only the Big 12? If the BIG wants some academic cover for taking say Oklahoma, why not take Tulane.
If the B1G is skittish about Oklahoma’s academics, Tulane doesn’t solve that problem. Either Oklahoma can hack it (according to whatever standards the B1G cares about), or they can’t. If they make the cut, then you go looking for the best 16th school, and I don’t think Tulane is it. If they don’t make the cut, then #16 is irrelevant.
LikeLike
That is true. The one thing common among fans from other schools is the travel to New Orleans. Your fan base will travel well there, that might be a consideration also.
LikeLike
This is a very interesting analysis, and I think the author hit the nail on the head by picking Tulane as a potential up and comer in the big conference sweeps. I lived in New Orleans for awhile, and there are a ton of Green Wave fans that have been waiting for the team to just do something. A part of that has been the administration, throw in some Katrina, and it’s been a rough go. But in 1998 (I believe) they finished 7th in the AP football rankings, the potential is clearly there.
Tulane has added some athlete friendly majors (a source of great debate), a new on campus stadium, and the team is playing well at 6-2. The team has always struck me as an attractive option for a big conference, great city, huge upside, excellent academics.
LikeLike
This is a very interesting analysis, and I think the author hit the nail on the head by picking Tulane as a potential up and comer in the big conference sweeps. I lived in New Orleans for awhile, and there are a ton of Green Wave fans that have been waiting for the team to just do something. A part of that has been the administration, throw in some Katrina, and it’s been a rough go. But in 1998 (I believe) they finished 7th in the AP football rankings, the potential is clearly there.
Tulane has added some athlete friendly majors (a source of great debate), a new on campus stadium, and the team is playing well at 6-2. The team has always struck me as an attractive option for a big conference, great city, huge upside, excellent academics.
LikeLike
Kid/scooter – as a Tulane alum I’m surprised to hear that there are a ton of Green Wave fans in New Orleans. If your sample size is St. Charles Avenue, I guess that could be right. The problem that Tulane has with community support is that 80% of the student body comes from outside of Louisiana. Now that Curtis Johnson is putting more of an emphasis on recruiting New Orleans kids that LSU doesn’t want, he may build up more community support. I am hopeful but not overly optimistic.
LikeLike
Its like ColoradoKid and unclescooter are of one mind! Remarkable!
LikeLike
They both suck LOL
LikeLike
Assumption No.1 didn’t seem to apply to the most recent Big XII and ACC moves (West Virginia, TCU, Louisville). Unless, however, thinking like a university president involves “Oh Shit. We need someone, anyone to help protect us. Get the best piece available for football!”
LikeLike
Assumption No.1 didn’t seem to apply to the most recent Big XII and ACC moves.
It applied at the time those moves were made. If the XII expands again, it will be solving a different problem than it solved when it added WVU and TCU.
LikeLike
BTW-In 2012 a poll of Ole Miss fans as to which road trip was there #1 choice-not an SEC game but a game with a former SEC champion-Tulane!
LikeLike
Nobody disputes that New Orleans is a fun city to road trip to, and one easily accessible via car, plane, and train. But since B12 expansion is focused primarily on national television value, Tulane’s long history of craptastic football is a big negative.
If the B12 had a longer-term focus, with building an academic counterpart to the athletic conference, and also had designs of a cable network, then Tulane would have much excellent value and would have to be seriously considered.
But Tulane’s value as a national brand in athletics is negligible, which hampers the school as of now. If it strings together a Boise State-esque run (or even a TCU-type run), then its value increases markedly as a national brand.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think that is where Tulane is headed. There is time to improve the product. Even with the start to this season TU is getting some nice national press. Further, TU is reemphasizing athletics as evidenced by the new stadium and other facilities. The Admins understand the need to rebrand and the value in doing so.
BTW-Tulane OWNS Cincinnati (11-3 all time) and (6-1 in the 1990’s and 2000’s)!!!!!! Cincy BB got them in the Big East and its FB kept them in the AAC.
LikeLike
Tulane may very well be headed there (I profess ignorance about Tulane save its conference affiliation, nickname, and new stadium in 2014 or so), but I find it difficult to believe that Fox/ESPN will give the B12 more money NOW based on where Tulane might be in 5-10 years.
Remember, any addition has to, at the minimum, maintain the present payouts per school (before any conference title game payout). Otherwise, why expand?
I like Tulane, and as I noted above, if the B12 were on firmer ground, able to take a longer term view, Tulane would (in my humble opinion) merit SERIOUS consideration. But college football is littered with also ran programs who have one or two great years, generating much excitement, only to see the program recede back into relative oblivion. Tulane circa 1998 (Shawn King!) comes to mind as an example.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s been well documented that Cincy’s football got them in the Big East; the conference didn’t need more basketball schools. The Big East gambled on an up-and-coming football program and the bet paid off as Cincinnati won or shared four Big East titles, earned Orange and Sugar Bowl bids, produced a succession of great coaches and established “a program” that has continued to win games, set attendance records and earn top 25 rankings through three coaching changes. No disrespect to Tulane, but the historical won loss record against Cincinnati is just that–ancient history. Cincinnati football has become a consistent winner in a larger media market than New Orleans. With more than 200,000 living alumni Cincinnati has a huge upside compared with smaller, private universities that compete in pro sports towns.
LikeLike
Cincy was at best a .500 team with one recent bowl game when they joined in 2005. Only after joining did Cincy get Brian Kelly and start winning.
CIncy was selected because it was among the best available in 2005 (with Louisville) and had excellent basketball. Cincy basketball was its selling point, along with its proximity to Louisville.
If you have links to the contrary, that CIncy’s addition into the Big East was because of its football, as you state, I would love to see them. I have no problem with being proven wrong.
LikeLike
See: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1675285
“Big East officials mentioned that Louisville and South Florida — two other Conference USA teams making the switch — have developed a following.
Minter took note then that Cincinnati was the only one of the three schools not mentioned.
“We seem to be the least-mentioned of all the schools in football,” he said. “They talked about South Florida and they talked about the excellence of Louisville. We have a tremendous opportunity here.”
Cincy was a school in a big city with great basketball and a rivalry with Louisville. That’s why it was invited to the Big East. That it later became good in football was, from the Big East’s view, pure dumb luck.
LikeLike
One more: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-VE1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=WOEIAAAAIBAJ&pg=2645,1241855&dq=cincinnati+big-east+expansion+football&hl=en
An Associated Press article from 11/5/03 talking about how Cincy et al will make the Big East a premier basketball conference, but do little in football.
LikeLike
Wainscott, let me clarify a bit based on your comments, as I was an insider at Cincy at the time of Big East expansion. The media (and likely the Big East offices) chose to spin it as they did because Cincy’s tradition of national champions in basketball provided a prestige factor supporting their decision. Plain and simple, the BE needed football programs. Cincinnati football was lower profile at that time but Minter had built a solid foundation and taken them to the postseason for the first time in a long time. With Big East membership, it was felt Minter could not take the program to that next level. He was terminated and D’antonio, Kelly, Jones and Tuberville followed each raising the bar.
The Big East speculated on Cincy football and got a very good ROI. But if building a better basketball conference was the primary motive, they could have claimed the Cincinnati media market by inviting a rising Xavier program. Cincinnati flourished in a BCS conference and is more invested now than ever before with an $86 million stadium expansion and is on pace for the best attendance in the history of Nippert Stadium in 2013.
LikeLike
You’ve drastically changed your statements, however. Firstly, you defended Cincy’s football on the merits and asserted that’s why it was invited to the Big East in 2005. That’s simply not true.
Your subsequent statement is more accurate, at least when you state “Plain and simple, the BE needed football programs.”
The Big East did not speculate on Cincy football as much as take the only available athletic programs in a reasonable geographic proximity and in big markets that offered football. Cincy and Louisville fit the bill. But at no time Big East officials look at Cincy, with a losing record from 1994-2003 and say we must have that. It was more “We can take L’ville and Cincy,, basketball powers, because Marshall, ECU, and other random programs will anger the basketball schools and lead to a split.” Cincy’s subsequent success was fortuitous from the conference’s perspective–an unexpected, but welcome, dividend.
Big East expansion in 2005 had to serve two goals: Maintain an 8 team football conference while not angering the G’town’s of the conference, and hitting more markets to get more TV revenue. Adding basketball powers was the goal–that some of those powers played football, and in L’ville’s case, quite well, was nice. USF was added only to provide exposure and access to Florida.
As for Xavier, I imagine they were considered, but DePaul and Marquette were chosen because they opened new basketball markets whereas Xavier and CIncy would have been duplicative. DePaul stunk, but still added Chicago eyeballs and easy Chicago recruiting access for other teams, and Marquette was a handy rival to DePaul, and a fine program in its own right.
LikeLike
There’s an unwritten assumption in this post. “Bigger is better.”
That remains to be seen. Fact is every conference that went over 12 splintered, sooner or later, usually sooner. The SEC and MAC are the only current conferences that have been 12 members for more than 10 years that haven’t splintered. That includes basketball conferences.
When you look at TV ratings, what stands out is:
1) Good matchups matter and;
2) To a lesser extent, brands matter.
Neither of these have anything to do with size. Neither has anything to do with the size of the market. You do get the best ratings in your own region, but that is still not that big a part of the whole country. And the bigger you get, the more tenuous the conference ties and its hold on ratings. Expanding with less competitive teams than your average and lesser brands hurts you in TV ratings.
Even if conference networks are the way to go for the next half century, bigger isn’t necessarily better. A higher average population per school is better. But having 18 vs. 16 vs. 14 is not important. Now 10 makes it difficult to feed ESPN/ABC and/or Fox/CBS and a conference network, but the Big 12 doesn’t have one. It sells games individually. Fox Sports SW has become a defacto conference network, buying the 3rd tier rights of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. They also have OU’s rights, although its not clear if they have the football rights.
With nearly everybody on TV all the time, the TV market is being splintered and conference ties are probably becoming less important for ratings. You can watch your own team. You can watch the best matchup from around the country. Is a Big 10 fan of Michigan really going to watch Minnesota/Indiana in football over USC/Oregon?
LikeLike
While I thought that Frank wrote in the first paragraph why he thinks that 12 is better than 10 for the Big 12, bullet makes an excellent point that the conference doesn’t have a Big 12 Network to feed. Any new team has to lead to better TV ratings than the current average Big 12 team. (For example, there’s no way that Temple has a positive VORT for the Big 12.)
To answer the question about Oklahoma, their contract with Fox Sports stipulates that their third tier home football game will be on pay-per-view, not Fox Sports Southwest:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/oklahomas-deal-with-fox-sports-is-for-40-million-over-10-years/
LikeLike
Bullet:
“You can watch the best matchup from around the country. Is a Big 10 fan of Michigan really going to watch Minnesota/Indiana in football over USC/Oregon?”
It isn’t what particular matchup you choose to watch at any particular time. It is what demand there is a to be able to watch, should you choose to. That drives the value of a conference network as well as broadcast contracts. A larger conference simply has more inventory that is their’s at either teams home available for tire 1 or below.
“Fact is every conference that went over 12 splintered, sooner or later, usually sooner.”
No true BCS conferences are in that sample (BE doesn’t count). Plenty of smaller conferences have failed too.
“…the TV market is being splintered and conference ties are probably becoming less important for ratings.”
I disagree. The advent of conference networks focuses markets. The B12 has 10 separate marketing entities while the 40 B1G/PAC/SEC schools (will) have only three, in addition to the primary partners.
LikeLike
Conference networks don’t do anything for your Tier I and Tier II ratings.
No “true BCS” conference has been over 12 before if you exclude the BE. The BE, BTW, was the nation’s premier basketball conference. The Southern Conference was over 12 and the SEC schools left the ACC schools behind. Then 20 years later the ACC schools left the new Southern Conference schools behind. And the 12 in the Big 12 lost 1/3 of their membership and nearly totally splintered. The 12 in the ACC were at some risk of splintering. The UNC e-mails make it clear everyone was evaluating their options. They only lost one.
There is no history of a conference over 12 staying together. It remains to be seen whether they will.
LikeLike
There is no history of a conference over 12 staying together.
And recent history says major conferences don’t stay at 8, 9, or 10 teams. The SEC, B1G, Pac, Big 8 and ACC all out-grew that size.
The economics have changed radically. In the past, there was little financial incentive to grow. In fact, a smaller, geographically compact conference make more sense for travel. Now, TV money dwarfs travel budgets.
LikeLike
“Conference networks don’t do anything for your Tier I and Tier II ratings.”
But larger conferences can command higher premiums for the same matchup. They also hold a larger number of potential great matchups on their home turf.
The P12N model where their network is a participant in tier 1 and 2 certainly do influence those, though I’m not sure what any particular games rating has on forward looking bidding for rights, or gaining distribution.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. Yes, some large conferences have failed, as have smaller ones. Had the current media contracts been available decades ago alleviating a lot of cost concerns, who knows what happens? I’m not saying 12+ is a necessity, but it does seem smaller is more vulnerable in the current climate.
LikeLike
There’s an unwritten assumption in this post. “Bigger is better.”
I don’t think the post assumes that. It just answers the question, IF the Big XII were expanding, who would the likely candidates be?
Fact is every conference that went over 12 splintered, sooner or later, usually sooner.
Smaller leagues failed too. You’d have to consider whether size was really the issue, or if conferences expanded in an unsuccessful attempt to solve a deeper fundamental problem.
Let’s consider the original Big East. Before it started rapidly growing (pre-1991), its members were as follows: BC, UConn, Georgetown, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Syracuse, Villanova, and Pitt.
Eventually, the four schools that now play FBS football (UConn didn’t at the time) would have needed a football conference. If the Big East hadn’t added football, it would eventually have lost those schools, amounting to almost half its membership.
The Big East tried to solve this problem by adding football schools, which was the move that pushed it over your supposed magic number of 12. That strategy failed because the Big East could never get good enough at football, so they couldn’t offer enough for the upwardly mobile schools to stay.
But the fundamental problem — the mix of FBS and non-FBS programs — was there from the beginning. That, and not expansion, was the fatal flaw of the Big East. Had they not expanded, they would have faced the same existential crisis, sooner.
LikeLike
The Big East failed because there was no unity of vision, simply due to the diversity of the institutions involved. They thought that basketball would be a unifying factor. You are close to right but have to consider the factors of the Northeastern culture (which would help to explain the disdain the other regions have of it) and the hostility among groups of schools. Georgetown, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Villanova are private, urban sectarian schools. Their primary mission traditionally has been to educate students of a certain faith (although they do take students who don’t share it). One of the reasons they’ve continually received applications even when there’s been a process of secularization in society is the perception of quality. This is especially true with K-12 education. But this reality has given them a platform in which to proclaim superiority over public schools.
The public schools, on the other hand, have a different circumstance that made it difficult to work with the private schools, one of which is the state laws concerning transparency. Also, non-discrimination laws that they are required to follow. The private schools are loathe to adopt those rules because of particular things that they don’t want revealed.
There is another factor that is unique in the Northeast and that is the private, non-sectarian schools (Syracuse). They also have a problem with public schools but it is not religion or transparency but competition for students. Schools like Syracuse, Yale, Harvard and Brown are very expensive and are very selective. Now the likes of Harvard can get away with being selective and expensive because of what they can offer. Schools like Syracuse can’t offer what Yale or Harvard can. Even Cornell and Princeton can offer more than Syracuse. The private schools in the Northeast sustain themselves through tuition money. This is where the public schools could be perceived as a threat. Public schools like Connecticut could offer a similar type of education and be less expensive than Syracuse. This creates a lot of resentment and fear among private school alums and fans.
The schools that played football in the old Big East had the opportunity to break away several times during its existence. However, it was not the basketball-first schools who were the main problem but the football-playing schools. Schools like Rutgers, Syracuse and Connecticut did not trust each other. Fans of Rutgers and Syracuse despised each other to the point that each wanted the other to go out of business. That’s how mean-spirited it was. Sure, it didn’t help Rutgers’ cause that they had a mediocre athletics history but that was just used as another excuse to vilify that school’s membership. The private schools perceived public schools like Rutgers, West Virginia, UConn and Temple as threats to be dealt with or contained, and they still perceive it that way, UConn basketball notwithstanding.
Then there was Notre Dame. So far, you’ve heard ND’s take on their relations with the Big Ten schools. What you have not heard about is ND’s history in the Big East. When the Big East was offered by ND their non-football membership (yes, I wrote it that way), ND promised that they’d play some football games against several Big East schools. Of course, the Big East salivated at the prospect of being associated with the Domers that they didn’t bother to read the fine print. ND always give themselves outs in any transaction with other parties. This was another classic case of Domers being Domers. When the idea of playing at Rutgers came about, they insisted that the game be played at the Meadowlands. However, Rutgers knew that if they played the game there that they’d lose their home advantage. Rutgers fans have had a bad history of dealing with the NJSEA and they did not want to repeat that experience. They’ve also have recently renovated their home stadium and increased the capacity to above 52,000. However, the Domers don’t do deals unless it’s to their advantage. They didn’t want to play at Rutgers’ home stadium and preferred not to play them, which is what happened. But standing up to ND’s arrogance comes with a cost, in the form of the enmity of the Domers towards Rutgers and Rutgers fans. This is another reason why BE private schools hate Rutgers.
There is a tendency by people outside the region to look at the dissolution of the old Big East as fooball-related. But, as I’ve explained above, the factors are much complex than that.
LikeLike
You’ve given a longer version, none of which I disagree with, but in the end it’s all about football.
LikeLike
In the end it was all about the conference getting too big and having too many diverse interests. The bigger you get the harder it is to maintain unity of purpose. The Ivy League and West Coast Conference have stayed small and maintained that unity.
LikeLike
The point both Transic and I are making is that the actual problem existed when they were small. Even if they hadn’t expanded, the league simply could not have survived as originally constituted.
If you look to the root cause, you find that size was not the problem at all.
LikeLike
The root problem was diversity of interests. That tends to happen when you get bigger. That happened in the Big East when it went beyond 9. It happened twice in the Southern Conference that spawned the SEC and then the ACC. It happened in the WAC. It happened on a larger scale with the CFA as first the Big 10 and Pac 10 went their own way, then Notre Dame, then the SEC, then it all splintered.
The bigger you get the harder it is to maintain that. There are only so many Division I private schools on the West Coast. There are only so many Ivy League caliber schools on the East Coast. Those conferences are staying small and have similar interests.
Now the bigger you are, the harder it is to agree on things even when there isn’t a big diversity of interests. You are also less closely tied in a bigger group than a smaller group (that’s just common sense without getting into all the scheduling issues).
Assuming bigger is better when there has never been a single example of that is a big assumption. All schools operate, as they should, in their own interest.
LikeLike
It happened on a larger scale with the CFA as first the Big 10 and Pac 10 went their own way, then Notre Dame, then the SEC, then it all splintered.
The Big 10 and PAC never joined the CFA.
LikeLike
I don’t know that the full details of that deal were ever released. IIRC, it was a gentleman’s agreement to play about three schools a year…and mostly to improve notoriety and strength of schedule for the Big East and to help scheduling issues Dr. White was having as the NDAD. I don’t ever remember hearing that these games would be home and homes. Many of the Big East football schools at the time were glorified mid-majors, with mid-major stadiums and fanbases.
Notre Dame was always much closer with the Catholic schools who later split off and took the name with them. It has very very little in common with the CUSA schools that the Big East backfilled with at the same time.
South Florida would have never gotten a game in South Bend without the agreement, nor would UConn…and Rutgers probably wouldn’t have either. I don’t know why ND would want to play Rutgers in a 52K stadium when a 80K stadium is right up the road closer to NYC. ND wouldn’t play UConn at the Rent either, and requested to play at Foxboro…and that’s not even in Connecticut.
I’m so tired of the Big East football fans resenting Notre Dame for not rescuing them. The conference was DOA in a football centered world anyway.
LikeLike
Of the glorified mid-majors in the BE, 1 is in the Big 12, 1 is heading to the Big 10 and 3 will be scheduling ND in the ACC. USF and UConn are still in the BE-USF with a pro stadium and UConn with one of the newer stadiums in college football-and both with better fan support than 1/3 of the ACC schools, including powers ND occasionally plays like Wake Forest and Duke.
Notre Dame broke their deal. Hopefully the ACC did an air-tight contract.
LikeLike
The only backfill mid-major the Irish will play is U of L. BC, VT, Miami, Syracuse, and Pitt were in the Big East when ND joined…as were Rutgers and WVU. I don’t forsee home-and-homes with the Irish in the future for USF, UConn, or Cincy.
LikeLike
“Is a Big 10 fan of Michigan really going to watch Minnesota/Indiana in football over USC/Oregon?” — bullet
This is the phenomenon of “cross-marketing” — where a fan of particular conference’s school watches the game of other conference members even though his school is not one of the schools playing. The more cross-marketing you can obtain as a conference, the more financially successful your league will become. The SEC is the undisputed king of cross-marketing.
Cross-marketing is exactly the reason a school like Texas or Oklahoma would be less valuable in the PAC than in the B1G or the SEC. Even though the PAC would make every effort to set most UT or OU games earlier in the day, for television viewers in the CTZ, the fans of those two schools would have a hard time watching the games of many PAC schools which may be scheduled against UT or OU in the future or which might have an impact on the PAC championships. Many PAC games will in fact end in the wee hours of Sunday morning (1 or 2 am) each and every weekend.
Yes, I do suspect a great many B1G fans would watch Minnesota/Indiana over USC/Oregon (or at most simply check in on USC/Oregon during the MN/IN game during commercials). I know that’s what I do as a fan of the B12, and we have schools a whole lot more boring than Minnesota or Indiana.
LikeLike
Frank,
This matrix leaves out the single biggest criteria that plays into big xii expansion (possibly the ONLY one), “what does Texas want.” While reasonable to state that the conference’s long term viability should trump the short term financial harm that adding members would do to the rev split, UT is simply not in the business of doing what’s reasonable for the conference. Even in hypothetical world where the conference would die without expanding is there even a shred of evidence that would indicate Bevo would care?
LikeLike
Disgruntled, I have discussed Bevo the Bull(y) and how they are time and time again. The one thing that has changed is “Little Brother” A&M not only leaving Austin behind, but doing quite nicely. While they would love to add two lap dog Universities (choose two of Houston, Rice, SMU, and UTEP), they have to worry about angering Oklahoma to the point where the first chance they get, they become the next A&M or Nebraska heading for the B10 or SEC. It has to be on their mind (even though they will not admit it).
LikeLike
Uh, no.
Texas came out in opposition to adding “another school from Texas” during September 2012, but backed off when OU and the northern schools wanted to keep two games per year in the State of Texas. That may qualify as “bullying” in your book, but it does not match reality.
As for Houston, Rice, SMU, and UTEP (??), no, Texas has no desire to add any of those schools.
Texas (DeLoss Dodds) has consistently said it is comfortable at 10 schools, true, but Texas has also said if the league wanted to expand, Texas will accommodate the league.
The reality is that none of the small schools want or can afford to take a hit on the TV contract by expanding. Texas can afford to take a hit. If the B12 really wants to expand, Texas will not stand in the way.
The problem is that there does not appear to be any schools out there (other than possibly BYU, but that’s another story) with whom the B12 can add that will not dilute the TV contract.
LikeLike
I think there are two things not all that well discussed here. IMO.
1) With the GOR deal in place, it seems like the only get out of jail free card for UT and OU would be imploding the conference. A larger membership would take that from difficult to likely impossible. While I don’t think either school is desperate to escape today, that could change. I would think that puts UT and OU (privately) firmly against expansion, regardless of the company line.
2) I think the “diluting the TV shares” argument may be more of a conventional wisdow argument being subtly pushed by the powers in the conference to encourage the have nots not to push the issue. There has been a lot written about how 12 doesn’t meet the current payouts the conference enjoys. I can buy that that is “true enough”, but I am not as certain that a larger expansion to 14 or 16 is equally unworkable. I think if you crunched the numbers you might find that there are schools that collectively would ramp up the value of the conference enough to meet or exceed current revenue generation.
Consider basketball tourney revenue. The Big East for example built a top heavy basketball league and their SOS dragged their bubble teams into the tourney. It also generated battle tested schools that made long runs in the tourney. The BE was pulling in some pretty good money based off basketball.
A larger B12 with a basketball focus could end up recouping some TV shortfalls with BB tourney money.
Also consider markets. The Big 12 has by far the smallest populations in their footprints. That would seem likely to limit their options vs. other power conferences in terms of conference networks and the like. Could adding a few schools really help in that regard? Possibly, but I think it is an uphill battle due to the small population states near texas.
But if you have very good basketball to go with the UT and OU (and I guess now the OSU, Tech, and Baylor) football brands to support a minimally acceptable footprint…. maybe a network becomes a lot more workable.
Lets name names. BYU is the obvious team 11, but if you are just talking about the value of Utah, BYU is just a little exciting. But if you are talking about BYU + SDSU, UNM, and CSU, suddenly you are sewing together some very complimentary and large fan bases. BYU becomes a lot more valueable in that scenario as do all of those schools due to their existing rivalries and the facts their fan bases care about those opponents.
BYU and SDSU are bowl caliber programs. CSU just built a stadium that should make their team a bowl caliber program. UNM with better Texas recruiting could get there.
UNM, BYU, and SDSU are annual strong tourney teams with strong fan bases and CSU basketball is lead by a good coach now and seems headed in that direction.
Top that with Cinnci and memphis in the east. Cinci does well in football. memphis could potentially do a lot better with a Big 12 check. There is a lot of football talent in Miss and LA if the tigers were higher profile and had the money to really recruit…
In basketball both are ringers with strong fan bases. This could yeild a conference that is one of the best in the nation in basketball, has a terrific recruiting footprint, and has the markets to interest a network partner.
Now I am not saying any of this is likely, but I do think the money would be there at 16 when it might not be at 12.
LikeLike
No…
Reforming parts of the WAC in the B12 reduces the conference value.
LikeLike
“Even in hypothetical world where the conference would die without expanding is there even a shred of evidence that would indicate Bevo would care?”
TCU
LikeLike
Excellent point. They were probably near the bottom of UT’s list.
LikeLike
UT would care if it was against their best interests. Seeing OU in the B10 or SEC and giving one of those Conferences yet another path into Recruiting in Texas (especially the SEC), would not be in Bevo’s interest. Seeing a Football Schedule where Tech is your best In-Conference “Rival” is not either.
LikeLike
I think Tulane is great choice. But if I am the Big XII, I am looking for Schools to strengthen the Northern Division, without bringing in TCU 2 (aka Cincinnati). Obviously BYU is perfect, but if they wanted in, they would be there already (plus the fear that if they were admitted as “Football Only” Texas might try the same thing). My strategy would be add UCF & USF for the Southern Division, and send Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the Northern Division, and have OU and UT be a protected Rivalry Game (like Indiana/Purdue). That would accomplish the twin goals of a Conference Championship Game, and strengthen the Northern Division.
LikeLike
Texas values its non-revenue athletics. Thus, Texas has zero desire to go independent.
LikeLike
This is why Tulane and one of the Florida schools makes sense http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/223004/Ac2h_NWCIAARvlY.jpg
LikeLike
Folks, here’s a long one, I had way too much time on my hands this afternoon. Hit “page down” if you’re in the mood for quick hitters, ’cause this ain’t a quick hit.
I think that the Big-12 had better hurry. The rest of the Big-12, besides UT and OU, had especially better hurry, because they’re much more at risk with all of this than they might think. It doesn’t take too much stretch of the imagination to see Texas and Oklahoma in the middle of a bidding war between the Big-10, the SEC, and the PAC-12 — and soon, GOR end-of-life not being all that far away, and litigation being what it is in any case. The Big-12 is still the least stabile of the majors (by far), and for its own survival, it needs to get to the best 14 teams available, while they are available, in the hopes that they can survive should the unthinkable happen and they lose either UT or OU, or both. BYU and Cincinnati are fine choices. Both are ready to go right now, as the author correctly points out — especially BYU, which in fact is already a major program as an independent, by every reasonable measuring stick. (Yes, BYU will join — work with them a bit on Sunday play, and they’ll come runnin’) UCF / USF, or better yet, UCF and Tulane, are decent candidates that would progress quickly with league membership. I favor UCF over USF because of the school size and the fact that it has its own unique major market to itself. Do it, and do it now, and get to 14 and a title game while you can. Then if you end up losing UT and OU (horrors), you still have 12 teams, a title game, a TV contract (which would be reduced in value, but would still exist), and a major bowl tie-in. It would be terrible, but perhaps survivable. Lose these two out of the current 10 team league, either right now (yes, it could happen, GORs notwithstanding), or at the end of the contract, and the conference is stone dead, period, end of story. Under that awful circumstance, would you rather face the network execs with a TV market of Texas and West Virginia only, or have 12 teams, two divisions, a championship game, and TV markets that cover Texas and West Virginia, but also Ohio, Central Florida, Louisiana, Utah, and the rest of 15 million Mormons around the country and world?
It may not seem like a risk right now, but the Big-12 runs a high risk of having its pockets picked again. Texas and Oklahoma are the obvious risks, but the “expansion candidates” that they take for granted could easily disappear at a moment’s notice. Cincinnati is the obvious next pick for the ACC if the Big-10 gets an ACC team to defect, and I believe that they’d prefer to follow Louisville anyway, rather than go with the Texas schools, all else considered. Out on the Left Coast, the PAC-12 is in somewhat of a bind in terms of expansion. They’ve always wanted to have 14 to 16 teams; having to settle for 12 wasn’t their first choice and makes for an awkward seasonal round-robin. What they wanted, and still want, is Texas and Oklahoma, and they’ll be back with a raiding party in the near term. Assuming they fail, their expansion options are more limited than any of the other majors. No “Cal State X” fills their bill. San Diego State doesn’t draw, and UCLA and USC already deliver the San Diego market anyway. Fresno State is the best of the “Cal States”, but The Valley isn’t a major market. Boise State is about 20 years removed from being a community college, and the PAC-12 blue bloods can’t live with that. Also, their football program is built on Coach Petersen. What happens when he leaves — can they continue the success? There’s a huge risk on that one, and no local TV market, to boot. The PAC-12 really only has two decent options: Take UNLV and hope to grow it into a player, and also finally bite the bullet, and take the hands-down obvious choice from the get-go: Mormon-conservative-West-Coast-anathema major-player BYU. If the PAC-12 fails to collar UT and OU again, look for them to take UNLV, and finally take BYU off the table, denying the Big-12 its most satisfactory expansion candidate along with Cincinnati.
The Big-12 needs to get going. Looking and acting like the reincarnation of the Big East, i.e. waiting to be raided by a bigger fish and then reacting, isn’t what they should be doing right now. This is the time to be proactive, get the four best candidates out there, get a title game going, and start looking like a major conference again. During the last round of realignments, they came within the proverbial gnat’s eyelash of collapsing by passively waiting, and then having to operate in arrears in panic mode only. They wound up losing valuable powerhouse programs in Texas A&M and Nebraska, schools that likely could have been saved, and should have been saved, if the conference had had its act together. (Colorado and Missouri were lesser losses, but still hurt the image of the league by departing.) The conference cannot afford another screwup of this magnitude. It’s time to show that they learned the lesson by solidifying the long-term future of the league now, rather than worrying about the short-term single-last-dollar of revenue dilution that might occur via expansion. The money’s there to be able to do this. As they say, pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered …
Bring BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Tulane on board. Just do it. Now.
LikeLike
… aaccckkkkk!!!! And my apologies for leaving the great states of Kansas and Iowa out of the TV market comments at the end of the first paragraph. Tacky brain freeze — my apologies to you KU, KSU, and ISU fans. The thing should have read:
Under that awful circumstance, would you rather face the network execs with a TV market of Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and West Virginia only, or have 12 teams, two divisions, a championship game, and TV markets that include not only all of those states, but also Ohio, Central Florida, Louisiana, Utah, and the rest of 15 million Mormons around the country and world?
Sorry!
LikeLike
If Brigham Young says no, should the Big Ten substitute South Florida? And how would divisions stack up? (In my 14-team scenario, place Tulane in the West with the Texas and Oklahoma schools, with an East division of Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Central Florida and South Florida — making certain the football schedule is adjusted so the five other East teams visit UCF or USF every year.)
LikeLike
I meant Big 12, not Big Ten. Oopsie.
LikeLike
long as hell but thanks for taking the time to share. Love the discussion going on here. much better than one of the team forums where people end up attacking one another the entire time for having different opinions
LikeLike
Amen to that. The guy wrote a well thought out article on the topic, and started a good dialog. Bunch of good comments on here. Mine was waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too long. Your patience is much appreciated! 🙂
LikeLike
I fail to see how adding BYU and three Conference USA/AAC schools will do anything more than further convince Texas and Oklahoma to flee to the Pac 12. The Big East tried this strategy already, and all it did was force Syracuse and Pitt–by no means on UT or Okla’s level, mind you–to flee for the ACC. Backfilling is a sign of desperation, not strength.
How would this massive expansion benefit Texas and Oklahoma? How does this help them? And yes, if they flee, the whole conference is hurt badly, so how does angering Texas and Oklahoma serve anyone’s interest?
LikeLike
Tulane made a presentation to the Big 12 a year or so ago and it was Texas and OU that invited them.
LikeLike
That makes the school sounds more like an Amway salesman than a candidate for expansion.
What are Tulane’s TV ratings like in New Orleans? What about ratings from recent (last few years) from games on ESPN or another network? Is there an upward or downward ratings trend? What about attendance? is it trending one way or another?
I have no idea, so I am curious.
LikeLike
Look, I know people have a hard time with Tulane making the list but look at the list and the talk and The Tank must know something and some other players. Even Andy Katz w ESPN mentioned Tulane and the Big 12 about two years ago. According to most fans Tulane does not belong in this class or on this list but the name has popped up every single time. Obviously these schools/presidents have a pretty good interest in Tulane or the name would not be popping up again. Don’t take my word for it – just look at the fact that they are even cracking the list and this is not the first time. Look at the fact that Texas and OU were very much interested in them to ask them to show them what they have planned in terms of overall emphasis and investments. It is about new ground and potential. Tulane would never be invited alone but with a another school they would and with the addition of WVU and TCU it helps because now you can take someone like Tulane. There are a lot of schools that can make arguments, I get it – I also get that some people cannot fathom the thought of Tulane but like The Tank says – “keep an eye on them and Tulane has the best chance out of anyone to realize its Tremendous Upside Potential and moving up to the top.”
I know the guys that put this together, it was done about a year and a half ago – I gave them some input – it is not updated over the last year but it does a good job showing what people don’t see or know https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkhekl9u0bqn5jc/Tulane%20University%20Athletics%20%26%20NOLA%20%E2%80%93%20a%20Renaissance%2C%20a%20Revolution%202013.pdf
LikeLike
I have no problem with Tulane making the list, just if that list if for expansion similar to that of the Big Ten or SEC–market driven, with an eye towards demographics and academics, as well as athletics..
As I wrote above,
“Nobody disputes that New Orleans is a fun city to road trip to, and one easily accessible via car, plane, and train. But since B12 expansion is focused primarily on national television value, Tulane’s long history of craptastic football is a big negative.
If the B12 had a longer-term focus, with building an academic counterpart to the athletic conference, and also had designs of a cable network, then Tulane would have much excellent value and would have to be seriously considered.
But Tulane’s value as a national brand in athletics is negligible, which hampers the school as of now. If it strings together a Boise State-esque run (or even a TCU-type run), then its value increases markedly as a national brand.”
If the Big 12 was planning on starting a conference TV network, and an academic consortium like the CIC, then Tulane should be on a short list of schools.
But Big 12 is doing none of that, and probably won’t even exist in its present form after 10 years or so. The conference members seem to want to maximize money from national TV deals now, meaning any potential school would have to add to the annual haul per school. I just don’t think Tulane does that. At least not in 2013. Maybe it would in 2019, but that’s 6 years away.
LikeLike
The unofficial response. Commit to improved FB and athletics and we would welcome the addition of Tulane and New Orleans to the Big XII.
New Stadiums don’t just materialize for no reason.
http://www.yulmanstadium.com/
LikeLike
The Big East was on the tail end of a wholesale turnover that started long before with Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, etc; the situations aren’t comparable at all. I don’t think that this would motivate Texas and Oklahoma to move to the PAC-12, at least not beyond any baseline motivation that already exists, especially if you maintain a formula whereby the money is divided so that the schools collect reasonably in accordance with what they draw to the league. I also don’t think that the addition would necessarily be revenue-negative on a total-total basis in any case, since you add the title game and expand the markets. BYU is almost certainly revenue positive; ESPN isn’t doing the current deal with them out of charity. So start with BYU / Cincinnati first, plus the title game, and run that past the TV partners. Move it to all four if the deal money works. My guess is that you have at worst a revenue-neutral deal. (I know this is a funny way to look at it, but how much dilution do you think you get here versus what is contributed to the pot by Ames, Manhattan, Lubbock, and Morgantown?) So where does this push UT and OU out of the league? You just picked up a whole bunch of TV audience out West — far more than Colorado ever brought into the league (BYU draws TVs from Idaho to Arizona to California, not just Utah), and you picked up a big chunk of Ohio, and your money is “equal to” or “greater than” immediately, and more over the long haul. No one’s gonna bolt over that deal.
BTW, I agree that the PAC-12 is a threat to come after UT and OU again; they will certainly do so. However, the Longhorn Network and UT autonomy was a huge stumbling block for the PAC-12 bluebloods — they weren’t anywhere near a deal. I’m not saying a deal couldn’t be done, but the primary intent of the UT interest at the time was as leverage to bend the rest of the Big-12 into submission regarding the Longhorn Network and 3rd Tier rights. UT’s primary objective wasn’t really ever to shatter the Big-12 and become California Cool. They might do it in extremis, but for lots of good and valid political and practical reasons, I seriously doubt that that was (or is) high on their list of desired courses of actions. (Holy Bevo would the State Legislature go crazy if UT blew up the Big-12, at least all the Baylor and TCU alum legislators, and potentially the Tech alums also, unless the PAC-12 decided to take Lubbock along for the ride as well.) Nah, being directly responsible for the death of the Big-12 and once again turning Baylor and TCU into orphans isn’t Texas’ first choice, I don’t think. Could happen, but it would have to be for something really, really serious to the future of the program.
As far as backfilling versus not backfilling is concerned, I still think that the league is at maximum vulnerability by staying where they are. Lose one team, and they’re in the middle of an instant crisis. They just finished going through this, and the league almost collapsed. Do you think that the loss of their title game increased their prestige, or decreased it? One way or the other, its absence is extremely noticeable every year, and it’s not noted as a good thing. It makes the league look like the junior partner compared to four major leagues, on the same rung as the Big East used to be, and just waiting to be cannibalized when the winds start to blow again. And that’s exactly what it is. They’re fools not to fix it now, while they can do so, and have time to stabilize it before the world turns upside down again.
Sorry, way too long yet again. I’m done on this topic and will now shut up and yield the floor.
LikeLike
I didn’t think of the Big 10 and Pac 10 as junior partners when they had big games on ccg Saturday while the others had ccgs.
The problem with A&M and Missouri leaving is they did it so late in the year. A&M announced at the end of August. Missouri announced they were thinking about it in the last half of September and took forever to finally make up their mind. That was what left the Big 12 in a crisis. Had they left in May or June like Nebraska and Colorado, there would have been more time to vet schools and arrange the deals. The BE didn’t sue TCU. But when WVU left they did because it put them in a bind. And eventually the MAC and CUSA.
The Big 12 could easily replace anyone but Texas and Oklahoma. The impact would be marginal even losing Kansas. Now if they left in December for the next fall, it would be difficult. But with a normal time frame, it would be no problem.
LikeLike
“the impact would be marginal”. Hilarious. Bullet is still in total denial.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“I didn’t think of the Big 10 and Pac 10 as junior partners when they had big games on ccg Saturday while the others had ccgs.”
And both the B1G and PAC have added CCGs. Apparently they felt it important enough.
Andy:
Are you attributing greater impact by a Kansas exit than Missouri caused? I’m surprised.
LikeLike
The only problem with this theory is of course, Texas. It does not matter if they made bad decisions (see TCU), as long as things are acceptable in Austin (or OU makes noises about leaving) things will not change. I would bet that if there was a choice between Tulane & Rice, the Owls would be selected because the UT Game @ Rice will be played @ Reliant Stadium, with 75% (or more) Longhorn fans in attendance, to be broadcast on the Longhorn Network. As far as saving programs such as Nebraska & A&M are concerned, that was not happening. Too many 11-1 Anti-Cornhusker votes to keep Nebraska happy, and A&M not only saw an an opportunity to get out of Bevo’s shadow, but knows financially what happened with Arkansas. That “Hog” did not exactly get slaughtered.
LikeLike
If a B12 expansion choice came down to Tulane or Rice, and if you bet that Texas would support Rice over Tulane, be prepared to lose some money.
But this is moot. The schools of the B12 will not expand at all if expanding means losing money.
Expanding with any schools on Frank’s list means every school in the B12 would lose money.
This ain’t nuclear science, as the cliche goes.
LikeLike
There a heckuva lot more to the BYU situation than just “game forfeiture” (no Sunday play). More importantly, there’s TV replay issues, there’s BYU announcers in place of FOX or ESPN announcers (yea, that’s going to happen), there’s a demanded guarantee of way too many nationally televised games. Game forfeiture is only a sliver of the BYU problem.
Look, adding BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Tulane is sort of like a young adult buying health insurance. The guys knows that health insurance is a good thing, but he figures he’s healthy, and he doesn’t want to take a hit in his pocket book.
When the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, they had already calculated the numbers and Delany is supremely confident he just added money into the pocket of every single B1G school.
If the B12 added the schools you suggest, all Big 12 schools would take a hit in their respective pocket books. Texas can afford to take a hit in the television revenue. Texas nets around 10.8M per year off the LHN. Texas generally packs over 100,000 folks into DKR each football weekend. Texas can take a hit.
But Kansas State, and TCU, and Baylor, and on and on do not want to take a hit in their pocket book. They can’t afford to take a hit because they don’t draw like Texas or Oklahoma. They other B12 members have no meaningful way to make up the lost income from television contract dilution due to expansion.
Now this situation is still Texas’ fault, but can you tell me why? It’s not because Texas is “blocking” expansion, because Texas is not.
LikeLike
The Big XII could add 2 schools or 20, and its survival would still come down to the same question: do Texas and Oklahoma want to stay?
LikeLike
With the ACC, Do FSU and Miami want to stay?
Or even, does UNC want to stay?
With the Pac 12, they would survive because of geography, but would be gutted if USC and UCLA left.
If the SEC lost Georgia and Florida they would still be competitive-but only as long as they could keep recruiting those 2 states.
LikeLike
I was not saying that the Big XII is the only league with one or two linchpin schools.
The question just never arises for the Pac-12 and SEC, because no one has seriously suggested that those leagues are vulnerable. When the GORs get closer to expiration, a lot of people will start wondering what Texas and Oklahama plan to do. No one will be asking that about Georgia or USC.
LikeLike
Losing prominent members would hurt, but none of those would be crippling whereas losing UT/OU would be fatal. Even if the rest soldiered on it would not be as a power conference. There was an ACC long before FSU and Miami joined.
LikeLike
There was an ACC long before FSU and Miami joined.
But there wouldn’t be afterwards…
LikeLike
If they left I mean.
LikeLike
If FSU and Miami left, the ACC would be relegated to the G5. They would be a football playing version of the Big East. Of course, everyone else would try to leave as well. Minus those two there is really no difference between them and the Mountain West in football.
Without Texas and OU the Big 12 would not be financially competitive with the rest of the P5. Competitively, they would still be comparable to the ACC based on the BCS era. ACC schools averaged 51.9 points in the final AP Poll. Big 12 w/o OU and Texas-49.9.
LikeLike
Bullet:
This is the disagreement. Without FSU and Miami they are still the ACC, but deserving of the FB derision they’ve been subjected to over years. They are a basket and baseball conference that plays adequate FB at times. Only the frequency of adequacy would be effected.
LikeLike
@cc
I fail to see the difference between the ACC leftovers and the Big 12 leftovers, except that the ACC might still be the top basketball conference (the Big 12 would merely be one of the top).
LikeLike
Without FSU and Miami they are still the ACC
Yes, and the rest of the Big XII could keep the name, so I don’t see a difference.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Enormous demographic disparity.
Non reliance on FB as identity.
Tobacco Road stands or falls by its own choice (and holds others together), regardless of Mia or FSU. What’s the B12 equivalent? Kansas?
LikeLike
ESPN and Fox. The leftover Big 12 would be much more valuable than the AAC and MWC. Just not nearly as valuable as the current Big 12.
LikeLike
The Big-12 is still the least stabile of the majors (by far),
No, the ACC is probably worse. Not only is it significantly behind financially, the fact that it has bunch of pieces that are attractive to other conferences, but none strong enough to form a core to hold the whole thing together, makes it quite untenable. Really, its like Jenga tower; it won’t collapse on its own and it could afford to lose some pieces, but pull the right one and the whole thing comes crashing down.
The Big XII’s stars and scrubs philosophy is much easier to sustain; hold UT and OU and the conference will survive no matter what happens.
(Note, another way to look at it is this; the ACC schools are together because they want to be; the Big XII is together because they have to be. Literally ever current Big XII school has tried to leave but was turned down meaning they are stuck together come Hell or highwater. On the other hand, UNC, UVA, V-Tech, and FSU (unquestionably), Clemson, Miami and G-Tech (probably), and Pitt, Louisville and NCSU (possibly) have at least one other power conference that would take them today given the chance and offer them a raise.)
Then if you end up losing UT and OU (horrors), you still have 12 teams, a title game, a TV contract (which would be reduced in value, but would still exist), and a major bowl tie-in.
Yeah, if you think that the Big XII is going to keep its Sugar Bowl tie in if it loses OU and UT then I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Also, the TV contract wouldn’t just be reduced; it would be voided.
—-
Of course those two specific issues simply allude to a bigger point; if OU or UT bolt then whatever Big XII leftovers don’t get picked up are screwed no matter what. As such, the best strategy for the conference’s have nots is to do whatever is necessary to keep those two schools and if staying at 10 is what they want, they staying at 10 is what should happen.
LikeLike
Strongly agree with Back East concerning BYU & Cincy. But wait a few years before going to 14. After all Big 12 is locked in until 2025.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
As a Texas fan, it does get tiresome to read this never-ending theme of Texas as the “bully”. “Texas doesn’t care at all about its’ conference partners or the future of the Big 12″…and yet, it was Nebraska who left, because of domineering Texas. I thought all those conference votes that the Huskers lost were 11-1? Doesn’t Texas just have one vote like everybody else? And here we are in 2013 and Texas is still in the Big 12. I really thought the original Big 12 was a great conference, and wish it was still together. Those schools that left were entirely within their rights to go wherever they wanted to go, but quit blaming Texas. I’m not sure why everyone thinks it’s OK for NU or A&M to leave their conference mates for what they believe to be a better situation, but anything Texas does out of self interest is considered an assault on their conference brethren. I still do believe it would serve Texas better to be in the PAC 12 and hope that happens, with or without the LHN (which I enjoy watching here in North Carolina immensely–first class network)
LikeLike
As a Texas fan, it does get tiresome to read this never-ending theme of Texas as the “bully”. “Texas doesn’t care at all about its’ conference partners or the future of the Big 12″…and yet, it was Nebraska who left, because of domineering Texas. I thought all those conference votes that the Huskers lost were 11-1? Doesn’t Texas just have one vote like everybody else?
Nominally, Texas has one vote. But how often has the Big XII made a consequential decision on which Texas voted no? I don’t think Texas has bullied anyone. It’s just a reality that without Texas, there is no Big XII (as we have known it), and therefore they’re going to get what they want.
As I recall, when Dan Beebe got fired, one of the ADs said publicly, “There was a sense that he listened to only one school.” Care to guess which school that was?
I don’t think anyone has said that Texas “doesn’t care about its conference partners or the future of the Big 12.” To the contrary, Texas wants the Big XII to survive. The fact that it has a de facto veto there (and wouldn’t in any other league) is one of the reasons — although there are others.
LikeLike
On the most important vote in league history, around the 2005 time-frame, Texas brought in the guy who set up the BTN just before he migrated to the B1G for the purpose of setting up the BTN.
Texas proposed to the league that the B12 set up a league network. The B12 shot down the Texas proposal 1-11, Texas being the lonely “1” vote. Nobody thought a league network had any merit but Texas. But Texas didn’t up and bail from the B12.
Instead, Texas studied the league bylaws and gave thought to so-called television Tier 3 rights. At the time Texas made about a quarter million per year off television Tier 3, while Kansas was making millions off its basketball. Eventually Texas partnered with ESPN to set up the LHN and here we are today.
The point is that Texas does not “run” the B12. Is there a sort of “first among equals”? Well, I’m sure there is. But Texas loses plenty of league battles. The most recent battle Texas lost was the addition of TCU — a really bad move on the part of the B12.
LikeLike
Texas and Nebraska had to fund a study of a conference network. Noone else was interested.
LikeLike
Texas wanted Jack Swarbick as conference commissioner. The Big 12 chose Beebe. Texas was ok with keeping Beebe. The rest of the conference wanted to fire him and did. As Loki says, TCU was NOT the choice of Texas.
LikeLike
I very carefully avoided saying that Texas wins every vote. But they win most, and always will. They simply have to.
LikeLike
They didn’t become the most profitable program in the country by making a lot of bad decisions.
LikeLike
Do disrespecting A&M & Nebraska qualify as bad decisions?
LikeLike
That is only in their imaginations.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Serious question. Do you think UT could/should have done things differently in order to retain UNL and aTm? Not trying to be provocative but without them wouldn’t you agree the B12 is at best the fourth of the big five? With them, arguably in the two/three range?
LikeLike
@ Bullet:
I know this particular thread is dying, but one more long thought.
You said:
“The unequal share of exit fees is one of my pet peeves. MSM keep repeating that Texas got their share of the exit fees. That is not true. They offered Texas, Texas A&M and OU their share of the exit fees. Texas immediately said it wasn’t in the by-laws and they would refuse. OU also said that they shouldn’t get it. The greedy ones were A&M and Tech. When hearing of the offer, Tech’s president asked why they wouldn’t get a share as well. A&M whined when the league didn’t give them the left behind 5′s share.”
To me, your statement only proves how difficult it is to the error-prone media and how difficult it is to change a developing or “set” narrative.
Your statement suggests that I got a detail wrong. You are suggesting only 5 schools offered their share of the Exit Fees; I thought 7. In fact, is it 5, 7 or 4? What IS the number? KS, KState, Mizzou, IowaSt for sure. Baylor as the 5th? Did the Orphans offer the $$ to the full Departing 5 or only to TX, A&M and OKLA?
My memory is that the MSM used the phrase “other schools” which, based on the math at the time was 7. Colorado and Nebraska had left or were leaving. That left 10; UT, OKLA and A&M were offered more of the Exit Fees by the “other schools.” Now, maybe the MSM was clear at first; and then the MSM shifted to the short-hand of the “other schools.” I will google.
The point is that, from the get-go, the MSM does not always get the details correct. Then the MSM muddies the details. No wonder we are all confused.
There is a larger point here too. When trying to change a media narrative, arguments have to be focused and being focused is difficult. Being descriptive and not critical here, you Bullet, made two arguments, neither of which really dented the narrative that “Texas is greedy.” You said first that Texas didn’t take the $$ because the Bylaws didn’t allow it. That does not defeat “Texas is greedy”; that merely shows that Texas is rule-bound. A non-greedy Texas would have said: “No, thanks. Share and share alike.”
Second, you say that A&M and TTech are the greedy ones. Again, that does not work. That A&M and TTech are greedy is not probative (either way) on the question of whether Texas is greedy.
Again, not being critical here, just again trying to highlight how difficult it can be to change perception.
LikeLike
You’re still unfairly generalizing. If Texas happens to vote with the winning block, then Texas is bullying the league. If Texas happens to vote with the losing block, then no one is saying Texas wins every vote. You’re argument is simply disingenuous.
At most, Texas has a position of “first among equals”, BUT when it comes to the bottom lines of the other schools ($$$), the other schools vote in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. I understand you don’t believe that.
Down here in Texas we perceive Ohio State as the big dog of the B1G. Is the B1G a lap dog of tOSU?
LikeLike
No one thinks Ohio State has a realistic option to improve its position by leaving for another conference. It simply has to color people’s votes when they know that possibility is hanging over the proceedings.
Your “first among equals” comment is simply another way of putting what we are trying to say. It’s a difference of degree, not kind. And as a UT fan, you might not be neutral on how to characterize it.
As far as I know, not even the most delusional Ohio State fans think their school has that status in the Big Ten. Needless to say, no one else in the conference does.
LikeLike
Lol. So tOSU “simply has to color people’s votes”, eh? Hmmm, that reads to me a lot like “first among equals”.
Nothing came of it, but last spring I was sure reading a lot of stuff on tOSU blogs and elsewhere where tOSU was “calling in their B1G chits” they had accumulated through the years to try to force a B1G offer to FSU, a non-AAU football power.
Were all those tOSU posters lying to us?
LikeLike
Where is the offer then? UT would have made it happen in the B12, if they wanted it.
LikeLike
XOVERX,
“Nothing came of it, but last spring I was sure reading a lot of stuff on tOSU blogs and elsewhere”
Only a fool listens to OSU fans on an OSU blog. They are uninformed and completely biased.
“where tOSU was “calling in their B1G chits” they had accumulated through the years to try to force a B1G offer to FSU, a non-AAU football power.”
There’s no such thing. Gee may have had some friends he’d try to lean on or sway, but that’s it. Presidents have to consider the needs of their school first.
“Were all those tOSU posters lying to us?”
Yes. They were making stuff up to fit their worldview.
LikeLike
I will throw out my 2 cents.
@XoverX: perception and reality can be different. you are arguing that the reality does not match the perception, but changing that perception can be an arduous task. (Ask any Penn State fan.)
The perception is that Texas is excessively greedy to the detriment of the BXII.
That perception might not fit reality, but there is a long list of “facts” that support the perception.
~~~ Four schools voluntarily left the BXII, each in their own way, pointing at Texas as the problem. That is a lot of people ~~~ hundreds of thousands of fans, players, administrators and message board denizens all saying something pretty similar.
Despite it being only one “bullet point” on my list, it is actually about 10,000 “facts” supporting the perception of Texas’ greed and narcissism.
~~~ Unequal revenue sharing. (see below).
~~~ In the midst of the almost-collapse of the BXII, the Seven Would-Be Orphans all agreed to give Texas their share of the Exit Money paid by Nebraska and Colorado to entice Texas to remain.
Please do not underestimate how that was viewed in every conference in America. I honestly cannot see IL or Purdue or Northwestern or Indiana or any school in the B1G debasing themselves is such as way to keep tOSU (or Michigan) in the B1G.
This “fact” cemented the media narrative about the disparity of power within the BXII.
The original media reports were that Texas demanded it. Subsequent media reports were that Texas gladly and greedily accepted the payments. My guess is that most people still think Texas demanded the payments and accepted them.
~~~~ The LHN. This “fits” the narrative in several ways.
First, ESPN gave Texas $300 million dollars for their own special network, dedicated solely to all things UT Austin. That was and remains shocking both in the $$ number and in uniqueness (who else has ESPN running their network?). It was another “data point” highlighting the power disparity in the BXII and furthered the meme that Texas was a money machine not at all concerned about its fellow conference mates. With unequal revenue sharing, the difference in revenue and spending between, say, Texas and Iowa State was staggering before the LHN. Now, Texas not only wanted an higher share of the conference TV $$$ but was going to receive another $15 million a year? Texas was just going to rake in the $$, buy a few Titles and use that money-making machine to grind the Seven Would-Be-Orphans (and OKLA and A&M) into the dust.
A related but different point is this: at a time when the B1G is making a network called the Big Ten Network and when the PAC was doing the same, Texas wanted something just for itself. The Conference networks (and now add in the SECN and the ACCN) are marketed as helping ALL the schools/teams. No one was told and no one remembers that Texas tried to get the BXII to look at a conference-wide network in 2005. But that fact doesn’t matter anyway because Texas should have tried again in 2009 (or so the meme goes).
3rd, Scott’s package deal to bring over six schools was, rightly or wrongly, portrayed as a great deal for Texas and the other schools. Everyone was going to be rolling in $$$. But the deal fell through because of the LHN. Texas wanted to have its own special network (greed) and so Texas’ LHN caused the deal to fall through. The triumph of self-interest.
4th, the LHN, a network dedicated solely to UT Austin, was going to broadcast high school games. Anyone with a brain could see the recruiting advantage that would provide which would only further distance Texas from A&M, OKLA and the Would-Be-Orphans. Not only more $$$, but now more recruiting advantages. Greedy greedy greedy.
~~~~ Beebe: the way he behaved as Commissioner was seen as pro-Texas and then when Beebe was replaced, a BXII AD actually said that Beebe was too focused on one school.
~~~~ Minor things like moving the BXII HQ to Dallas.
~~~~ Conspiracy things like how BXII referees always seem to give Texas the benefit of the doubt, ya know, adding time to the clock and all that.
~~~~ Texas fans and the UT Austin administration do not seem to object to this perception. Dodds has certainly made no effort to change the narrative and have Texas cast in a more collegial light. Even on this Board, an occasional Texas fan will opine that Texas has no obligation to allow the Would-Be-Orphans to feast at the Texas teat.
~~~~ etc. etc. i could add more, but this post is already very long.
I am not saying this narrative is true.
I am saying that, sometimes, perception becomes reality.
I am also saying that you are going to have a tough time changing the perception.
LikeLike
One more thought: “Bullying” is the wrong word. That brings to mind some 200 pound brute giving the 90-lb weakling a wedgie or a swirly.
Texas does not overtly bully the other schools in the BXII. But everyone knows that Texas has all the cards. Every school (including OKLA) is dependent on Texas; dependency begets boot-licking; Texas doesn’t mind having its boots licked.
Btw, have you seen the new BXII Bylaws. The Would-Be-Orphans have no options and better keep their mouths shut. There will be no repeat of all that sassing and trash-talking done by Missouri.
Article 3.2:
“A Member (a “Withdrawing Member”) … shall be deemed to have Withdrawn … (ii) if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future; (B) breaches or evidences its intent to breach or not honor and fully comply with its obligations to the Conference under these Bylaws or the Grant of Rights Agreement for the entirety of the respective terms thereof; (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference and/or breach or not to fully perform its future obligations under the Grant of Rights Agreement and the Member does not both (1) inform the Conference of such action as promptly as possible (but in any event not later than twelve (12) hours after such action) and (2) immediately and unconditionally reject that offer in a form and manner reasonably acceptable to the Commissioner; or (D) if a Member otherwise takes or fails to take actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to be contrary to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole.”
Hat tip to Wainscott for the link in the previous thread.
LikeLike
So tOSU “simply has to color people’s votes”, eh? Hmmm, that reads to me a lot like “first among equals”.
No, you misread me. I was saying it WOULD color the votes IF they had that status. But they do not.
Nothing came of it, but last spring I was sure reading a lot of stuff on tOSU blogs and elsewhere where tOSU was “calling in their B1G chits” they had accumulated through the years to try to force a B1G offer to FSU, a non-AAU football power.
The first four words of your comment (even assuming the rumors are true), say it all: nothing came of it.
Were all those tOSU posters lying to us?
People circulate a lot of water-cooler rumors. Those who spread them may think they’re true. It doesn’t mean they are.
For instance, I don’t think the Dude of West Virginia is a liar, even though he has predicted dozens of things that never happened. He believed his sources, and his sources weren’t very good.
LikeLike
@BB
Texas hasn’t done a good job stating its side of the case. President Powers has been classy, stayed above the fray and not engaged in tit for tat and always said good things about the other schools. Dodds hasn’t said anything bad except about Missouri (which everyone in the Big 12 has-deservedly so in view of their governor’s comments and how late they left despite the SEC being willing to wait and the B12, BE and CUSA all asking them to delay).
Your comments display the problem. MSM has presented as facts many things that were totally wrong. In many other cases totally misleading. You post is filled with things that aren’t true and in many cases misleading.
Texas as the problem-Colorado and Missouri said nothing of the sort. Missouri wanted stability and $ (in that order). Colorado wanted to connect to its alumni. Nebraska blamed Texas, but a year later President Pearlman it was about money and stability (in that order) and that they always had good relations with Texas. Pearlman and Osborne were doing talking points to negotiate down the exit fee. A&M blamed Texas, but they always do that. That’s a reflection on A&M, not Texas. In any event, a year later, President Bowen said he had planned the SEC move all along, not to get away from Texas, but to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Texas public schools (i.e. get away from Texas Tech).
Unequal revenue sharing. It was really performance based, which, of course, Texas had advantages in. Would it surprise you that sometimes Texas was behind both Oklahoma and Kansas in that revenue sharing? Would it surprise you to know that the BE and Pac 10 were far more unequal? USC made 3 times what WSU did. The spread in the Big 12 was more like $7 million for the bottom school and $11 for the top. And TEXAS proposed shifting to equal revenue sharing on the new contract. They didn’t feel the need to get $20 million while the bottom schools were getting $14. With the bigger contract, everyone could get more.
LikeLike
The unequal share of exit fees is one of my pet peeves. MSM keep repeating that Texas got their share of the exit fees. That is not true. They offered Texas, Texas A&M and OU their share of the exit fees. Texas immediately said it wasn’t in the by-laws and they would refuse. OU also said that they shouldn’t get it. The greedy ones were A&M and Tech. When hearing of the offer, Tech’s president asked why they wouldn’t get a share as well. A&M whined when the league didn’t give them the left behind 5’s share.
Taking it would have been wrong. But Texas and OU understood that. A&M didn’t.
As for greed, is group greed better? The Big 10 destabilized conferences all over the country and nearly led to the collapse of the Big 12 and ACC, did ultimately collapse the WAC and split the Big East. All for more money for their Big 10 network. Big 10 fans talking about Texas greed are REALLY hypocritical.
We’ve had the discussion on why the Pac 16 fell apart. At the time, Scott said it wasn’t an issue in 2010. It wasn’t even in place then. Scott made some different comments later.
High school games-I don’t see how its a recruiting advantage if there is no bias in selecting the games. The University Interscholastic League (HS athletics coordinating body) in Texas is a division of the University of Texas. Now obviously, the ESPN announcer indicated there would be an emphasis on Texas recruits. It was only then that people got upset.
HQ in Dallas. It makes sense to have HQ in a geographically spread conference in a city with a major airport. KC is a small airport and not geographically central. OKC would be the most central. Dallas is somewhat more central than KC.
Referee conspiracies. Texas fans have the point of view that the refs are more likely to be against Texas. There have been some horrendous calls against Texas in recent years and a lack of pass interference calls. There have really just been the two questionable non-fumble calls in UT’s favor.
LikeLike
“Scott said it wasn’t an issue in 2010. It wasn’t even in place then.”
True. The actual form and makeup didn’t exist. That wasn’t the issue. The PAC required signing over ALL media rights, a GOR, eliminating any LHN like channel possibly happening. And at the time it was assumed one would be worth only a few mil/yr.
LikeLike
Michigan’s vote carries the most weight in the Big Ten. Always has, always will. Athletic + Academic/Research = Power. I guess you’re basing your opinion on recent football success. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
@ Bullet:
To be clear, I was describing what I see to be the national perception. I was also attempting to describe some of the “facts” that the perception is built upon.
I am not supporting or agreeing with or advocating on behalf of that perception. Just trying to describe it as an outsider.
I tend to follow CFB news pretty closely, so I know that facts are often skewed, if not flat wrong. I know, for instance, that Texas did not ultimately take the Exit Monies from the Orphan Seven.
But perceptions are hard to change once “set” by the MSM.
One problem is that, even where the “facts” are dead wrong, those “facts” still tend to have some kernel of truth and often legitimately support some aspect of the perception.
Case in point, no one denies that the Orphan Seven offered up their share of the Exit Monies. IMO, that legitimately supports the part of the perception where power in the BXII is mostly lodged with Texas.
Again, I have no dog in this race. Just describing what I see as the national narrative and pointing out how tough it is to change perception.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState
Debatable, as Michigan has repeatedly been against most (all?) expansion attempts since time immemorial. Either way, the point remains: the Big Ten is egalitarian.
LikeLike
reposting this in its proper place: Sorry.
@ Bullet:
I know this particular thread is dying, but one more long thought.
You said:
“The unequal share of exit fees is one of my pet peeves. MSM keep repeating that Texas got their share of the exit fees. That is not true. They offered Texas, Texas A&M and OU their share of the exit fees. Texas immediately said it wasn’t in the by-laws and they would refuse. OU also said that they shouldn’t get it. The greedy ones were A&M and Tech. When hearing of the offer, Tech’s president asked why they wouldn’t get a share as well. A&M whined when the league didn’t give them the left behind 5′s share.”
To me, your statement only proves how difficult it is to the error-prone media and how difficult it is to change a developing or “set” narrative.
Your statement suggests that I got a detail wrong. You are suggesting only 5 schools offered their share of the Exit Fees; I thought 7. In fact, is it 5, 7 or 4? What IS the number? KS, KState, Mizzou, IowaSt for sure. Baylor as the 5th? Did the Orphans offer the $$ to the full Departing 5 or only to TX, A&M and OKLA?
My memory is that the MSM used the phrase “other schools” which, based on the math at the time was 7. Colorado and Nebraska had left or were leaving. That left 10; UT, OKLA and A&M were offered more of the Exit Fees by the “other schools.” Now, maybe the MSM was clear at first; and then the MSM shifted to the short-hand of the “other schools.” I will google.
The point is that, from the get-go, the MSM does not always get the details correct. Then the MSM muddies the details. No wonder we are all confused.
There is a larger point here too. When trying to change a media narrative, arguments have to be focused and being focused is difficult. Being descriptive and not critical here, you Bullet, made two arguments, neither of which really dented the narrative that “Texas is greedy.” You said first that Texas didn’t take the $$ because the Bylaws didn’t allow it. That does not defeat “Texas is greedy”; that merely shows that Texas is rule-bound. A non-greedy Texas would have said: “No, thanks. Share and share alike.”
Second, you say that A&M and TTech are the greedy ones. Again, that does not work. That A&M and TTech are greedy is not probative (either way) on the question of whether Texas is greedy.
Again, not being critical here, just again trying to highlight how difficult it can be to change perception.
LikeLike
FWIW, I googled. The MSM was pretty consist in saying KS, KState, Iowa State, Baylor and Mizzou. The phrase used a lot was “the schools not receiving interest from other conferences.”
So, my bad. Got my details wrong. Not “Orphan Seven” but “Remaining Five.”
Btw, here’s Pat Forde’s take. Clear example of the “Texas is Greedy” narrative. from June 15, 2010.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5287646
LikeLike
Finally, here is what Texas actually said on June 16, 2010:
“There have been reports that there’s going to be a special deal for some of us using penalty money or other money,” [Texas president Bill] Powers said. “We were not part of that. We have heard about that. … It was not part of our consideration and we oppose that kind of deal.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13493/clarifying-the-distribution-of-withdrawal-fees
LikeLike
Marc, I guarantee you they bullied everyone (not named Nebraska). You mean Kansas & Missouri WANTED to move Big XII Headquarters from Kansas City to Dallas? That vote went 11-1 care to guess who opposed it? Isn’t it funny how they have only 10 teams so they Cannot have a Conference Championship Game? Could not possibly have anything to do with extra Scheduling Games for UT could it? I would wager the power difference is > for Texas>Texas Tech (not even mentioning Baylor or Iowa State) than Ohio State>Purdue or even Alabama>Mississippi State or USC>Washington State. Are things perfect in Austin? No they wish A&M never left the reservation, but they can live with it…………. Unless A&M and the SEC destroy Texas Recruiting and (or) Oklahoma wants to leave. Basically this is the “Big Two & Little Eight” of Bo & Woody Days on steroids. The Big Two here are UT & OU.
LikeLike
The KC/Dallas vote was 7-5 or 8-4. The schools close to KC wanted KC. The 5 schools close to DFW wanted Dallas. Colorado and Texas Tech wanted the 3rd largest airport in the country instead of a minor one. So it moved to a much more accessible place to anyone not within driving distance.
At the end they decided to quit rotating the ccg and move it to Dallas because Jerry offered them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Everyone wanted that but Nebraska who wanted a home field advantage some years and was willing to take less $. Noone else wanted to take less $ so Nebraska could have a home field advantage.
There was an 11-1 vote on limiting partial qualifiers. Yes, the Big 12 was one of 2 conferences with that rule, but Nebraska had more partial qualifiers than any other CONFERENCE in the country. The whole NCAA banned them a couple years later. It didn’t make sense to have “student”-athletes who had no business in a 4 year university.
They moved to a 9 game schedule so your comment about scheduling extra games for UT is pretty bizarre. Everyone likes the round robin. Everything I have read is that the schools most opposed to expansion are the lower revenue schools, but the feeling is pretty much unanimous. WVU would like a neighbor but doesn’t want a pay cut either.
LikeLike
Round-robin schedules are pretty nice. I’d give up the Big Ten’s championship game for a thirteenth regular season game, or just more conference play period.
LikeLike
SDSU is ranked higher in USNWR (152) and better numbers in acceptance rate (31percent) and yield than many of the schools you give points to.
LikeLike
Academics isn’t the problem with SDSU; distance is.
LikeLike
The people talking about the Big 12 needing to expand for recruiting purposes are completely off base. There is no market the Big 12 can expand into that would really change recruiting demographics for the Big 12.
Sorry, folks, a minor directional school on an island in Florida isn’t suddenly going to get big time recruits to decline offers from SEC and ACC schools to head to the heartland to play in Iowa, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Not happening. Look, the SEC wanted into Texas for the longest time because of TV sets and recruiting. They could have picked up any old dog any time they wanted to like Houston, TCU, SMU, etc. Why didn’t they? That did NOTHING for them. Texas A&M did because it was huge school with a huge fan base.
For recruiting to get a boost you need two things. First, a major recruiting state that is contiguous with your current footprint. Secondly, you need to have a big time school located in that state. Directional schools from Florida do neither. Same with Cincinnati, etc.
If the Big 12 looks to expand because it is hoping to expand its recruiting grounds then there will be no expansion. There isn’t a school that realistically helps Big 12 recruiting that would even remotely consider the Big 12.
LikeLike
Nope, I think you’re off-base.
If one of Texas and Oklahoma played in Orlando each year, that exposure would definitely help both UT and OU recruit Florida better. Ditto Cincinnati and Ohio. Ditto Tulane and Louisiana. Ditto California and SDSU.
Furthermore, those new recruiting grounds would also help the rest of the conference. Take WVU. WVU historically has pulled recruits out of Florida. You do realize that you’re saying WVU would recruit Florida no better than they do now even though with, say, UCF in the B12 WVU would be playing games in Florida? That’s just wrong.
Your argument is simply nonsensical.
LikeLike
The question is, how many FL kids would WV get, beyond what it was going to get anyway, just because WV plays in Orlando one game every other year? It’s not enough to influence the decision to expand.
Having decided to expand, would it be wise to consider states with good recruiting territory? Of course. That’s why FTT gave that factor 20 out of 100 possible points in his scoring. But the decision is still dominated by the factors adding up to the other 80 points.
LikeLike
Of course there is no way of knowing with certainty, but I would venture to guess WVU could sign an extra one or two nice Florida prospects per year with conference exposure in, say, Orlando. You can only sign 25 per year.
I’d bet Texas and Oklahoma could recruit at least one excellent Florida recruit per year with exposure in Florida. Oklahoma already spends some energy in Florida, IIRC, so they’d probably do better than Texas, but I expect Texas would ramp up Florida efforts if Orlanda were in the B12 mix.
Texas has recruited Louisiana pretty hard in the last few years. This year we’ve verballed two LA prospects. With Tulane in the league I’d imagine we could get more and better quality LA recruits.
Texas’ best linebacker is the Hicks kid from Ohio. 5-star Ohio prep star. One of the best RBs in Texas history (Jones) was out of Ohio. With Cincinnati in the B12, I can assure you Texas would spend more time on Ohio, absolutely.
It’s just silly to say that the B12 will get little or no interest from recruits in other states if the B12 had a flag planted in that state.
That’s like saying the B1G would get little or no benefit in recruiting the State of Texas if UT was a B1G member. Preposterous.
Of course this is all moot because the schools of the B12 are myopic. That are apparently not willing to grow a UCF, or a Cincy, or a Tulane, or any of the others. It seems to be ND, FSU or nothing. Guess it’s nothing.
LikeLike
Texas will continue to put almost all its efforts into Texas. There’s no need to spread themselves thin. Adding Florida schools won’t help any of the 6 Big 12 south schools. OU can recruit w/o a Florida team. The rest won’t try much. It might help WVU, ISU and the Kansas schools.
Under Mackovic, Texas did try to recruit Florida. They had no success. While that was John Mackovic (if Mack Brown is Mr. February, Mackovic was Mr. anti-February), Texas did try to recruit California then and had some success. Ricky Williams for one.
Florida schools add another island. There’s no guarantee they get decent penetration. And they will be #4 and #5 in the state. Nothing will change that for a very long time. They may be among the better choices, but that’s why the Big 12 won’t expand.
LikeLike
Nope, you are wrong. Occasionally kids leave state and move far way to play. That happens occasionally. Kansas or Kansas State or Iowa State or TCU or Baylor, etc. etc. etc. playing a single game in Orland every second or third or fourth year is not going to get some kid with offers from FSU and Florida and wants to play close to home to suddenly change course and go to these Big 12 schools. That is the epitome of being non-sensical.
Kids living in Florida with big time offers in Florida are not suddenly going to change course and move half a continent away simply because a podunk directional Florida school is playing in Kansas or Iowa. Do you even think about what you are saying?
This is akin to the SEC adding San Jose State because it thinks it’s going to receive some major recruiting windfall. The SEC was wise enough to know that even though the state of Texas was contiguous to its footprint and Texas produced the most D-1 football players in the country that adding inconsequential junk out of the state did them no good. And the SEC wanted in Texas BADLY. They have for a long time.
The Big 12 is in the same boat. However, Florida is far off island (unlike Texas was to the SEC) and produces even less D-1 talent than Texas. Plus, the Big 12 is not the SEC in prestige or allure. Not even close. Don’t make yourself look desperate.
LikeLike
Watch how many Louisiana kids start flocking to aTM
LikeLike
Not entirely true. Despite the tough season, USF still is bringing in a top 40 recruiting class-and this despite the fact that next year USF will be in the G5 and essentially demoted to the second tier of football!
In addition you underrate USF and UCF’s potential. In 2007 and 2008, at the peak of our teams, USF was regularly putting 50k in the stands. A return to winning, and playing meaningful games against meaningful competition (even schools like WVU) will bring that back. UCF regularly packs it’s stadium as well, and they’re making room for expansions. The big 3 out here all have down cycles. Florida is currently going through one, in fact. Put two schools on the I-4 corridor, and when either of us has good years as we’re likely to do, and we can take it away from them. We’ve shown before we are capable of winning. Give us a chance and we’ll reward you.
LikeLike
What are the odds that the Big12 expanding does nothing to solidify the league?
None of the expansion candidates seem like it would keep Kansas or Oklahoma from leaving if they got an invite. IMO the only chance the Big12 had was to convince Notre Dame to join.
LikeLike
No school wants to take money out of their pockets by expanding just for the sake of expanding.
By expanding with the schools listed by Frank, that’s exactly what the B12 schools would be doing: lessening their bottom lines.
Hence, expansion would not solidify the league in the short run.
And nobody in the B12 is thinking about the long run. I think they feel like they can’t afford to think about the long run.
The B12 is likely doomed because it may well be that their current television contract is overpaid.
LikeLike
Blackmon stays at Indiana.
http://www.crimsonquarry.com/2013/10/31/5053026/james-blackmon-jr-re-commits-to-indiana
The Tan One has pulled another rabbit out of his hat
LikeLike
Speaking of hoops.
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/10/28015/four-team-mens-basketball-event-featuring-ohio-state-kentucky-north-carolina-and-ucla-#more
OSU, UK, UNC and UCLA have agreed to a 3 year basketball event. They will rotate through playing each other at neutral sites in 2014-2016. It’s just 1 game each year, but still an interesting idea. OSU seems like the odd school out on that list, though, based on history.
LikeLike
I think it was due to the current event ending between Michigan State, Kentucky, Duke, and Kansas. If Michigan State was getting dropped then the next B1G school probably should have been Indiana, but maybe dropping the series moved Ohio State into that slot. Keeps the event with a Big 5 school in each series. First set had ACC, B1G, B12, and SEC and this will have ACC, B1G, PAC, and SEC. It may seem odd but Ohio State is not totally out of place. The more interesting issue was not replacing Kentucky with Florida as the SEC representative.
LikeLike
It’s Kentucky’s event.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9879552/kentucky-wildcats-john-calipari-finalizing-champions-classic-unc-tar-heels-ucla-bruins-ohio-state-buckeyes?ex_cid=espnapi_public
The old series is renewing and Kentucky is starting a new one with 3 new teams. Kentucky and Indiana have some issues going right now as I seem to recall.
LikeLike
Yeah, googling that, I guess that last year the UK/Indiana series was not renewed as Indiana wanted UK home and home, and UK wanted Indiana at a neutral site. If they wanted Indiana for their Champions Classic and Indiana refused, picking the Buckeyes as one of Kentucky’s “other Big Ten neighbors” instead would be a bit of a snub to Indiana.
LikeLike
One each from four of the big five.
LikeLike
Not as “odd” as you think. OSU’s football perception is in large part due to its own fan base, which is undebatable – you can’t stop such passion, it is what it is. But if the fans had similar zeal with their basketball, I think OSU would have multiple NCs at this point.
OSU does have 11 FF’s, 3 in the 64+ team era, one with a * next to it, though I thought that penalty was too harsh for O’Brien and company. No other BIG school has double digit FF appearances. However, OSU has the distinction of being the only school w/double digit FF’s and not at least 3 NCs to show for it. KU, Duke, UCLA, UNC, & now Lville each have 3 NCs, as well as 10 or more FFs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Final_Four_appearances_by_school
Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Bob Knight, as well as many others, will resonate with CB historians til the end of time. Heck, Lucas and Havlicek were outstanding NBA players – two of NBA’s 50 Greatest of All Time, albeit Lucas may fall from that list if the next update sticks with only 50. But I see the NBA only expanding such a future list.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Not as “odd” as you think.”
Really?
#1 UCLA – 11 titles
#2 UK – 8 titles
#3t UNC – 5 titles
#15t OSU – 1 title
I think OSU is clearly the odd team out. The other 3 are king programs, OSU is a prince at best (depends how many kings and princes you choose, I suppose).
“But if the fans had similar zeal with their basketball, I think OSU would have multiple NCs at this point.”
Fans don’t win or lose NCAA tournament games for you. OSU should have beaten UC one of those 2 times, and the odds say they should have converted another Final 4 into a title, but they haven’t. Besides, OSU has always had plenty of hoops fans. The majority favor football, but hoops has always been well supported. Don’t forget that the state borders IN and KY and many people share their sensibilities in terms of sports preference.
“No other BIG school has double digit FF appearances.”
#3t IN – 5 titles, 8 FFs
#9t MSU – 2 titles, 8 FFs
#15t OSU – 1 title, 10 FFs
I’d take IN’s or MSU’s numbers any day.
“Jerry Lucas, John Havlicek, Bob Knight, as well as many others, will resonate with CB historians til the end of time.”
Our most famous player now being known for being IN’s coach is part of the problem.
It’s not like I don’t know OSU’s history. But it’s hardly a stretch to say they aren’t in the same club as UCLA, UK and UNC.
LikeLike
Foremost, the premise of the Champions Classic is not just for basketball kings.
But here we go again Brian. Your misunderstandings of me continue you on here. You really need things explained in excruciating detail and pure, literal logic, which doesn’t help you in the blogosphere. And please cut the textual analysis and quote captures, please, I mean please, just stop doing it – way too serious and anal-retentive for my taste. I’m not the only visitor that finds this annoying. I’m not here for score-based, formal debate & if I was, you’d truly hate me, because many of your past posts are filled with pure opinion w/o much logic and lacking in the credible evidence department.
“Not as odd as you think” means I agree with you to a point. You’re talking to someone who clearly knows the history of the game. I do unquestionably know the other 3 programs are definitely kings & OSU is not, so spare me your insulting tone & learn to read between lines young man. But I am also suggesting that OSU has a pretty damn good basketball resume in the 2000s, not all-time blue blood-king status mind you. So be proud as a Buckeye fan. There are at most 6 kings in CB: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Ky, KU and IU. Of these 6, UCLA has simply not measured up in the modern era, though not far behind IU. They’re drop-off, post Wooden, is staggering, but to be expected. He was called the “Wizard” for good reason & the tourney format has clearly changed and home court games and first round byes are gone. As for king status, Lville is getting really close. MSU and UConn are a tad further back. Btw, OSU and I believe one other program (perhaps Villanova) are the only schools to appear in a NCAA tourney in every decade since the beginning.
It’s pretty clear to me, w/o my post, that this Champions Classic format is ALSO, repeat ALSO, again ALSO, looking at the stronger programs of the past 15 years, as well as big brands that attract viewership – not Kings only. OSU, is therefore more than qualified to participate. They don’t measure up to Ky and UNC over the past 15 years, but they’re on par or better than UCLA. OSU is clearly one of the 10 strongest programs of the past decade.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Foremost, the premise of the Champions Classic is not just for basketball kings.”
I didn’t say it was. Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you want me to have written.
I said OSU seems like the odd team out based on history. Not that they didn’t belong. Not that their recent performance hasn’t been on par. That their history was not on par.
LikeLike
Throughout this thread I have repeatedly made the point that if the B12 expanded today with any of the schools on Frank’s list, the schools of the B12 would make less money due to television contract dilution. All available evidence that I am aware of seems to bear out contract dilution.
So … should the B12 expand anyway?
The problem with the B12 is that it operates on the “television Tier 3” paradigm and not on the “league network” paradigm, such as a BTN. Hence, the B12 appears to be hemmed in by a sort of “divided we fall” and not “united we stand”. Thus it may be that expansion is the very thing that destroys the B12 due to increased contract dilution.
If you were running Texas, or Oklahoma, or Kansas, wouldn’t you be persuaded to keep the “Tier 3” model in place since it appears today to be successful for your school? As the GOR reaches the time for re-upping (about 3 or 4 years before it expires), you know that at that time you could read the money, see what you’re making, and see what the other big leagues are paying. Personally, I don’t think the B12 big 3 have much incentive in changing the status quo off of a 10-team league.
But what about the B12 schools other than Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas? Should the thinking be different for, say, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and the others?
I wonder if there might be more strength in the long-run for the B12 non-big 3 if the B12 expanded today? By accepting less money today on the television contract, but adding new schools and markets, the non-big 3 have the opportunity to “grow” other schools and other markets. Plus, the big 3 have no choice but to hang around the B12 until at least June 2025.
By June 2025, might an expanded B12 have had the time to “grow” schools such as Cincinnati, UCF, USF, SDSU, UNLV, Tulane, Memphis, or others? The non-big 3 might be able to grow such schools at the expense of the big 3, and in June 2025 these new (now old) schools might act as a hedge against the big 3 if the big 3 leave for better pastures.
Furthermore, might an expanded B12 by June 2025 be sufficiently mature, and profitable, perhaps to entice the big 3 to stay in the B12? In other words, might an expanded B12 be in the best interest of the big 3 as well as the non-big 3?
Clearly, in the short run, an addition of 2, 4, or 6 of the listed schools would be a drag on the B12 financial fortunes. The more schools, the more the drag. But the B12 today is the State of Texas, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and part of Kansas City. Is that footprint really a recipe for long-term stability?
And if you’re running a non-big 3 school, might you have concerns about where your school might land if the big 3 bolt at the end of the GOR? Since your non-big 3 school would probably land in the middle of nowhere, why isn’t it a good bet to try to develop other schools now while Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are still in the league? Isn’t there a better opportunity to develop “lesser” schools now, while the big 3 are part of the B12 for the next 12 years?
The B12 seems to be in a very complicated situation, especially if you’re running a non-big 3 school. The big 3 schools are fine, both now and in the future. Each of them can find a league to take them in, as needed. But if you’re a non-big 3 school, might you gamble, take a flyer, take a hit financially in the short run, and hope you shore up the long run? Just a suggestion.
LikeLike
Schools such as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Christian and Baylor need to bolster the Big 12 as best they can in preparation for any defections by the “big boys” — whether it be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State joining the Pac, Texas and Kansas joining the Big Ten or OU?OkSU heading to the SEC.
This might give West Virginia the chance to bring in Cincinnati as the nearby rival it seeks. ISU did quite a bit of recruiting in Florida in the ’70s and ’80s, and with UCF and USF,it could complement Texas as a recruiting ground. If the Big 12 post-defections is seen as sufficiently strong, it could lure the best of the second-tier conferences (Tulane, New Mexico) and even possibly Brigham Young, but that would be a long shot.
The non-power Big 12 members must be proactive and united, as even the weakest would still have more value than schools in weaker leagues. Think of the earlier food chain of ACC > Big East > C-USA.
LikeLike
Schools such as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Christian and Baylor need to bolster the Big 12 as best they can in preparation for any defections by the “big boys” — whether it be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State joining the Pac, Texas and Kansas joining the Big Ten or OU?OkSU heading to the SEC.
Except that by bolstering the league, they risk pushing out the Big Boys.
LikeLike
Exactly right.
Texas and Oklahoma might leave anyways in 10-12 years, but by backfilling with lesser programs, that likelihood increases exponentially.
LikeLike
There is another factor that people have to consider and that is affinity. Presidents and other academic types like to hang around certain company. Fans like to talk about attendance, brand, travel, competitiveness. Academics like to talk academic fit. With respect to the Big 12, after the flagships of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, the other schools in that league don’t get a lot of respect in other conferences. I wish it was not the case but that is the reality. Tech is a decent school with potential to be even better for the next 20 years but the B1G elitists have a big problem with Tech academics or they would have been the #18 school by now. WVU, correct me if I’m wrong, has a mandate to not automatically turn away any applicant from that state. Then there are the private schools with religious foundation, which drive the extreme secularists at several locations *coughPAC*cough* up the proverbial wall.
What grates me (and this applies to situations in other conferences as well) is that fans have adopted the same type of elitism that the academics have been known for quite a long time. How many times have you heard the same qualm about “X will never get to Y conference”? How does one know? We are just fans here with opinions. Some of us don’t even have a degree from a school we support (SECSECSEC) but still feel a connection to that school. If you ask an average fan what project a particular school is engaged in today, he/she would have a very hard time answering. Yet, that same person brags about academics.
I wish I knew the answer to what ails the Big 12 but I do have some suggestions:
– If you’re going to be the fifth wheel in the P5 then you may as well be a rebel league. The Big East failed to take that tact and they suffered as a result. They thought they’d remain part of the club and had to learn the hard way. If you’re the league that’s constantly disrespected then do something to defy those who are against you.
– Make a name change. It makes no sense for the Big XII to have a name that includes a number. Same would go for the Big Ten but at least they have the foresight to come up with “B1G”, while not the best logo, at least gives the appearance of possibility.
– Play games in other recruiting states. I would give the same advice to the B1G schools. It’s no use whining about where people are moving. Texas did play one game at UCF’s stadium but Texas is Texas. The other B12 schools should do everything they can to play OOC in Georgia, Florida, California and Louisiana, as well as Texas. Hell, why not play a game in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey (like Kansas is doing in a few years) and Pennsylvania? Get the conference name out there. You have the promotional vehicles. Use them. A P5 conference has a lot more cache to pull this off than a G5 conference. With so many games on TV these days, the schools need to do more that put the game on. Talk about Kansas State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in the other regions.
– The schools just can’t live in fear. That’s what happened to the Big East. Get a commissioner that is going to talk up the conference like it’s nobody’s business. I don’t know much about Bowlsby but I tend to think he’s not the type that has the ability to promote the conference. Networks have other conferences to answer to, so they can’t be of much help, either. I know you’re constrained regionally right now but that doesn’t mean you have no room to promote your product. Notre Dame doesn’t let South Bend, IN, constrain them, either.
Hopefully, these suggestions would be helpful to you.
LikeLike
If you’re going to be the fifth wheel in the P5 then you may as well be a rebel league. The Big East failed to take that tact and they suffered as a result. They thought they’d remain part of the club and had to learn the hard way. If you’re the league that’s constantly disrespected then do something to defy those who are against you.
Who said the Big XII was the fifth wheel? The ACC is significantly worse both competitively and financially and was officially to relegated to second tier status when they had to accept a vastly inferior tie in for their champ.
Seriously, who has been disrespecting the Big XII?
Make a name change. It makes no sense for the Big XII to have a name that includes a number. Same would go for the Big Ten but at least they have the foresight to come up with “B1G”, while not the best logo, at least gives the appearance of possibility.
Should the ACC change its name because it includes two schools from landlocked states? Should the SEC change its name because it added schools from the Midwest and Southwest? Should the PAC change its name because it has two schools in the middle of the desert, one in Salt Lake City and another that is located closer to the Gulf of Mexico than the Pacific Ocean?
LikeLike
Seriously, who has been disrespecting the Big XII?
ESPN. They are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to creating perception. Yes, the P5 schools have their reason for including the B12 but when you take both the fall and spring semesters into consideration, the ESPiN hype machine puts the ACC in a much better light than the B12. It’s only because of their (ACC) recent struggles (before this year) in football that the two leagues have been neck-and-neck in the fans’ minds.
This doesn’t change my opinion of the ACC. I personally hate it and love it when their teams lose.
Should the ACC change its name because it includes two schools from landlocked states? Should the SEC change its name because it added schools from the Midwest and Southwest? Should the PAC change its name because it has two schools in the middle of the desert, one in Salt Lake City and another that is located closer to the Gulf of Mexico than the Pacific Ocean?
I guess we’re going to have a difference of opinion as to how we’d define region. The PAC may well be “The West Conference” (no disrespect to MWC intended), the ACC “The Eastern Standard Conference”, the SEC “The Southern Comfort Conference” and the B1G “The Northern Conference”. The XII may be “The Middle America Conference”. Older people’s definition of region is much more conservative, I would admit.
LikeLike
“Middle America Conference”? Sounds too much (and has the same initials) as another league we know.
And Transic, I note in your earlier post you didn’t mention ISU. It’s AAU (though perhaps tottering a bit a la Kansas), is a respected institution and does quite well given the resources it’s been given (17 or so consecutive home football games with 50,000+ attendance, sellouts for most men’s basketball games, women’s hoops average attendance just below 10,000). That’s pretty good fan support, and yet many here want to throw it out of the BCS and ship it to the Mid-American or Mountain West, which is simply absurd.
LikeLike
I guess you and I just have different perceptions have the level of “respect” the Big XII receives.
And on the second issue, I think your point is that names to have to be literal which would mean the Big XII should be ok.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/10/31/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-endorses-ncaa-approach-to-change/3328041/
Jim Delany supports the NCAA restructuring plans that involve just giving the Big 5 conferences more voting power but not leaving the NCAA nor forming a D-IV.
LikeLike
Below are the top 25 USA universities hosting international students in 2011/12.
(Source: Institute of International Education. (2012). “Top 25 Institutions Hosting International Students, 2011/12.” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors.)
1 University of Southern California Los Angeles CA => 9,269
2 University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign Champaign IL => 8,997
3 New York University New York NY => 8,660
4 Purdue University – Main Campus West Lafayette IN => 8,563
5 Columbia University New York NY => 8,024
6 University of California – Los Angeles Los Angeles CA => 6,703
7 Northeastern University Boston MA => 6,486
8 University of Michigan – Ann Arbor Ann Arbor MI => 6,382
9 Michigan State University East Lansing MI => 6,209
10 Ohio State University – Main Campus Columbus OH => 6,142
11 Indiana University – Bloomington Bloomington IN => 6,123
12 Penn State University – University Park University Park PA => 6,075
13 Boston University Boston MA => 6,041
14 University of Minnesota – Twin Cities Minneapolis MN => 5,661
15 Arizona State University Tempe AZ => 5,616
16 University of Florida Gainesville FL => 5,588
17 Harvard University Cambridge MA => 5,453
18 University of Washington Seattle WA => 5,372
19 SUNY University at Buffalo Buffalo NY => 5,357
20 University of Texas – Austin Austin TX => 5,324
21 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA => 5,296
22 Texas A&M University College Station TX => 5,013
23 University of California – Berkeley Berkeley CA => 5,004
24 Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta GA => 4,973
25 University of Houston Houston TX => 4,879
The Texas Longhorns are not only a national brand.
The University of Texas is also a global brand.
LikeLike
It would seem that Northeastern University, my alma mater and a school that dropped football, is even a bigger global brand than UT.
LikeLike
Wow, Big10 freakin’ay. 8 of the top 14. The top 14 is essentially the B10 and some privates (mostly big ones) in major cities (and UCLA).
LikeLike
Reminds me of the reply of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne Division, when told of the German demand to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge:
“Nuts!”
LikeLike
Just be Thankful (if you are reading this and your team ‘Is Not’ a Big XII team) that you are not in that cesspool of a conference
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
Frank,
As always, I enjoyed your analysis. One factor that perhaps should be quantified in addition to the ones you chose is an athletic department’s ability to sustain itself independent of conference affiliation. Beyond TV appeal, current football prowess, location, etc., candidates need to answer, “How strong are you WITHOUT us?”
TCU would have scored highly in these areas. Before it ever got a Big 12 invitation, and before it even got a Big East invitation, it raised the money to completely re-create Amon-Carter stadium from an utterly outdated artifact to a beautiful, modern facility. They did this without any significant conference revenue, and, most impressively, they paid for it straight-up. No loans. No debt. The athletic department was very financially solvent without being in a major conference. This was one of the tgings that made TCU a power conference program without being in a power conference. Regardless of other factors, their strength independent of conference affiliation made them a safe pick for the Big 12.
Similar things coukd have been said for Utah and Louisville. Both were power conference-ready, as you once described TCU.
BYU fits this bill. They’re power conference ready by almost any measure.
With Cincinnati, I think they’d still fall a little short. Their attendance for football is in the low 30K’s. They are having trouble financing expansions and renovations to Nippert Stadium. They have trouble holding onto good football coaches, and while some may argue that Dantonio, Kelly, and Jones all left for better jobs, consider how other programs have been able to keep their best coaches. Chris Petersen is stillbat Boise. Charlie Strong stayed at Louisville rather than go to Tennessee. Heck, Davis Cutcliffe stayed at freaking Duke rather than take the Tennessee job, which is why UT wound up with Derek Dooley. Jim Grobe stayed at Wake Forest rather than going to Arkansas. Gary Patterson stayed at TCU in spite of numerous other opportunities. Cincinnati’s inability to keep good coaches should be cause for concern for a power conference like the Big 12.
Would it make sense to add a measure that factors strength independent of conference affiliation, and if so, how would you quantify it?
LikeLike
Athletic budget (and if you had more information like the conferences do-facilities). Cincinnati and USF have been the bottom of the AQ schools. Schools like BYU and Memphis have larger budgets. As you point out, UL rates highly. Houston and Rice haven’t been quite at the level of Cincinnati and USF, but are very high among the remaining schools.
Without looking at the USA Today report, I believe UConn and BYU are the only ones who are ahead of more than a couple of the bottom P5 schools in budget.
LikeLike
You realize Cincinnati’s stadium only seats 35K right? A couple thousand seats in their stadium are basically obstructed so when they put 32,33K in their stadium it is basically a sell out. Despite playing a subpar schedule this year, they are still brining in a strong crowd.
They are not having difficulty financing their stadium project. They have already sold all of the luxury boxes they added to the stadium (the new stadium will have ~ 20 boxes at $100K a pop).
LikeLike
Poster X is correct. Cincinnati’s $86 million stadium rebuild is being done with private support and will open in 2015. More important than increasing to 40,000 seats will be millions of dollars in incremental revenue from luxury boxes and club seats. This substantially improves the athletic budget. Nippert is truly the Wrigley Field of BCS football and anyone who hasn’t experienced a game there has missed out. Attendance and fan interest are at an all-time high and in a metro of 2 million plus there is huge upside.
Last time I checked Duke’s 10,000 seat basketball arena hasn’t hindered them from winning at the highest level. Stadium/arena size is only one of many factors in evaluating expansion candidates.
LikeLike
Yes I realize it only seats 35,000. That is part of the problem.
Even if Nippert could be expanded, setting aside the difficulties of doing so given thay it is completely surrounded by other campus buildings, how big could it get and still reasonably sell out? The games at Paul Brown against WVU and Louisville only sold in the low 40K’s. Would Nippert be able to sell out as a 45K seat stadium when some opponents would be Oklahoma and Texas, but others Iowa State, Kansas, a down TCU, and some FCS cupcake? Even if they could, that stadium is still a major hurdle because the reality is that we CAN’T set aside the obstacles to an expanded Nippert. It physically cannot be done, beyond the luxury boxes they’re adding.
LikeLike
The stadium will be over 40K when completed in 2015. There is speculation the enhancements to the stadium will allow for additional seating as well in the future. When Oklahoma came to Cincinnati in 2010 there were over 58K people at Paul Brown Stadium (during a year were the Bearcats started out poorly and was suffering from the post-Brian Kelly depression). I would expect the crowd to be similar if not greater if and when Texas came to town and I would venture the crowds for some other schools would be fairly strong. If UC could pack them in like they have this year for an FCS school and Temple, I doubt they would have trouble for any of the B12 schools.
LikeLike
Some actual numbers from USA Today, #42 UConn ($63.5m), #47 UNLV ($55.8m), #53 Cincy ($48.9m), #54 Memphis ($46.8m), #55 Air Force ($44.5m), #56 USF ($43.6m), #57 Boise St ($43.4m), #58 New Mexico ($43.3m), #60 UCF ($40.9m), #62 SDSU ($38m), #64 Houston ($36.4m)
Louisville had a budget of $87.8m, placing them 20th in the nation. Terrible move by the Big XII not taking them as an 11th.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Tulane’s budget was only $24m in 2011-12, and I seriously doubt it doubled in two years. That is a MAC level budget, which makes them a non-starter for the Big XII (Frank flat missed this). BYU’s budget seems to be rumored a bit lower than $40m, but is profitable.
The Florida schools are disappointing. South Florida is in much better budget situation than Central Florida when you look at the subsidy level.
LikeLike
Tulane has been slowly building back up from Katrina. They’ve had some waivers.
LikeLike
I’d eliminate any other Texas schools. Tulane makes no sense. The school everyone dismisses is NIU. Close to Chicago. Adds a huge TV market. Football is strong, the rest of the sports are not, but steps are being taken. Football facility needs upgrades but those are in planning. Is NIU ready right now? No. But in 3-5 years, they will be. Right now, NIU is stronger than Memphis in everything but basketball. The Big 12 needs to expand its footprint. NIU and Cincy do that.
LikeLike
Yes, NIU, with that legendary national following. A true monster in the ratings, NIU is.
LikeLike
I personally have a lot of affinity for NIU (my wife is finishing her Ed.D. there, my father-in-law went there for college and it’s fairly short drive from where I live in Naperville), but it’s a quintessential MAC school in every way (i.e. types of undergrad students, athletic budget, level of fan support, TV coverage, academics, etc.). They’re a good story and I’ll root for them, yet they are quite far away from being a power conference athletic department. Plus, the Chicago area is an extremely competitive college sports market with the proximity of Illinois and Northwestern and the rest of the Big Ten plus Notre Dame (and then adding that it’s one of the strongest pro markets that you’ll find anywhere on top of that).
LikeLike
Yes, as someone who lives about 25 minutes from NIU and grew up in Oklahoma I would love to see the Huskies in the Big XII but the fact they can’t even get an AAC invite should be a pretty clear indication they have neither the level of support nor the infrastructure in place to compete in a major conference.
LikeLike
NIU would not make a LATERAL move to the AAC. It’s ridiculous to say that they “couldn’t get” an AAC invite, when the AAC probably reached out to NIU before it eventually settled for ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, etc.
By the nonsensical criteria listed here, NIU would have no less than 90 points, or tied with Cincy for the “best fit” for the Big 12 and a true evaluation would render NIU as the top choice for #11 with #12 TBD.
NIU and Cincy are the obvious options on almost every front.
LikeLike
AAC wouldn’t be a lateral; it would be an upgrade. It pays better and is stronger competitively.
LikeLike
“when the AAC probably reached out to NIU before it eventually settled for ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, etc”.
it probably did not, but if you have proof, I’m sure everyone would love to see it.
Its almost like the NIU posters are all the same person with different names…
LikeLike
Not even the AAC wants Northern Illinois.
LikeLike
The Big 12’s TV deal expires in 2025, the ACC’s expires in 2027 & the existing BCS TV money expires in 2026. I could see this as an end-game & as 1 of the few results I would personally be happy with as a Clemson alumnus & a college football fan. B1G, PAC & SEC have their own TV networks & ACC/XII don’t. It’s possible B1G, PAC & SEC will be paying their schools $50M each by 2025-27, while Big XII is still at $29.2M & the ACC is at $24.8M (average/not prorated).
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke & Georgia Tech to B1G 18. B1G gets the AAU schools.
Virginia Tech, NC State, Clemson & Florida State to SEC 18. SEC gets the football brands.
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OK State, Kansas, K-State to PAC 18. PAC gets the heartland.
6 leftover ACC teams join 4 leftover Big XII teams & the 8 current American teams for New 18.
Basically 8 conferences with 9 members combined into 4 super conferences. Only the 8 division games count towards conference record so everyone has a fair shot at the conference championship game. Ohio State would still play Michigan, Tenn/Bama & Georgia/Auburn could continue playing but the result wouldn’t effect the teams’ chances of making the CCG (except as a distant tie breaker).
B1G East
Georgia Tech. North Carolina. Duke.
Virginia. Maryland. Rutgers
Penn State. Ohio State. Indiana.
B1G West
Michigan. Michigan State. Purdue.
Illinois. Northwestern. Wisconsin.
Minnesota. Iowa. Nebraska.
SEC East
Florida. Florida State. Georgia.
South Carolina. Clemson. Tennessee.
NC State. Virginia Tech. Kentucky.
SEC West
Vanderbilt. Alabama. Auburn.
Mississippi. Mississippi State. Louisiana State.
Arkansas. Missouri. Texas A&M.
PAC East
Texas. Texas Tech. Oklahoma.
Kansas. Kansas State. Oklahoma State.
Colorado. Arizona. Arizona State.
PAC West
UCLA. USC. California.
Stanford. Oregon. Oregon State.
Washington. Washington State. Utah.
ACC/XII/AAC East
Boston College. Connecticut. Syracuse.
Temple. Pittsburgh. Wake Forest.
Central Florida. South Florida. Miami.
ACC/XII/AAC West
West Virginia. Cincinnati. Louisville.
Iowa State. Memphis. Houston.
Baylor. Southern Methodist. Texas Christian.
Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Army & Navy stay independent. Navy, East Carolina, Tulane (sorry Frank) & Tulsa don’t join the American & aren’t promoted to the ACC/Big XII/AAC.
14 of the 18 teams in ACC/XII/AAC would be former BCS teams. UCF, Memphis, Houston & SMU are the other 4 & are BCS teams for 2013-only. I could see the champion having an automatic spot in a BCS bowl like the Orange Bowl & receive a lesser payday than the Big 3 (like the ACC’s current $27.5 million vs everyone elses’ $40M). Play would be kept regionally, a division championship would be a big deal & a conference championship would be huge. The top 4 as voted by the committee would continue to make the playoffs for the national championship. I’d like to see a 4th division because no school outside of the 4-18 team conferences, Notre Dame & BYU (74 teams) would have a chance.
LikeLike
Tigertails,
“The Big 12′s TV deal expires in 2025, the ACC’s expires in 2027 & the existing BCS TV money expires in 2026.”
Other important years:
2024 – P12 tier 1 TV deal ends, SEC tier 1 and tier 2 TV deals end
2032 – BTN deal ends
??? – whenever the next B10 tier 1 TV deal ends (10 years = 2027)
??? – whenever the first SECN deal ends
“I could see this as an end-game & as 1 of the few results I would personally be happy with as a Clemson alumnus & a college football fan.”
You may be happy with it, but millions of others wouldn’t be.
“Virginia, North Carolina, Duke & Georgia Tech to B1G 18. B1G gets the AAU schools.”
Plausible, but the talk of 16 being a sweet spot may mean something.
“Virginia Tech, NC State, Clemson & Florida State to SEC 18. SEC gets the football brands.”
The SEC has shown zero interest in FSU or Clemson recently. They already own those 2 states for the SECN. They might take VT and NCSU, but they’ll fight hard for UNC first.
“Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OK State, Kansas, K-State to PAC 18. PAC gets the heartland.”
I don’t see them wanting that group because too many schools dilute the value of UT. UT, TT, OU and OkSU? Sure (if they have to take OkSU, they will). OK is not a large state and KS is small. Besides, going to 16 lets them split into geographic regions and regain the old Pac 8 as one division.
“6 leftover ACC teams join 4 leftover Big XII teams & the 8 current American teams for New 18.”
I doubt there is enough value in 18 for them.
“Basically 8 conferences with 9 members combined into 4 super conferences.”
Real life almost never works out that conveniently. I doubt it will now, either.
“Only the 8 division games count towards conference record so everyone has a fair shot at the conference championship game.”
Why impose a universal rule? I’m guessing some of those leagues would want to count all the games.
“Ohio State would still play Michigan, Tenn/Bama & Georgia/Auburn could continue playing but the result wouldn’t effect the teams’ chances of making the CCG (except as a distant tie breaker).”
That’s 9 games. Does that mean OSU never plays the rest of the B10? Or do they go to 10 B10 games so they play everyone once every 8 years? Or are you expecting more than 10 conference games?
“B1G East
Georgia Tech. North Carolina. Duke.
Virginia. Maryland. Rutgers
Penn State. Ohio State. Indiana.
B1G West
Michigan. Michigan State. Purdue.
Illinois. Northwestern. Wisconsin.
Minnesota. Iowa. Nebraska.”
No. Just no. Why on earth would OSU, IN and PSU accept being kicked out of the B10 for all practical purposes? If OSU or PSU wanted to be in the ACC, they would have moved there.
3 pods of 6:
W = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C1 = OSU, PSU, IN
C2 = MI, MSU, PU
E = RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
C1 and C2 switch divisions every 2 years.
Locked games = OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, IN/PU
Teams in the E and W play 1 team from the opposite pod each year, rotated annually.
That maintains geography while spreading the pain and getting big names into the stadiums of the new additions.
Better would be getting the CCG rule changed and then dropping divisions. Then you could lock 2 or 3 teams per school and rotate through the rest equally.
LikeLike
Brian already gave a comprehensive answer, but I’ll just add a few exclamation points to it.
The leagues aren’t going to neatly and conveniently agree to all expand to 18 teams. They don’t have equal numbers today, and never have. Each conference is an independent entity, and decides for itself the ideal number of members — based, of course, on the availability of teams they want.
Assuming the Big Ten gets the four teams you named, the SEC might simply decide that none of the remainders are good enough. Or it might decide to add the two that bring new markets (VT and NC State), and not the two that duplicate markets it already owns (FSU and Clemson).
Of course, as Brian pointed out, they’re also not going to agree to the same scheduling format or the same qualification rules for the conference championship games. Just like the number of members, these are decisions that each league makes for itself, and you’d probably see a wide variety, as you do today.
I also agree with Brian that there’s no way the Big Ten would relegate OSU, PSU, and Indiana to a division consisting mainly of ACC cast-offs. A worse idea would be difficult to imagine.
“Virginia, North Carolina, Duke & Georgia Tech to B1G 18. B1G gets the AAU schools.”
Plausible, but the talk of 16 being a sweet spot may mean something.
The Big Ten ADs have not spoken with one voice on this. I believe others have said that they could see 18 or 20, assuming of course that it’s the right 18 or 20. I do think that if the Big Ten could get those four schools, they’d take them.
LikeLike
Agree with everything, except for “…or the same qualification rules for the conference championship games.” Those are not (currently) a conference decision and all abide by the same requirements.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Agree with everything, except for “…or the same qualification rules for the conference championship games.” Those are not (currently) a conference decision and all abide by the same requirements.
He was referring to whether only division games count or if all conference games count. That is up to the conferences although they’ve all made the same decision so far.
LikeLike
Brian’s got it. The only rule OUT of the leagues’ control, is that every team in the same division must play all of the others (a round robin). How many teams they play in the other division, whether those games count toward the division championship, and how ties are resolved, are within the leagues’ control.
LikeLike
Plausible, but the talk of 16 being a sweet spot may mean something.
I think this is the key point in Brian’s response.
If the ACC and B12 merge it will mean the Disney folks will gain, not lose in the equation. Any scenario putting UNC in FOX country at the expense of ESPN seems very unlikely. The groundswell for UNC to the SEC fueled by ESPN if it ever comes to that would preclude them from joining the FOX / B1G alliance. I have been on the edge thinking Notre Dame will never join the B1G but so far that is just what has happened.
If the B1G really gets to 16 – forget 18 – my guess is you see a Missouri + Kansas or Kansas + Duke type end game. This would allow for a merger of the ACC with the Big 12 and just a few Big 5 schools get left behind.
#1 BTN / FOX = B1G + Kansas + Duke
#2 SECTV / ESPN = SEC + Virginia Tech + NC State
#3 PTN / BOTH = PAC + Oklahoma + Oklahoma State + Kansas State + Iowa State
(this would allow for B1G vs PAC OOC games with old Big 8 rivals)
Oklahoma vs Nebraska
Iowa State vs Iowa
Kansas State vs Kansas
#4 ACC / ESPN = ACC (8) = Core 4 : UNC + UVA + Ga Tech + Clemson
#4 ACC / ESPN = ACC (8) = North 4 : Notre Dame + Pitt + BC + Syracuse or Wake
#4 B 12 / ESPN = B 12 (8) = Texas Four : Texas + Texas Tech + Baylor + TCU
#4 B 12 / ESPN = B 12 (8) = Non Texas Four : Louisville + WVU + Miami + FSU
The point in all this is no single conference gets all the “golden eggs” and with UNC + Texas + Notre Dame you really would have 4 power conferences.
Look at it by conference
B1G gets into KS and NY with their additions and both would help the BTN without forcing the folks at Disney to go to Defcon 1. Not a home run, but more realistic than the B1G going to 18 and UNC joining the B1G.
B1G has football brands Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State
B1G has basketball brands Indiana, Kansas, michigan State, and Duke
SEC gets into VA and NC but they do not get the flagships. The bigger deal is ESPN adds cross conference rival games and cements the ACC and SEC in piggybacking carriage deals in split states. ACC ESPN and SEC ESPN can cross brand in GA, NC, SC, and VA. They can do the same with B 12 ESPN and SEC ESPN in FL, KY, and TX.
SEC has football brands Alabama and several floaters
SEC has basketball brands Kentucky and several potentials
PAC gets into OK, KS, and IA but only gets 1 flagship. The geographic moat of the PAC is both a blessing and a curse. The curse is they can not pick off the very top as their additions of Colorado and Utah showed. The blessing is getting into any new western states is a long term net gain. The renewal of Big 8 games as B1G vs PAC OOC probably has value.
PAC has football brands Southern Cal and Oklahoma and potential ones
PAC has basketball brands UCLA and near brands like Oklahoma State
ACC B 12 merger survives and gets more on par with the other Big 4 conferences. Having an east and west division allows UNC basketball and Notre Dame football to control the East. Louisville basketball and texas football would then control the West. Based on the behavior and history of these 4 schools it allows conferences inside a much stronger shell conference. The big takeaway tho is ESPN locks down both the SEC and the reformed ACC + B 12. That alone makes the mouse happy and they write the big checks.
ACC+B 12 has football brands Texas & Notre Dame and near brand FSU
ACC+B 12 has basketball brand UNC and a near brands Louisville and Syracuse
LikeLike
duffman, I don’t see any way that the Big Ten takes Duke over Virginia. Despite what Cutcliffe has done the past 1 3/4 seasons, UVa still has more football upside than Duke, and football remains the raison d’etre for expansion/realignment, more so than basketball. A 16-team B1G probably would take in UVa and Kansas. And as much as I would love to see Iowa State land on its feet in the Pac, its best — and perhaps only — hope is to be included in a mix of Big 12/ACC leftovers that’s ensured some sort of seat at the BCS table.
LikeLike
@vp19 – I agree that the Big Ten likely wouldn’t take UVA over Duke if that type of choice even existed. However, I do think that they’d take Duke over Kansas in that type of head-to-head hypothetical. Duke’s private school status really doesn’t mean much when put into the context that it’s a massive elite research institution (actually more so than the public UVA and UNC) that has the same or better national basketball brand name value as Kansas while being located in a much more demographically-friendly region. Duke also has a heavy Northeastern fan base, so there are a lot more network effects in play with them combined with Rutgers/Penn State/Maryland similar to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
duffman,
Why do you list the B10 as FOX? All the best B10 games are owned by ESPN except for the CCG, and they can bid for that, too. The new TV deal may be a split deal like the P12 has or mostly ESPN. I doubt it’ll be mostly FOX as long as ESPN is the WWL for CFB.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, I’ll repeat again that Big Ten/Fox connection is often extremely overstated. Even with the comprehensive SEC and ACC deals along with the existence of the Big Ten Network, ESPN’s most valuable college sports package is *still* the Big Ten’s first tier rights. There’s is very little chance whatsoever that the Big Ten will exit ESPN completely in the next deal and at most, you’d see a split between ESPN and Fox like the Pac-12 (with a tilt toward ESPN for the best games). Besides, the main thing (outside of a huge pile of money) that Fox could have conceivably offered up until 2 years ago was more nationwide over-the-air coverage on the “Big” Fox network, but those slots are now going to end up being as shared as much with the Big 12 and Pac-12 as they would be on ABC/ESPN with the ACC/Big 12/Pac-12. The Big Ten has maintained the most valuable TV time slot real estate in all of college football on ABC and ESPN even with the new ACC and SEC deals being signed, so that’s not something you walk away from lightly as conference where long-term prestige and exposure means quite a bit to the league’s brand.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I agree that the Big Ten likely wouldn’t take UVA over Duke if that type of choice even existed.”
Really? I agree Duke is the bigger brand by a mile and a better research school. But doesn’t the contiguous state of VA and the access to the VA markets trump it? Duke doesn’t guarantee the BTN on everywhere in NC does it? The research triangle yes, but the rest of the state probably not. That’s why I think UVA would get the nod.
Also, would the B10 take Duke knowing that would drive UNC to the SEC? It seems better to leave the ACC alone than risk that. I don’t think taking UVA would drive UNC out, so that might be worth the risk. I also don’t think UVA would leave without UNC leaving at the same time, though, so this is purely hypothetical to me.
“However, I do think that they’d take Duke over Kansas in that type of head-to-head hypothetical. Duke’s private school status really doesn’t mean much when put into the context that it’s a massive elite research institution (actually more so than the public UVA and UNC) that has the same or better national basketball brand name value as Kansas while being located in a much more demographically-friendly region. Duke also has a heavy Northeastern fan base, so there are a lot more network effects in play with them combined with Rutgers/Penn State/Maryland similar to Notre Dame.”
I think it’s as simple as the B10 wanting to expand in the east, not the west. They’d make an exception for a king like UT, but not for KU I don’t think.
LikeLike
@Brian – Total iPhone type there. The Big Ten would definitely want UVA over Duke all things being equal, while I believe they’d prefer Duke over Kansas.
LikeLike
Speaking of AAC and Mountain West schools that want to move up the realignment totem pole, why don’t the AAC and Mountain West have their champions play in a bowl game? Between the two conferences they have the locations to do one anywhere in the country Vegas, Miami, NYC, Las Angeles, Dallas, etc. Chances are those would be the two best non-power five schools in the country every year, which is probably going to be the best opponent those two conferences are likely to get. If one of those two’s champion is the non-P5 representative in the playoff bowls (which will likely be 90% of the time at least), then that conference’s championship game loser could take it’s place. That would be a pretty solid consolation prize. I bet that bowl could draw fairly decent television ratings too.
LikeLike
I think that would be a good game most years too. Central Florida or Houston vs. Fresno State would be a top matchup. Sure, I’d watch that.
There are reasons this hasn’t happened yet, though. They probably wanted to use existing bowl games but none of them took them. The Liberty, for instance, elected to sign contracts with the SEC and Big 12 that will get them two teams who likely barely finish bowl eligible, rather than one of the American’s top teams… even though the Liberty Bowl stadium is home to AAC member Memphis. Other sites like the Texas Bowl in Houston, the Heart of Dallas Bowl, and theArmed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth all took Power Five conferences for at least one of their opponents.
The other thing might be that the Mountain West might rather face the Pac-12 in Las Vegas and at other western bowl games rather than meet some AAC team on the east coast.
It would have been nice if they could have taken over the New Orleans Bowl or something and turned it into a big event.
LikeLike
Michael – for a few years back in the 90s, the Liberty Bowl featured the champions of CUSA and the MWC. I guess that business model just didn’t work out for Memphis convention and visitors bureau.
LikeLike
If it was in the 90’s, that must’ve been between C-USA and the WAC, not the MWC. The MWC didn’t exist unti 1999. Sheesh, Alan, you should know that. We’re talking about The American and the Mountain West, not the WAC and Conference USA. Those are two very different entities. Nevermind that 12 of 12 Mountain West members used to be in the WAC and 9 out of 12 future AAC members used to be in C-USA. This would be a COMPLETELY different business model.
In all seriousness, that’s a good point, Alan. Bowl games by and large need power conferences in order to be financially successful. Hence Las Vegas needs the No. 6 or 7 Pac-12 team as much or more than the No. 1 MWC team in order to sell enough tickets. It is a shame, though, that there can’t be a game between AAC and MWC champs because I think that wouod be better television.
LikeLike
It was the 00s and was the Mountain West.
LikeLike
LikeLike
That’s funny. Like VT would leave the ACC for the B12. VT’s preferences are:
1. Wherever UVA is.
2. ACC (assumes UVA left them behind but ACC survives)
3. SEC (assumes UVA left them behind and ACC collapsed)
LikeLike
SI giving its list of realignment winners and losers in terms of basketball:
http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/10/29/winners-and-losers-conference-realignment/
LikeLike
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2013/10/31/5027896/byu-football-joining-conference-pac-12-big-10-sec
Evaluation of potential conference affiliations for BYU.
LikeLike
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2013/11/1/5051490/byu-football-big12-mountain-west-conference-joining
Part 2
LikeLike
Rutgers lawsuit against former Big East conference headed to Rhode Island
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rutgers_lawsuit_against_former_big_east_conference_headed_to_rhode_island.html
When coupled with the actions taken so far in the Maryland/ACC lawsuit, it would seem to me that judges are showing bias in favor of conferences over individual schools when it comes to money. It makes you wonder how weak the Big 12 was that they had to let 4 schools go with relatively minor penalties when even the AAC can show better strength in the legal arena.
LikeLike
Only the Big East and ACC try to force schools to stay or pay outrageous penalties. The rest of conferences are less coercive.
LikeLike
When coupled with the actions taken so far in the Maryland/ACC lawsuit, it would seem to me that judges are showing bias in favor of conferences over individual schools when it comes to money.
I wouldn’t say the judges are biased. Generally, when you make a deal, you have to abide by it. That includes the deal of joining a conference and promising to follow its bylaws.
It makes you wonder how weak the Big 12 was that they had to let 4 schools go with relatively minor penalties when even the AAC can show better strength in the legal arena.
Ironically, it’s because the Big XII overestimated its strength. After all, the league with the weakest exit penalties is the SEC: zero. The issue has simply has never arisen, because nobody in their right mind is going to leave the SEC. The AAC (formerly Big East) had hefty exit penalties because it knew many of its members would probably be tempted to leave.
Only the Big East and ACC try to force schools to stay or pay outrageous penalties. The rest of conferences are less coercive.
The Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, and now the ACC, all have GORs, which are far more coercive than any exit penalty.
But remember, it’s not as if the leagues are foisting these penalties on unwilling members. In many cases, the schools paying the penalties had voted for them only a few short years earlier. (I know Maryland is an exception to that.)
This is the inherent contradiction when you’re in a weak conference. You want to be able to move up, if the opportunity arises. But if there’s no opportunity, you want to discourage your fellow members from leaving.
LikeLike
Purdue AD Morgan Burke Discusses Future Of NCAA Division I Athletics
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/11/01/Colleges/Burke.aspx
LikeLike
I think the last part (about Pell grants) is very important. People seem to not know (or conveniently forget) that athletes that are poor can get a Pell grant every year, valued at over $5000. That seems like sufficient pocket money for a college student, even after paying the full cost to attend school. Add in the new full value scholarship, and they should be fine.
LikeLike
no.
the Pell Grant is “up to” $5,000. you are spinning by using the words “valued at over.”
Based on reports, very very very few CFB players qualify for ANY Grant and only a tiny fraction qualify for the full Grant.
I don’t believe the players are being exploited; but I also don’t object to getting them more $$. One of my proposals for getting the student-athletes more money is to (i) either fully fund the Pell Grants for any qualifying applicant or (ii) seriously reduce the criteria for qualification to that more student-athletes will qualify for at least some portion of a Pell Grant.
LikeLike
Anyone have any statistics on Pell grants for Div I athletes across the board? Is it more frequently used by one sport or gender over another? Limiting the debate to football doesn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-08-28/College-football-players-collecting-millions-in-grants/50170388/1
this is from 2011. As reported by USA Today, the Des Moines Register Newspaper surveyed 23 schools in the B1G, BXII and SEC.
Quote:
“A Des Moines Register analysis shows that needy athletes in the Big Ten, Big 12 and Southeastern conferences alone received financial benefits beyond scholarships of nearly $5 million, with individual grants sometimes exceeding $5,000 during the 2010-11 school year.”
So, maybe a poor student-athlete CAN receive “more than” $5,000. To date, everything else I’ve read said $5,000 was the max.
Quote:
“The Register’s look into finances revealed that 1,064 football players at the 23 responding schools last year received a combined $4.7 million through Pell Grants, a federally funded program “that provides need-based grants to low-income students,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.”
So, that’s an average of about 46 athletes per school. Note, not just football players.
Quotes:
“That’s an average of $4,442 per recipient beyond his full athletic scholarship, which includes tuition, room and board, and books.”
“At Iowa during the last school year, 22 football players received Pell Grants worth a combined $94,334 — an average of $4,287 per recipient. At Iowa State, 40 football players received Pell Grants worth a total of $180,121 — an average of $4,503 per recipient.
In comparison, 423 scholarship football players from eight responding schools in the Southeastern Conference received an average of $4,602.”
That is more in line with what Brian said above; definitely NOT what I have read in other places.
LikeLike
I am wrong again.
According to this, May 2011, 27% of student-athletes received a Pell Grant. (See page 5 chart at top).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finaid.org%2Feducators%2F20110505athleticscholarships.pdf&ei=IvZ0UoWZN6fIsAS474GwCg&usg=AFQjCNEhcmb5i2J1piMbmCDgkLkWHl7b7Q&bvm=bv.55819444,d.b2I
LikeLike
I am wrong yet again. (Not a good morning so far.)
The Pell Grant apparently caps at $5,500.
FWIW, here is the source of much of my errors.
http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/football-players-receive-17000-annually-in-cash-all-within-ncaa-rules/
LikeLike
The Pell will max out at $5,645 for award year 2013-14.
http://www.aascu.org/pa/pdfarchives.aspx?id=2917&taxid=3709
LikeLike
Here’s this from the US DOE. Doesn’t seem to break out athletes, but gives the macro data. On part 5 of the spreadsheet, for 2011-12, there were 13,412,848 valid Pell Applications; 9,444,368 recipients; average grant: $3,555
http://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell-data.html
LikeLike
@ Brian. Sorry. Lesson: I should research before chewing on my own foot.
LikeLike
Pell Grant maximum is currently $5645.
The USA Today article you linked shows how widespread the Pell Grant usage is. It shows 46% of the players from the schools surveyed received a grant. SEC once again the winner at 52%.
LikeLike
I don’t know why I posted those as percentages. Its 46 players per school, 52 at SEC. If they are only counting scholarship players, its a little over 50%. If they count all players including walkons, its a little under 50%.
LikeLike
right about the Pell Grant max for this coming year. I just found that.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“the Pell Grant is “up to” $5,000. you are spinning by using the words “valued at over.””
For 2013, the max value is $5600+.
Based on reports, very very very few CFB players qualify for ANY Grant and only a tiny fraction qualify for the full Grant.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-08-28/College-football-players-collecting-millions-in-grants/50170388/1
A Des Moines Register analysis shows that needy athletes in the Big Ten, Big 12 and Southeastern conferences alone received financial benefits beyond scholarships of nearly $5 million, with individual grants sometimes exceeding $5,000 during the 2010-11 school year.
…
The Register’s look into finances revealed that 1,064 football players at the 23 responding schools last year received a combined $4.7 million through Pell Grants, a federally funded program “that provides need-based grants to low-income students,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.
That’s an average of $4,442 per recipient beyond his full athletic scholarship, which includes tuition, room and board, and books.
That’s also over 46 players per school.
LikeLike
Oops, I see you beat me to it.
The self-correction is appreciated. We all make mistakes.
LikeLike
Yep. My foot was tasty yesterday. LOL
LikeLike
ESPN announcers don’t even know that breaking the plane is all that’s required to score…
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9313_NCAA_conference_realignment
FWIW, here is the wikipedia link for conference realignment.
While we here have focused mainly on realignment at the top, other folks have been tabulating ALL the changes.
The charts lower down in the wikipedia entry are really something.
All 20 football conferences (at all levels) had a change in membership during 2010-13. 14 out of the 20 lost at least one member.
Of the 28 total preexisting conferences (including Bball only), all had changes; 21 lost a member; one died (Great West) and one was born (bball-only “new” Big East).
Interesting quote: “Karl Benson, who was commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) when the cycle started and since March 2012 has held the same position with the Sun Belt Conference, stated in a May 2012 interview that about 90 percent of his workload since taking over the Sun Belt position has been taken up by realignment-related issues—either recruiting new members or trying to keep current members in the conference.”
LikeLike
It is hard to imagine that all of that change was triggered by the B1G’s simple statement in December 2009 that it would explore expansion.
LikeLike
Reading up on the University of Cincinnati and it all really points towards a very good fit with the Big XII. It’s a surprisingly large (student body @ 40k) school. It’s a great bridge for WVU that is conviently accessible to all the other schools. It sponsors 19 NCAA teams and has a good track record with both football and basketball. It’s a solid #2 program in a large, fertile state. The build-out at Nippert Stadium seems well funded and planned. The Athletic Department seems to have its act together to handle a higher-level of competition…last 3 football coaches have been excellent.
UC is well positioned, it just needs the Big XII to agree to expand.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s in CIncitucky, not Ohio. That little area is quite different from true Ohio in terms of college sports allegiances amongst other things.
LikeLike
The football roster has 46 kids from OH, 19 from FL, 9 from IN, 6 from MI, 4 from KY & several from each of IL,PA&NY. It’s a new region for recruits.
LikeLike
UC is well positioned, it just needs the Big XII to agree to expand.
The main problem is that, other than BYU, none of the potential 12th schools is attractive enough. I’m not even sure Cincy is attractive enough, although it’s clearly the best of the lot.
LikeLike
“Reading up on the University of Cincinnati and it all really points towards a very good fit with the Big XII.”
That assumes WVU (and a needed bridge to them) is a good fit.
LikeLike
Is BuckeyeBeau a librarian? He should be.
LikeLike
LOL. no, I only play a librarian on FtT’s Slant. 🙂
LikeLike
Question about BTN ownership.
As a Nebraska fan with no business sense, I’ve always wondered what the true value of the BTN is to my school. Of course there is the annual payouts and that is important, and growing. However, in a few years there will be 14 fully vested schools who each own a share of what, 49%. What is the value of that ownership if a school wanted to sell their portion of it and leave the conference?
LikeLike
Not sure you can sell a piece of a conference owned entity.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting question. I would assume that the conference would then default as the ownership interest holder of the parting member.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure it’s sort of like renting (the conference being the owner).
Would the leaving team have their media rights (GOR)?
The conference can, if it chooses to, not enter into any new ownership agreements with Fox and become 100% owner at the expiration of the current one.
LikeLike
My understanding is that the BTN is a separate corporate entity, a Limited Liability Corporation, where Fox (through a specific entity) owns 51% of the shares and the Big Ten (itself a not-for-profit corporation) owns 49%. I don’t know if the schools own equal shares of the BTN LLC or if its just the conference who then distributes money evenly among the schools. But regardless, as a private corporation, the corporate governing documents can restrict the transferability of shares in any way it desires (case in point: read up on the limits on shares of the Green Bay Packers–no dividends, no resale market at all, no transferability unless through a will/estate).
As for Nebraska, it would lose its portion of the revenues, but assuming it owns 1/14 of the 49%, there is likely a buyout provision in the corporate governing documents that sets a price or method of valuating the shares for the buyout. Those documents can (and likely do) limit who can buy those shares (which is legal if set forth in a contract, especially one with sophisticated parties like a large cable company, college athletic conference, and large university).
Does this answer your question?
LikeLike
Frank,
I believe it would be easier to prioritize values than to categorize values with a point based system. Here’s my thoughts on the priorities.
1. Athletic power. Here only Boise State and BYU exceeds that of the Big XII average as determined by mcubed and F+ scores. Cincinnati, UCF and NIU could be considered if they win a BCS bowl game this season.
2. Fandom. Here only BYU compares to the Big XII with game attendance and tv viewers (by Nate Silver’s estimates in the NYT a year ago).
3. Demographic. Demographic here is about general population size, population growth, and recruiting grounds. There are several programs here with the top two being UCF and USF for being in Florida. BYU gets listed here as Utah is a growing state. Cincinnati is a plus for Ohio (large state) and a minus (shrinking state).
4. Academic. Here the only real criteria will be AAU membership. Remember that the Big XII lost 3(4) AAU schools with Colorado, Missouri, aTm, (and Nebraska). Only two AAU schools would be Rice and Tulane, both programs doing pretty well this year with 6 wins thus.
5. Regionality. Here only proximity to ISU and WVU matters as the rest of the conference is already bunched up. For considerations might be NIU, Cincinnati, possibly ECU.
So in the end I agree with BYU as the top schools eligible placing with athletic power, fandom, and demographic. Then comes a huge gap for program #12 with choices from UCF, Cincinnati, possibly NIU or Boise State. The program able to win a BCS game this year will get the edge. Otherwise, i think it will be UCF before Cincinnati as Florida is a better state for the conference whereas Cincinnati is predominantly better for WVU.
Once back at 12, Big XII divisions should be zippered to allow “equivalent” access, exposure and travel. Each division should be anchored by OU and UT. There should be one to two annual cross division games to maintain rivalries. Each team will then play 5 division games, 2 annual cross division games, and 2 rotating cross division games. Listed are first annual cross division games.
WEST : EAST
KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
OU: OSU
TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
ISU : UCF
BYU : WVU
Should the Big XII go to Big XIV (the Big XII already owns the rights to “Big XIV”), then it should be Rice and Tulane. Firstly why 14? The only reason would be to generate a dramatic increase in conference athletic volume and inventory for sales rather than just an incremental increase to 12 from 10. Rice and Tulane because they are both AAU programs, and academics do matter to University Presidents. As #11 and #12 were taken based on competitiveness, there won’t be a need to go to 14 for strength of schedule, but it will generate an opportunity to improve on academics. Never the less, a Big XIV is very unlikely.
KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
OU: OSU (2nd cross division game versus TCU?)
TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
ISU : UCF (2nd cross division game versus Rice)
BYU : WVU (2nd cross division game versus TTU?)
Rice : Tulane (2nd cross division game versus KSU?)
Each team would then play 6 division games, 2 annual cross division games and one rotating cross division games to keep conference games at 9 total.
LikeLike
neomodernism,
You put way too much emphasis on recent results. No president is going to decide on expansion based on one year’s results.
As for the rest, I’ll just point out that Frank presented a slightly modified version of the post responsible for the huge growth in his blog. He linked it above (http://frankthetank.me/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/). That post, written not long after Jim Delany mentioned expansion in 2009, drove huge numbers of new readers here and also turned out to be pretty accurate. If you didn’t read it, you really should go back and give it a look.
In other words, he intentionally stuck to the script he used to look at B10 expansion 4 years ago. While your suggestions might make sense in a vacuum, there was method to his madness here.
LikeLike
For athletic power and fandoms, I looked at mcubed cumulative analysis from 1960-2012 and F+ Score of the past 7. My comments regarding bcs bowl win is only meant as this would be the only factor that might make UCF, Cincinnati or NIU even appear competitive.
LikeLike
neomodernism,
“For athletic power and fandoms, I looked at mcubed cumulative analysis from 1960-2012 and F+ Score of the past 7.”
7 years? I think presidents are looking at a bigger picture than that.
I also doubt they are believers in F/+ and mcubed, but you never know.
“My comments regarding bcs bowl win is only meant as this would be the only factor that might make UCF, Cincinnati or NIU even appear competitive.”
No president is foolish enough to let one season or one game make any difference in this decision. That’s my point.
LikeLike
I don’t think we disagree much really and i get your point. but when it comes down to it when a conference selects/invites a program the number one reason is athletic value, which has two related components: competitiveness and commercial value. Regarding competitiveness the questions are:
1. What have you done? (50 years analyzed by mcubed which really only quantify conventional impression)
2. What have you done lately? (7 years by F+)
3. What are you doing now? (current BCS performance)
BCS performance is only one consideration and if all else being equivalent. But if all else are equivalent, it would matter. Why was TCU invited? Among several factors recent BCS performance also was one. Why is Boise even mentioned? BCS win. Why isn’t NIU completely laughed off? BCS show. BCS puts them on the radar screen. Other factors will be used to select them.
LikeLike
It seems like TV execs look at 7 years or less. Ratings drive value and fans are very much what have you done for me lately. Now kings tend to have fairly good ratings even w/o success on the field.
LikeLike
Yes, I was really only making a minor quibble about part of your original comment.
LikeLike
@neomodernism: Which question are you answering? Is it: A) Should the Big XII expand? Or is it: B) Assuming expansion, which teams should it take?
You haven’t provided any financial justification for going to 12, and surely not 14, so I assume you’re answering B. This is flawed from the get-go, because there is an option you omitted: DO NOTHING.
You’ve also assumed that all of your expansion targets want the Big XII, which in BYU’s case is probably incorrect. I am pretty sure that BYU already spurned the Big XII, and I’d say the league’s value proposition has only gotten worse since then.
I am pretty sure university presidents don’t follow F+ rankings. After all, look at the dumb BCS standings they came up with. These guys either aren’t mathematicians, or if they are, don’t seem to think it applies to football.
But I do think they are smart enough to realize that sports brand value takes decades to create. The idea that winning a BCS game this year would be relevant, even as a tie-breaker, is laughable.
It is slightly less laughable, but nevertheless probably wrong, to suggest that the Big XII would take Tulane and Rice. University presidents care about academics to an extent, but not to the point that they’d take two 98-pound weaklings that happen to bring a lot of scholars. That couldn’t have been the idea when they took WVU and TCU, and it won’t be the idea now.
LikeLike
1. Correct, it is B. Which is similar to the point of this thread.
2. Also correct that if invited, any of the teams considered will join.
3. also correct that the university presidents don’t follow F+ or mcubed. nor will they follow an formula that assign points value for various aspects like basket ball value or academic. That was the point of my post that they would just prioritize what is important to them.
LikeLike
Tulane has been considered. They were looked at in 2011.
LikeLike
Regarding why the Big XII would expand, we all know the only reason would be money. Unfortunately none of us without insider information know the true financial pictures to make this assessment. All that is left for most of us is conjectures. So with conjectures, the only team available that might even enhance the value of the Big XII is BYU.
All the other teams are purely presumptive value analysis. But if money wasn’t the issue, I would guarantee the university presidents would prefer to be associated with Rice and Tulane over BYU, Cincinnati, Boise State, UCF, USF or any other available programs out there.
LikeLike
Marc,
That is a fairly common misconception. BYU never “spurned” B12. Talks with the B12 never got beyond the “what would think about possibly joining us?” stage.
There are two major non-negotiable concerns with BYU joining the B12 — geography and Sunday play. If they joined, travel arrangements for all sports are going to be an expensive logistical problem for all concerned. And Sunday play is a headache for non-FB sports.
The geographic concern is somewhat moot now that WV is in the conference and the precedent has been set. It still will take a bite out the athletic budgets of the league’s schools that they won’t want to see disappear.
As for Sunday play, BYU’s stand has always been that they won’t play on Sunday. What the rest of the conference chooses to do on that day is their own business, but BYU won’t do it. Period. In the long run, this ends up really only affecting the championship schedules of the non-FB sports. The impact on regular season play is negligible. As other conferences and the NCAA have shown, this isn’t that big of a deal.
There are a few other concerns that *are* negotiable. The biggest would be television rights. BYU loves their ESPN contract (who wouldn’t?), and they are anxious to keep their BYUtv sports package intact. Not only does that allow 90%+ of all their games in all sports to be available in nearly every home in the country, it gives them some serious viewing internationally, as well. BYUtv is broadcast worldwide in many, many countries. They broadcast nearly all their programming in the language of the viewing country. What this means is if you are, let’s say a Spanish speaking fan of American-football fan Latin America, about the only place you can go for your fix is BYUtv.
BYU is going to be loath to give that up. With the LHN precedent with the B12, this shouldn’t be too big of a major hangup.
None of these issues are insurmountable. However, if you are the B12, and you are interested in expanding, I am sure you would look long and hard at any other solution that doesn’t require dealing with BYU’s baggage. Last time around, you had just gone through a bruising fight over the LHN that almost caused the league to collapse. Did you want to go there again? No. There were other schools available — maybe not as desirable, but they came without the hassles of adding BYU. So they went there, instead.
This time around, the pickin’s are far slimmer. Plus, the LHN fight is less fresh on everybody’s mind. If the B12 is to expand by two, BYU and Cincy are about the only two that makes sense, as the OP pointed out.
I do agree with other posters who feel that the B12 is making a big mistake if they just sit on their hands waiting for others to make the first move. if BYU and Cincy are the two best expansion targets, they need to strike now before someone else grabs them.
LikeLike
Marc,
” I am pretty sure that BYU already spurned the Big XII”
That is a fairly common misconception. BYU never “spurned” B12. Talks with the B12 never got beyond the “what would think about possibly joining us?” stage.
There are two major non-negotiable concerns with BYU joining the B12 — geography and Sunday play. If they joined, travel arrangements for all sports are going to be an expensive logistical problem for all concerned. And Sunday play is a headache for non-FB sports.
The geographic concern is somewhat moot now that WV is in the conference and the precedent has been set. It still will take a bite out the athletic budgets of the league’s schools that they won’t want to see disappear.
As for Sunday play, BYU’s stand has always been that they won’t play on Sunday. What the rest of the conference chooses to do on that day is their own business, but BYU won’t do it. Period. In the long run, this ends up really only affecting the championship schedules of the non-FB sports. The impact on regular season play is negligible. As other conferences and the NCAA have shown, this isn’t that big of a deal.
There are a few other concerns that *are* negotiable. The biggest would be television rights. BYU loves their ESPN contract (who wouldn’t?), and they are anxious to keep their BYUtv sports package intact. Not only does that allow 90%+ of all their games in all sports to be available in nearly every home in the country, it gives them some serious viewing internationally, as well. BYUtv is broadcast worldwide in many, many countries. They broadcast nearly all their programming in the language of the viewing country. What this means is if you are, let’s say a Spanish speaking fan of American-football fan Latin America, about the only place you can go for your fix is BYUtv.
BYU is going to be loath to give that up. With the LHN precedent with the B12, this shouldn’t be too big of a major hangup.
None of these issues are insurmountable. However, if you are the B12, and you are interested in expanding, I am sure you would look long and hard at any other solution that doesn’t require dealing with BYU’s baggage. Last time around, you had just gone through a bruising fight over the LHN that almost caused the league to collapse. Did you want to go there again? No. There were other schools available — maybe not as desirable, but they came without the hassles of adding BYU. So they went there, instead.
This time around, the pickin’s are far slimmer. Plus, the LHN fight is less fresh on everybody’s mind. If the B12 is to expand by two, BYU and Cincy are about the only two that makes sense, as the OP pointed out.
I do agree with other posters who feel that the B12 is making a big mistake if they just sit on their hands waiting for others to make the first move. if BYU and Cincy are the two best expansion targets, they need to strike now before someone else grabs them.
LikeLike
I’m sure the Big 12 wouldn’t have discussed anything with BYU if Sunday play was insurmountable. What I’ve heard is it was a problem for Fox.
Still, Sunday play is not a non-issue. For football and basketball its not important. But basically all the spring sports use Sundays. It means less opportunity for fans (including parents) to watch the contests. It means more missed class time since events will have to be on Thursdays through Saturdays or Fridays and Saturdays if Sundays are not available. It can be worked around, but its not ideal.
LikeLike
We are in agreement. Sunday play is NOT a non-issue, but it is a workable issue. It is baggage that any conference that wishes BYU to join must deal with.
LikeLike
The last time the Big XII approached BYU Sunday play was not insurmountable (when the conference was looking to replace Mizzou), but it might be now.
If the Big XII tried to add BYU now the conference would stretch across three time zones, have three schools on islands, one which is a complete pain in the ass to travel to (since trips to Morgantown require flying to Pittsburgh then making a long busride) and one that refuses to play on Sundays.
LikeLike
A question for PMark: Does LDS allow Brigham Young teams to play on Sunday if they are in an NCAA championship event regularly scheduled for Sunday? For example, BYU has had some good women’s basketball teams in the past, though the Cougars are hardly a national power. If they somehow advanced to the Final Four, which has its semifinals on Sunday, would they be able to play? Would the NCAA move their game to Saturday or Monday, or would BYU forfeit?
LikeLike
VP19
A couple of years ago, BYU had a top ranked BBall team that was projected to seeded #1 and make it to the NCAA finals. Then about a week before the finals, their starting center admitted to having sex with his girlfriend. He was suspended from the team for the rest of the season, including the NCAA tournament. BYU was elimanated by the third round.
Just this year one of BYU’s top linebackers was caught partying in Las Vegas. This hit the fan just before BYU biggest rivalry game of the year — with Utah. Mind you, the man is 23 years old. He wasn’t drunk. He didn’t get nailed for a DUI. All he was doing was drinking alcohol — a totally legal thing to do, but it is against the honor code. He was suspended for three games, including the Utah game. BYU lost and won’t play Utah for another two years.
No, BYU is not going to play on Sunday. They won’t do something silly like walking off the field or court if a regularly scheduled game on Saturday night goes OT past midnight. But if the game is schedule for a Sunday, they will pass. They won’t make a big deal about it. They will simply decline to play.
LikeLike
vp19:
The NCAA has always scheduled BYU tournament games so they wouldn’t potentially be on Sunday. I don’t know what they would do in that semi final. Perhaps the church grants a one time exception. I’ve known LDS kids allowed to play Legion baseball on Sundays (someone suggested because baseball was potentially a profession in their particular cases). Perhaps they’d be allowed because of the potential visibility for the church should they reach the final. But they would probably gain more attention, visibility, etc. for being strong enough in conviction to forfeit that chance. I bet the NCAA would schedule an alternative time (and probably already has a contingency plan).
LikeLike
VP19
Just this year BYU’s Rugby team destroyed their competition at their regionals in Colorado. But because the nationals play during Sunday, they declined to go.
http://rugbymag.com/news/colleges/collegiate-sevens/9704-byu-dominates-rocky-mountain-7s.html
LikeLike
No, BYU is not going to play on Sunday. They won’t do something silly like walking off the field or court if a regularly scheduled game on Saturday night goes OT past midnight. But if the game is schedule for a Sunday, they will pass. They won’t make a big deal about it. They will simply decline to play.
I would hate to be BYU’s women’s basketball coach — it must be hard to recruit when your players won’t be able to play in the Final Four because the semifinals are scheduled on Sunday.
LikeLike
@vp19
I’ll add that BYU also had to skip the Fiesta Bowl one year because it was on a Sunday.
LikeLike
“I would hate to be BYU’s women’s basketball coach — it must be hard to recruit when your players won’t be able to play in the Final Four because the semifinals are scheduled on Sunday.”
Therein lies the fundamental difference between BYU and all the rest of the power schools. Their ownership, administration, coaches, and athletes know and accept the possibilities. I’m not LDS but I find it refreshingly admirable that money and winning, even at the highest level, does not alter their mission or priorities.
LikeLike
VP19.
Actually, Sunday play is usually not the issue; the Honor Code is. No sex outside of marriage. No alcohol, tea, coffee, or tobacco. Modest dress for both sexes, and conservative hair for men.
Now, go and recruit yourself a sports team. 🙂
LikeLike
Sunday play is usually not the issue; the Honor Code is. No sex outside of marriage. No alcohol, tea, coffee, or tobacco. Modest dress for both sexes, and conservative hair for men.
Now, go and recruit yourself a sports team.
BYU has had good teams over the years, so they clearly can overcome that issue. There are Mormon athletes who support those values.
LikeLike
Not just Mormon. A number of their star athletes have been non-LDS — Jim McMahon being perhaps the most well-known. Their star runningback this year is Jamal Williams, also non-Mormon.
It’s funny. When a coach recruits athletes that want to come to BYU *because* of the Honor Code (Lavell Edwards, Bronco Mendenhall), they generally have very successful teams. When a coach recruits athletes that want to come *in spite of* the honor code (Gary Crowton), the teams generally don’t do so well.
LikeLike
Geography no longer matter for the Big XII that is clear. So i see no problems moving forward with 4 islands: Iowa, WV, Utah, and (Florida vs Ohio).
What is best for the conference financially is the consideration.
LikeLike
That’s really rather the point. It’s all about cash and what make sense financially.
Islands don’t make sense financially unless they bring in extra revenue. Islands always cost extra money. Can you imagine the WV women’s softball team flying to Provo, or the ISU lady volleyball team jetting down to Florida? Unless those islands bring in more money, the financial incentives are to not bother with them.
LikeLike
Geography no longer matter for the Big XII that is clear. So i see no problems moving forward with 4 islands: Iowa, WV, Utah, and (Florida vs Ohio).
What is best for the conference financially is the consideration.
That is actually my point though; the WVU addition means geography (at least as it relates to BYU) is far more important. Because of the travel difficulties entailed by having to make trips to Morgantown, it may be logistically impossible to add another school on the other side of the country that refuses to play on Sundays.
(USF, UCF and Cincy, on the other hand, could actually make travel easier since than it is now since those schools all have major airports located nearby)
LikeLike
Geography no longer matter for the Big XII that is clear. So i see no problems moving forward with 4 islands: Iowa, WV, Utah, and (Florida vs Ohio).
I’d say that is far from clear. The league expanded outside of its geography once. That doesn’t mean it no longer cares about geography at all. Indeed, the problems WV is having with travel suggest that perhaps the example shouldn’t be perpetuated.
What is best for the conference financially is the consideration.
Here, I believe we all agree. The one immutable rule of re-alignment is that no one voluntarily expands or moves to lose money.
Because of the travel difficulties entailed by having to make trips to Morgantown, it may be logistically impossible to add another school on the other side of the country that refuses to play on Sundays.
BYU has been in some far-flung conferences, over the years. They and their partners have always found ways to manage within the no-Sundays constraint. The issue would be a matter of, at most, one BYU trip to Morgantown per year per sport, and in most sports it probably wouldn’t even happen every year.
I am quite sure they’d figure that out, assuming all the other issues could be solved, and assuming the Big XII wanted to expand (which I suspect they do not). BYU is by far the best name on the board that the Big XII could realistically hope to hook.
LikeLike
neomodernism says: “5. Regionality. Here only proximity to ISU and WVU matters as the rest of the conference is already bunched up. For considerations might be NIU, Cincinnati”
I believe that this is more key than most understand. The Big 12 has been adamant that it is not in any hurry to expand, but if/when the time came that the conference chose to go in that direction that it would be mainly to stay with or keep up with the Top conferences (Big Ten/SEC) and this means…
Competitively: Under the new system in relation to the new playoff the tea leaves seem to be pointing to a Conference Championship Game being a real asset. Look for the Big 12 to eventually be pushed to a position where expanding is deemed necessary in order to add that Championship Game.
Revenue/Arms Race: In today’s environment this means large sums of money and that means TV money and Football Brands. There are no real “Football Brands” available so look for the Big 12 to increase its TV footprint, something it lacks greatly relative to the other Top conferences.
Geography: Different officials have said on record that a priority if/when the Big 12 expands will greatly take into account the geographic footprint of the conference. Having WVU so far from the closest conference mate has proven to be impractical so look for the Big 12 to rectify this (as the poster quoted above has pointed out) by filling in the space between Iowa State and West Virginia. No candidate west of the current footprint or east of West Virginia will be given serious consideration. The “looking east” has been confirmed many times by many different Big 12 officials.
That basically leaves the two candidates that “neomodernism” quoted above. Which also happen to be the two candidates that score the highest using the scoring method here.
NIU
Football Brand Value – 30
National TV Value – 15
Local TV Value – 10
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 3 (URA member – Consortium of 88 leading research universities)
Basketball Value – 0
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 10
Total: 93
CINCINNATI
Football Brand Value – 30
National TV Value – 15
Local TV Value – 7
Demographics/Recruiting Value – 20
Academics – 3
Basketball Value – 5
Geographic Fit/Need – 5
Tremendous Upside Potential/Monopoly Power – 5
Total: 90
LikeLike
This exercise gives more points to NIU than Cincy? Ok.
LikeLike
By overstating Football Brand Value for NIU. “It must be emphasized that Football Brand Value puts much more weight on the long-term history and financial underpinnings of a program over short-term or recent success.” … so more like 15 or 20.
LikeLike
NIU’s “Football Brand Value” is at the very least equivalent to Cincinnati’s. Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs to bone up on their football history.
Good stuff, Bob. Thanks for contributing.
LikeLike
Bryce,
“NIU’s “Football Brand Value” is at the very least equivalent to Cincinnati’s. Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs to bone up on their football history.”
Conference:
UC – Big East (an AQ conference)
NIU – MAC (one of the worst leagues)
Big edge to UC
BCS:
UC – 2
NIU – 1
Edge to UC
Recent conference titles:
UC – 4 in past 5 years in BE, 5 in the past 11 (1964 before that)
NIU – 2 MAC titles in past 2 years (1983 before that)
Big edge to UC
Neither is a major name nationally, but UC is a bigger brand thanks to having more success than NIU recently and being in a much more respected conference.
LikeLike
Why do people keep touting a MAC school for Big XII expansion? It’s almost as silly as the Buffalo to the Big Ten talk.
NIU would need to work their way up the ladder over a period of many years. MAC to Conference USA to AAC to Big XII. Any school that is valuable enough to add to the Big XII that it increases the payouts for the existing teams is not going to be sitting in the MAC.
LikeLike
I apparently need a refresher on my football history. Please regale us with tales of NIU’s long and distinguished history in FBS.
Note, I restrict it to FBS as to avoid a discussion on some national championship NIU claims in the 1960’s. For if that’s fair game, then I’ll start the Mount Union to B12 thread, or the Montana to the B12, or Georgia Southern or Delaware or a host of schools in non-FBS who have had greater success than NIU did when not in the FBS.
LikeLike
After Missouri blew out duffman’s team Indiana in Bloomington this year, duffman repeatedly assured me that Missouri couldn’t possibly win 8 games this year. Well, Missouri somehow squeaked out a 31-3 win over Tennessee today, so I guess that puts them at 8-1, which, if my math is correct, means that Missouri did indeed achieve the impossible and get to 8 wins. And they should be at least a three touchdown favorite next week vs Kentucky so I dare say 9 wins looks likely. I’m sure duffman will emphatically disagree.
LikeLike
Andy, bragging about beating Indiana football is pretty sad. While I would love to see IU do well just having a winning season is a goal for Hoosier fans to shoot for. Are you going to brag about beating cellar dwellers Kentucky and Vanderbilt next? Congrats on getting to 8 wins but if Georgia and Florida were at full strength you would still be sitting at just 6 wins. Heck, South Carolina beat you in about 1 quarter after you had and early lead and lead till the end. Here is how the Tigers got to 8 wins :
Murray State 4-3, 3-1 – Congrats, you beat a FCS school
Toledo 5-3, 3-1 – Mid level MAC win
@ Indiana 3-5, 1-3 – Hoosiers should beat Purdue, but probably not getting 6 wins
Arkansas State 4-4, 2-1 – Mid level Sun Belt win
@ Vanderbilt 4-4, 1-4 – Next to last in the SEC East
@ Georgia 5-3, 4-2 – Injury depleted when you played them
Florida 4-4, 3-3 – Injury depleted and could finish under .500
South Carolina – Lost at home when their QB came in near the end of the game
Tennessee 4-5, 1-4 – Battling Vanderbilt for bottom of the East
So far you have played 1 currently ranked FBS school and they beat you on your home field after spotting you 17 points in the first 3 quarters of the game. Of your current 8 wins, none are against a team currently in the Top 25. You should beat Kentucky and the bye but lets see how you do against Mississippi and Texas A&M before we get all excited about just how good you are. At least the folks in College Station are still ranked so you may have a shot to actually beat a ranked team. You should destroy Kentucky worse than you did Indiana but if you brag about that, you are just sad.
If you get to the SEC CCG congrats, but if you have to play Alabama in Georgia prepared to get rolled and exposed for your early weak schedule.
LikeLike
Beating Georgia Tennessee Florida is an amazing year for any team. Tennessee would probably win the Big Ten this year and Georgia and Florida would for sure.
LikeLike
I am annoyed, but this is an honest question: why do SEC fans feel the need to say things like this?
I have never heard any fan from any other league ever say anything like this. Never heard that UCLA would win the BXII or that Wisconsin would win the ACC, etc. etc.
But over and over and over you hear SEC fans make statements like this. Clay Travis on FOXSports has added tOSU to the 14 SEC teams and ranks them. Why?
Honestly, what is the point (other than to be offensive)?
LikeLike
Not an SEC fan at all but I appreciate that the SEC is the most legit conference and plays the best football. I figured Missouri would have a rough transition but I am very impressed with the strong season. Big Ten seems content to be an also ran with very poor teams at Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Northwestern 50% of the conference is Kentucky level. Throw in Rutgers and Maryland and you have the Mac plus Ohio State.
LikeLike
Clay Travis is a clown and the ultimate homer. Don’t read him.
LikeLike
As I’m also a Kentucky fan, I can say you are competing with Clay Travis right now. Kentucky is terrible this year. They’re the 3rd best team in the state. Florida couldn’t score enough to win the Big 10. Tennessee is a very flawed team.
LikeLike
In case you’re wondering, I’m not sure that Mizzou would win the B1G this year. But I have little doubt they’d be top 2 or 3.
LikeLike
No way Tennessee wins the Big Ten, but Georgia probably would. Florida would be competitive, but I still think Ohio St. would beat them
LikeLike
Mark,
“Beating Georgia Tennessee Florida is an amazing year for any team.”
No, beating a good UGA, TN and UF is an amazing year for anybody. Beating a weak UT, UGA minus 4 of their top weapons and one-dimensional UF minus their best weapons isn’t all that impressive. Those teams combined are 13-12 right now.
“Tennessee would probably win the Big Ten this year and Georgia and Florida would for sure.”
Can I have some of what you’re smoking?
LikeLike
History will remember nothing except that Missouri beat Ga Tn and Fl in the same year. 3 of the top 10 programs in college football history in one year. Why can’t people give Missouri credit for a great season? Big Ten is terrible again, Ohio State has an embarrassing schedule and can’t get higher than #4. I think Tn would make a run at the Big Ten title based on win over SC and close game with Ga.
LikeLike
History will remember nothing except that Missouri beat Ga Tn and Fl in the same year. 3 of the top 10 programs in college football history in one year.
I’ll give you Florida, but Georgia and Tennessee aren’t quite top 10 all time programs. Top 20, but not top 10.
I think Tn would make a run at the Big Ten title based on win over SC and close game with Ga.
Well, every computer rating in the country and all the voters across the various polls disagree with you.
LikeLike
Missouri has a lot to be proud of, and we shouldn’t try to take anything away from them. My wife and I have a friend who went to Mizzou and she is VERY fired up about the season they’re having, especially since she now lives about 60 miles from Gainesville–very much in SEC country. I wouldn’t try to belittle what they’ve done this year to her. Shoot, if my favorite team struggled throughout the 90’s, played around .500 until 2005, improved into a pretty consistent winner but was underestimated about how it would do in the big, bad SEC, I’d be pretty stoked too!
My problem is the attitude from SEC fans in general (not all are this way) that SEC teams are inherently very good. An SEC team that beats other SEC teams is awesome, and teams in other leagues that do well “couldn’t hang in the SEC.” Paul Finebaum basically said this on College Game Day on Saturday, belittling the performances of Miami, Florida State, and Clemson’s performances to date based solely on the fact that they are not in the SEC. Nevermind that they are combined 23-2 this year, with the only losses coming to Florida State. It blows my mind that a man who claims to be a college football analyst could watch what FSU has done in its past three games and dismiss it because it’s not in the precious SEC.
Back to Mizzou: they deserve a ton of credit. We all know that Georgia and Florida were reeling from injuries when Mizzou played them, just like Mizzou was last year. We know that Tennessee is in rebuilding mode. That shouldn’t take away Mizzou fans’ celebrations. But to the rational fan, it should provide some context. Being the best in the SEC East doesn’t make them one of the nation’s most elite teams just because they have the SEC brand. The five remaining undefeated teams have all accomplished much more. Stanford has, too. So has Clemson, who beat Georgia when they were at full strength.
LikeLike
@ Mark,
Congrats to Mizzou, I’m happy for them. But Tenn has been pretty awful since the Fulmer fella left & then the Lane Kiffin disaster followed as well as the last two coaches, granted the current coach is in a honeymoon period. UT was completely blown off the field by Oregon – completely. Second time Oregon has done this to them in the past 5 years. UGa has been plagued by injuries, which is common in the SEC this year, Mizzou included.
I judge Mizzou more by what they did to IU. They whooped em! Minnesota was approaching comparable results until they melted down in the 4th qtr yesterday, still got the win. Mizzou whooped IU on the same level as MSU. Let’s see how IU looks against OSU and Wisconsin, I suspect they’ll lost very big in those games.
PS I agree, UT and UGa are great programs, but barely top 10 – likely not.
LikeLike
Mizzou whooped up on Indiana, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. Won all 5 of thsoe games by an average of over 20 pts per game. It’s not just that Missouri has been winning, they’ve been dominating.
LikeLike
Even Andy isn’t this crazy.
LikeLike
duffman, your lack of character is astounding.
I innocently and accurately predicted that Missouri would win at least 8 games this year. You laid into me, calling me an “extreme homer”, and pronouncing that Missouri absolutely would not win 8 games this year.
They are now 8-1 and you’re doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to tell me how it doesn’t count.
You were wrong dude. The fact that you can’t admit it is just plain sad.
LikeLike
And again, among your “extreme”ly biased excuses you fail to mention that while Missouri’s opponents had injuries, Missouri did as well too. Thy had a senior All-Big 12 QB playing at an A- level or better, and he gets hurt and is replaced by a freshman playing at a C+ level over the last 3.3 games. All SEC cornerback leading the SEC in interceptions? Out the last 4 games.
And still Missouri’s winning these games by 20+ pts.
Duffman’s “analysis” is a joke, as always.
LikeLike
Congrats on the great season! Very impressive wins and more exposure than the Big 12 ever provided!!
LikeLike
And they will probably get the shaft in the bowl lineup and complain endlessly.
LikeLike
Hopefully not. I guess we’ll find out soon.
LikeLike
Hard to get the “shaft” in SEC bowls since they have about six very attractive ones versus only two in the Big 12.
I’m sure Mizzou fans would be quite happy with anywhere from the Sugar Bowl down to the Gator Bowl.
LikeLike
They will be screaming if they get the Gator (assuming they finish fairly well). And if they win the East, Alabama goes to title game, they will complain if they don’t get the Sugar. They’ll be saying its 2007 all over again.
LikeLike
of course bullet is saying that it’s fair that Kansas went to the Orange Bowl over Missouri even though Missouri was ranked higher and beat Kansas head to head in their final game. yeah, that makes sense.
If something like that happens again you bet we’d be pissed.
LikeLike
I understand why Missouri was mad. KU didn’t deserve to go ahead of Missouri.
I also understand why the bowl did it. Bowls aren’t about fairness or who deserves it more. They’re about selling hotel rooms. They figure teams who lose in ccgs don’t travel well because the fan base was disappointed. Missouri blamed the Big 12 for not trying to overrule the bowl.
That’s one of the improvements in the new system. Now its a committee doing it in 2014, but its not the bowl committee. They are planning on inviting the best 6 non-automatic qualifiers in addition to the 5 champs and the top non-AQ champ (don’t correct me-I know I’m simplifying it). And that’s the best teams, not the best at selling hotel rooms.
For this year, teams like Clemson, Baylor and Missouri could be disappointed if they don’t win their conference. The bowl reps are still selecting the teams.
LikeLike
It’s a crappy system and I’m glad it’s ending.
LikeLike
@ Andy. May I suggest just ignoring Duffman? Sure, respond once or twice, whatever.
But why pick a fight? This continuing feud is not very interesting.
You going to continue this next season?
LikeLike
He called me an “extreme homer” for daring to say that Missouri would win at least 8 games this year. He told me Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ole Miss were “likely losses”. Well, Mizzou just beat Tennessee 31-3. Duffman is a tool.
I won’t really need to point out how wrong he was much longer. It’s pretty well established at this point.
LikeLike
Andy, you are an extreme homer. The fact that your prediction came out correct doesn’t change that.
I mean, Michigan fans predict wins in almost every game. Michigan is 6-2 right now, but I give the fans no credit for being predictive geniuses. What counts is the method of prediction. Homers will be accidentally correct sometimes. They may even be correct most of the time. If you’re an Alabama fan and predict an Alabama win in every game, you could look like Svengali. But in fact you’re not analyzing anything. You’re just homering, and have the good fortune to be rooting for a good team.
LikeLike
Andy, you are an extreme homer. The fact that your prediction came out correct doesn’t change that.
Pretty much my point. Nobody is saying Missouri is not having a good season because they are. The issue is how much is the Tigers, and how much is the opponents. Pre season wins against Georgia and Florida would look impressive but both are very banged up and a Georgia team that looked like a dark horse for a MNC has fallen off the radar. If the South Carolina QB had played the whole game it is quite possible Missouri would have been beaten badly at home. If Andy was less of a homer he would see his Tigers were giving up an average of around 21 points per game. In contrast Alabama (except the TAMU game) is giving up just over a FG on average in 7 games. In short, Alabama and Missouri may both have an offense, but only Alabama seems to have a defense.
A non homer would see this issue and acknowledge it when discussing it on here yet Andy probably believes his Tigers will roll into the SEC CCG and beat the Tide in a stadium that will probably be very pro Alabama yet Andy does not see this and calls me a tool instead. Alabama shut out a Mississippi team that was scoring roughly 21 (3 TD”s) to 56 (8 TD’s) points per game. Kentucky should be an easy win for Missouri but it will take beating both Mississippi and Texas A&M for folks to really believe this is a special Missouri team. Until these games are played we just do not know.
LikeLike
Marc, if I were an extreme homer I would have predicted 14-0. I predicted 8-4. It was a reasonable prediction. In fact, it looks like I sold my team short.
I always make reasonable predictions. Guess what? Missouri is actually pretty good at football. This will likely be the 4th time in 7 years that Missouri has won 10 or more games. It’s not like I’m talking pie in the sky unlikely things.
Now you guys with your uber pessimistic dismissals of my modest predictions: that’s extreme. But you’ll never admit it even when I’m proven right.
As far as me analyzing things, I did that plenty both here and elsewhere. I rightly assumed you wouldn’t be interested in highly detailed Missouri analysis on this forum but if you want it I have plenty of it.
LikeLike
Holy crap, duffman. Missouri has outscored their opponents 365 to 185 this season and you’re somehow saying Missouri’s scoring margin isn’t impressive enough? Give me a break. That’s gotta be top 10 in the country-type numbers there.
LikeLike
Holy crap, duffman. Missouri has outscored their opponents 365 to 185 this season and you’re somehow saying Missouri’s scoring margin isn’t impressive enough? Give me a break. That’s gotta be top 10 in the country-type numbers there.
Andy,
Here is a team running up some impressive numbers too but nobody is taking them as seriously as you are pushing Missouri. In just (matching 7 for 7 and deducting the Missouri loss to South Carolina) 7 games this team has scored 447 points to 111 points. They must be way better than Missouri, right? No, they are a team having a good year but without having beaten a team in the current Top 25 yet, so we just do not know.
Game 1 : W 69–3 at home
Game 2 : W 70–13 at home
Game 3 : W 70–7 at home
Game 4 : W 73–42 at home
Game 5 : W 35–25 on the road
Game 6 : W 71–7 at home
Game 7 : W 59–14 on the road
As Marc said in his post above, you are not analyzing things objectively. You always put a pro Missouri spin on everything and it gets very tiresome. Getting the win against Indiana is great for you but Indiana is not Ohio State or Michigan State this year either. You think I am upset because Missouri beat Indiana but you are such a homer you do not see that it was an expected loss. Gophers beat Indiana this weekend but you don’t see Gopher fans on here making a big deal about it. Sure it would have been nice to get the win but is like ok, see you in basketball season, or see you next time time we play in football.
As stated before, it is not just me calling you a homer but several others on here as well. Instead of getting all defensive, take it to heart that you are a homer and tone things down so you are more mainstream like pretty much everybody else on this board.
LikeLike
“Andy, you are an extreme homer. The fact that your prediction came out correct doesn’t change that.”
Everyone on this board is an extreme homer, some just hide it better. Andy is no more of a Mizzou homer than bullet is a Texas homer and Brian is an Ohio State homer.
LikeLike
Hm, let’s see… Missouri beat Indiana, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee.
Baylor beat West Virginia, K-State, ISU, and Kansas.
Yeah, that’s looks fairly even.
Like usual, your “analysis” is a total joke.
As for Indiana, here are their scores vs BCS teams:
L by 17 at home vs Missouri
W by 20 at home vs PSU
L by 14 at Michigan State
L by 16 at Michigan
L by 3 at Minnesota
So if you’re comparing scores, Missouri has beaten Indiana more impressively than Michigan or Michigan State. Even if you want to for some reason completely dismiss all of those SEC wins (even though by all measures the SEC is stronger than the Big Ten), Missouri has proven themselves outside the SEC as well.
They’ve been running up big scores just like Baylor, but unlike Baylor they’ve been doing it against teams with a pulse.
All of the computers agree. Pretty much all of the computer rankings have Missouri in the top 5 and some have them in the top 3.
You really have no point. You just bash Missouri because you don’t like me personally. That’s pretty much all there is to it and it’s plain for everyone to see.
LikeLike
“All of the computers agree. Pretty much all of the computer rankings have Missouri in the top 5 and some have them in the top 3.”
What computer rankings are these? According to the official BCS standings, the quoted statement is not true.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013
8 Missouri .6890 9 8 1725 .6571 9 961 .6200 5 5 9 6 5 8 6 .790
LikeLike
The Massey compilation of 107 computer rankings has Missouri #7.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
LikeLike
EVERYONE: I respectfully ask for a moratorium on Missouri discussions. I hate doing this since I want to encourage having open conversations on whatever topics that people want to discuss, but we keep rehashing the same points here about the school (whether it’s on-the-field or what has occurred in the past with Big Ten/SEC conference realignment) and it’s derailing these threads. If there’s some actual new news to report about Missouri or they legitimately climb back into the national championship discussion, then that’s fine to discuss, but there’s no need to continue going over whether they’re a good team or not this year or what may or may not have happened in 2010-2011 in realignment rumors. Everyone has made their points on their respective sides.
LikeLike
I will be pleasantly shocked if these guys can stop trolling me with random baseless Missouri bashing on a regular basis. We shall see…
LikeLike
and as far as computer rankings, I admit I was wrong. Used to be top 5. Now top 7. I apologize for my incorrectness. Now that that’s settled, you can stop bashing Missouri for no damn reason.
LikeLike
@ Frank
So does that mean we can get some discussion from you on what you think of Illinois basketball this season? It has snuck up on me and I must confess I am at a loss on who will have what effect this year?
LikeLike
The 2014 ND-Purdue game may be moved to Indianapolis
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/11/notre-dame-could-play-purdue-2014-shamrock-series-game-indianapolis/
LikeLike
Where there’s smoke there’s fire? Interesting tweet by big time recruit…. Could be just trying to land a big fish ,…but
http://cincyontheprowl.com/2013/11/02/cincinnatis-coaches-telling-recruits-uc-big-12-bound/
LikeLike
Very interesting piece on Clinkscales. There are only 4 possible scenarios (Tommy Tuberville is not lying because there is still plenty of time for Clinkscales to go somewhere else before signing day if that would happen). 1: Clinkscales misunderstood what was said. 2: He is flat out lying. 3: Tuberville misled him. 4: It is true that Cincinnati is moving to the Big XII or Tuberville believes it to be true. If the Bearcats does go to the Big XII, that will be another Big XII mistake (or as I called it before adding TCU 2). Cincinnati would be another “C” or lower level School in the Big XII. Two “A” Programs (OU & UT). Two “B” Programs (OSU & Tech) Everyone else is a “C” (KSU is a “C” only because of Snyder and Baylor because of Briles) Except ISU “F” and TCU “D”
LikeLike
not the first time coaches have lied.
LikeLike
Yeah, they were multiple reports about a year and a half ago that Louisville coaches were telling players the Cardinals were going to join the Big XII.
LikeLike
The Cards wound up in the ACC. Are you saying we should expect the ACC to add UC?
😉
LikeLike
Not so much sports-related, but I have thought for some time that as long as the economy continues at its current pace that even the academic types must start looking at other option. Lo and behind, this NY Times story confirms it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/education/edlife/finding-life-after-academia-and-not-feeling-bad-about-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
With respect to the Big Ten schools, I would think that with the amount of intellectual capacity that there would be some use for some of that to help improve the standard of living for the states that they’re based in. Even with STEM, not everyone is going to get ahead, so you could imagine how hard it is for those who chose other disciplines. A cautionary tale in this day and age.
LikeLike
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/best-schools-by-major/computer-science
LOL, I went to SJSU, and I can say I topped the mid-career number. For tech majors, its all location, location, location. (Glad I bailed on Mechanical Engineering)
In truth the Tech schools are the only intelligent places to send your sons and daughters. Unless they absolutely tear it up in some specific field of study. If they have any doubts, shove them into Calculus and Physics in High School and send them to the best Engineering school they can get into. If they have to bail out and graduate in Computer Science or Chemistry, or even Accounting they are still in good shape. The Liberal Arts are perfect if you want to work in a coffee shop or be an elementary school teacher. Otherwise its a really bad move.
LikeLike
Stuart,
You’ve absolutely hit the nail on the head… When it comes to opportunities after high school/college, it’s not so much “where” you go to or went to school, as to “what discipline” your education is related…
In fact, when it comes to income, you do not even need a college education to earn more than some with degrees if the post high school training/education is specific to certain industries… I am living proof of this—see: energy sector. My education is courtesy of the U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion program.
As an individual, it is ultimately what you do with what you know, that matters…
LikeLike
Engineering is very cyclical. You obviously haven’t seen a down cycle. Its good long term, but there are definitely some down periods.
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 10 run with SoS rank mid season point +3 :
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
002 003 002 Florida State 42 / 68 / 54
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 012 Clemson 45 / 39 / 42
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 065 Maryland 94 / 83 / 85
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 069 Syracuse 39 / 38 /53
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 064 Boston College 26 / 22 / 20
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 083 North Carolina State 117 / 87 / 80
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 079 Wake Forest 102 / 85 / 71
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 029 Miami (FL) 75 / 82 / 56
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 039 Virginia Tech 37 / 37 / 35
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 033 Georgia Tech 29 / 35 / 40
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 060 Pittsburgh 57 / 42 / 32
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 049 Duke 92 / 80 / 84
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 052 North Carolina 4 / 18 / 26
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 089 Virginia 35 / 31 / 23
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 005 Ohio State 76 / 69 / 81
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 006 Wisconsin 83 / 90 / 59
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 048 Penn State 63 / 36 / 49
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 054 Indiana 27 / 33 / 36
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 077 Illinois 40 / 34 / 27
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 146 Purdue 21 / 20 / 11 Best SoS in B1G according to Sagarin
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 015 Michigan State 104 / 92 / 86
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 038 Michigan 85 / 84 / 66
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 044 Nebraska 119 / 110 / 101
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 042 Iowa 47 / 43 / 34
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 053 Northwestern 81 / 59 / 39
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 057 Minnesota 103 / 89 / 75
.
Big 12 = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 004 Baylor 100 / 96 / 93
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 021 Oklahoma 56 / 44 / 48
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 030 Texas Tech 87 / 79 / 67
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 013 Oklahoma State 54 / 52 / 38
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 023 Texas 18 / 13 / 24
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 045 Texas Christian 8 / 10 / 17
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 028 Kansas State 12 / 19 / 29
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 080 Iowa State 15 / 7 / 5 Top 10 SoS
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 059 West Virginia 14 / 8 / 8 Top 10 SoS
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 106 Kansas 36 / 24 / 18
.
PAC – North = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 003 Oregon 68 / 54 / 62 Worst SoS in all of the PAC
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 018 Washington 3 / 16 / 14
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 010 Stanford 11 / 9 / 12
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 040 Oregon State 74 / 60 / 52
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 051 Washington State 16 / 15 / 7 Top 10 SoS
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 108 California 10 / 3 / 6 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 020 UCLA 50 / 28 / 41
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 008 Arizona State 13 / 12 / 10 Top 10 SoS
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9 Top
035 039 037 Utah 5 / 4 / 4 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 032 Arizona 55 / 55 / 60
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 025 Southern Cal 22 / 23 / 19
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 086 Colorado 31 / 26 / 13
.
SEC – East = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 007 Missouri 30 / 29 / 30
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 022 Florida 7 / 14 / 9 Top 10 SoS
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 017 Georgia 2 / 1 / 1 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 014 South Carolina 20 / 11 / 16
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 047 Tennessee 25 / 5 / 2 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 043 Vanderbilt 46 / 25 / 22
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 082 Kentucky 6 / 6 / 25
SEC – West = 1 of 10 Top 10 SoS
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 001 Alabama 43 / 41 / 47
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 009 Louisiana State 9 / 30 / 28
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 011 Texas A&M 28 / 32 / 46
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 019 Auburn 33 / 51 / 50
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 026 Mississippi 1 / 2 / 3 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 055 Mississippi State 34 / 58 / 33
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 074 Arkansas 17 / 17 / 15
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (7 teams) after Week #10 : 8 of 125 = 05.60% of total :
Big 5 schools 5 of 62 = 08.06% of population : 5 of 125 = 04.00% of total
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
ACC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> 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 => 8.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 01 of 13 => 7.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 00 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
IND = 00 of 06 => 0.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 0.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 0.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 8 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : NONE
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 9 – 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 : 9 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 8 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #11 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs ACC
8-0 Florida State @ 4-5 Wake Forest | Saturday TBD pm | ABC / ESPN
B12 vs B12
7-1 Oklahoma @ 7-0 Baylor | Thursday 7:30 pm | FOX Sports 1
B1G vs B1G
NONE
MAC vs MAC
NONE
MWC vs MWC
8-0 Fresno State @ 4-4 Wyoming | Saturday 10:15 pm | ESPN2
PAC vs PAC
8-0 Oregon @ 7-1 Stanford | Thursday 9:00 pm | ESPN
SEC vs SEC
7-2 LSU @ 8-0 Alabama | Saturday 8:00 pm | CBS
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #10 ********
9-0 Ohio State
9-0 Northern Illinois
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #9 ********
Miami lost to Florida State
******** 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
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#10) ********
AAC 6-2 Cincinnati
ACC 6-3 Georgia Tech
B 12 6-2 Texas
B1G 6-2 Nebraska
B1G 6-2 Wisconsin
CUSA 6-2 East Carolina
CUSA 6-3 North Texas
IND 6-3 Old Dominion
MAC 6-3 Toledo
MWC 6-3 Boise State
PAC 6-2 Arizona State
PAC 6-2 Arizona
PAC 6-2 UCLA
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 8 according to Sagarin ************
(4) SEC / (4) PAC / (0) ACC / (2) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 Georgia (SEC) 5-3, 4-2
@ Clemson (ACC) + South Carolina + BYE + North Texas (CUSA) + Louisiana State
@ Tennessee + Missouri + @ Vanderbilt + BYE + Florida
02 Tennessee (SEC) 4-5, 1-4
Austin Peay (FCS) + Western Kentucky (Sun Belt) + @ Oregon (PAC) + @ Florida
South Alabama (FCS) + Georgia + BYE + South Carolina + @ Alabama + @ Missouri
03 Mississippi (SEC) 5-3, 2-3
@ Vanderbilt + SE Missouri State (FCS) + @ Texas (B 12) + BYE + @ Alabama
@ Auburn + Texas A&M + Louisiana State + Idaho (IND) + BYE
04 Utah (PAC) 4-4, 1-4
Utah State (MWC) + Weber State (FCS) + Oregon State + @ Brigham Young (IND)
BYE + UCLA + Stanford + @ Arizona + @ Southern California + BYE
05 Iowa State (B 12) 1-7, 0-5
Northern Iowa (FCS) + BYE + IOWA (B1G) + BYE + @ Tulsa (CUSA)
Texas + @ Texas Tech + @ Baylor + Oklahoma State + @ Kansas State
06 California (PAC) 1-8, 0-6
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland State (FCS) + Ohio State (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon
Washington State + @ UCLA + Oregon State + @ Washington + Arizona
07 Washington State (PAC) 4-5, 2-4
@ Auburn (SEC) + @ Southern Cal + Southern Utah (FCS) + Idaho (IND) + Stanford
@ California + Oregon State + @ Oregon + BYE + Arizona State
08 West Virginia (B 12) 4-5, 2-4
William & Mary (FCS) + @ Oklahoma + Georgia State (Sun Belt) + Maryland (ACC)
Oklahoma State + @ Baylor + BYE + Texas Tech + @ Kansas State + @ TCU
09 Florida (SEC) 4-4, 3-3
Toledo + @ Miami (ACC) + BYE + Tennessee + @ Kentucky + Arkansas + @ LSU
@ Missouri + BYE + Georgia
10 Arizona State (PAC) 6-2, 4-1
BYE + Sacramento State (FCS) + Wisconsin (B1G) + @ Stanford + Southern Cal
Notre Dame (IND) + Colorado + Washington + BYE + @ Washington State
LikeLike
I’ve been toying around trying to figure out who will get left out if/when another expansion comes around. There’s no easy answer. Plus, I wanted to day dream over something other than who the B1G might end up with.
Some assumptions that I am making are that the SEC will go to 16 & that the B1G will go to 20. Obviously these numbers are debatable AND (I hope) that the expansion wouldn’t take place all at once. I’m more focused on the end result.
I’m guessing the 8 schools getting added will be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, & Georgia Tech. North Carolina State could replace one of these in many different scenarios, but only in the SEC.
Now, the question: What would the ‘leftovers’ do to become a solid conference? I don’t see back filling 2 conferences as the ideal solution, so I’m assuming 1 new conference to form.
Here’s my (early) take:
16 team conference. 4 pods. Could easily be 2 divisions of 8.
Pod 1: Florida State, Miami, UCF, Tulane
Pod 2: Cincinnati, Louisville, Kansas State, Iowa State
Pod 3: Clemson, North Carolina State, West Virginia, Pittsburgh
Pod 4: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU
I think this would provide a great foundation to developing a strong football conference. 3 schools each in Texas & Florida provides plenty of opportunity for schools to visit there. Add in Ohio and Pennsylvania recruiting grounds.
*I wanted to find a way to have West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Pittsburgh all end up in the same pod. I think that could develop (or add to) some great rivalry’s. I couldn’t figure out how to work it w/o having Clemson, FSU, and Miami in one pod which seemed like overkill IMO. I also felt badly about leaving out Syracuse and Boston College, but decided to go with a 3rd school in Florida and Tulane instead to maximize the conference’s exposure in the south for recruiting purposes. IMO the only way a cobbled together (after raids) conference will gain respect on the national stage will be if it maximizes it’s football success. In the end I felt this to be of more importance than adding the eyeballs of the New England States.
LikeLike
In a scenario where the PAC stays at 12 even if the B1G and SEC both expand (and that seems to be the implication) I think it is far more likely the ACC and Big XII leftovers would form a 12 team conference, not 16. Given the selection of schools available, it is more than likely any schools beyond 12 would just result in splitting in the pie thinner than increasing the total value of the conference.
I’d predict something like this (just as an example of a potential zipper alignment)
FSU-Miami
NCSU-Clemson
Cincy-Louisville
Pitt-WVU
TCU/TTU-Baylor
Okie St-Syracuse
LikeLike
If FSU and Miami are leftovers UT will remain in a 14/16 team B12. Add 4 or 6 ACC schools and rule an enlarged fiefdom with a large demographic improvement.
LikeLike
kylepeter:
Some assumptions that I am making are that the SEC will go to 16 & that the B1G will go to 20. Obviously these numbers are debatable AND (I hope) that the expansion wouldn’t take place all at once. I’m more focused on the end result.
I’m guessing the 8 schools getting added will be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, & Georgia Tech. North Carolina State could replace one of these in many different scenarios, but only in the SEC.
If neither Florida State nor Miami are assimilated into the Big Ten (for AAU reasons) or SEC (for “gentlemen’s agreement” reasons), I agree that Texas has more of a reason to preserve the Big 12 (unless it’s already headed off to the Pac because it’s the only place that would also accept Oklahoma, in a combo with Texas Tech and Okie State). But if the ACC collapsed first — as members from Clemson on south found the growing financial gap with the SEC impossible to bear — and the Big 12 stayed together, Clemson, FSU and Miami might well find the Big 12 their only alternative (a la West Virginia when the Big East fell apart); this is assuming Georgia Tech finds a safe harbor in the Big Ten, along with Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. For a 14th Big 12 member, there would be several possible candidates based upon whom the SEC picks off to reach 16 (Virginia Tech is a likely fit — it’s not tied at the hip to UVa — and while the SEC might consider N.C. State a consolation prize, it’s hardly bereft of value). In that scenario, Big 12 #14 might be Pittsburgh (if not blocked by WVU), Louisville or even Syracuse.
LikeLike
I just do not see a scenario where Schools like Florida State and Clemson are left on an Island of scrap heaps. As for the Big XII, assuming some posters here are correct and UT did not want TCU and others outvoted them, Bevo is in the “I told you so” position. And can probably put a stop to a Cincinnati joining ( they would be right). Most people agree the biggest problems are 1: No Conference Championship Game ( UT has compensated for that to a degree by ramping up the Out of a Conference schedule ( four Game series with Norte Dame for example). But extra money for the smaller Schools is needed and ( or ) those that can contend on occasion (Baylor, Kansas State and Oklahoma State come to mind). The other problem is balance. If they could get BYU it would be perfect. But BYU is unlikely to join, for numerous reasons Sunday Games, ESPN, etc. So the best choice is Central Florida ( UCF), they are a large and growing School, whose football program is getting better. If they picked UCF and either Tulane or USF and sent the Oklahoma Schools to a Northern Division, you would have two strong Divisions and even have the possibility of an OU/UT Championship Game. How great would that be? My strategy would be UCF or hold tight for a few years. Gut feeling they will choose Option 2 (particularly if UT will stay put).
LikeLike
If Saban leave Alabama for Texas after this season, and FSU becomes the new dominant program in the country, I wonder ii the SEC might experience extreme pressure from fans/alumni/networks to invite FSU into the SEC in, say, 5-10 years.
Assuming yes, (by no means a sure thing), who would be a #16? I would think a NC school, but I wonder about the state politics regarding UNC and NCSU.
Clemson, while passionate, adds no TV value. I personally think Va Tech is a wee bit overrated as a fanbase/TV draw, and I assume #16 would have to add a state for TV purposes. (As an aside, if someone has ratings info for Va Tech, and fan travel for BCS bowl games, and BCS bowl ratings for Va Tech, I’d love to see it. I vaguely recall one BCS bowl where Va Tech did not sell its ticket allotment and the ratings were quite poor).
I also assume that snooty Duke would not want to leave a academically-superior ACC just to compete athletically (and for recruits) with SEC schools.
FSU and NC State?
Thoughts?
LikeLike
The SEC may be protecting the ACC via ESPN. Unless the B1G adds another ACC school past Maryland the ACC seems very stable and I see no move by the SEC or the B1G unless one of them can pry away UNC. Since Florida State and NC State would be below UNC, just can not see this line of thinking at this time.
LikeLike
You make some good points, and I could definitely see a behind the scenes ESPN-brokered protection between the SEC and the ACC. But an ascendant FSU football might be too much for the SEC to ignore, especially in its backyard (plus a struggling UF that was having issues selling out earlier this year).
As for UNC, I just don’t see them leaving unless its as the last one out. An ACC minus FSU and NC State is still a viable basketball conference (especially with the likely addition of UConn at that point), and if Miami is also ascendant, there would still be some strength in ACC football (Clemson and Va Tech, too). NC State, the purported little brother, might be easier to pry loose while still bringing the TV benefits of having a North Carolina state school.
Overall, I felt that the SEC erred in not pairing FSU with A&M (a sentiment that Mr. Sec was also expressing) because it seems short-sighted to ignore the giant/king in your backyard. Using the Big Ten as an example, it embraced the king closest to its footprint with Nebraska, even with minimal benefit for BTN purposes, because its a name brand, and name-brands are built over decades, not simply years.
As for this season, FSU, Alabama, and A&M in the same conference? Yikes. And would make TV (be it CBS or ESPN) very, very happy.
LikeLike
Everyone assumes Connecticut will remain either a king or close to it post-Big East and post-Calhoun. I’m not sure that’s a given. Remember, thirty years ago, after winning its second NCAA title in a decade and being one of the nation’s most dominant programs since the late 1940s, N.C. State would have been deemed a basketball king, more so than Duke, which had periodically fielded some fine teams and had a few Final Four trips, but had yet to win a national title.
LikeLike
UConn isn’t a King so much as “Among The Best Available.” Should the ACC need to expand/backfill 2 teams, it would take UConn and (assuming the B12 hasn’t) Cincy. If Cincy is unavailable, then possibly Tulane. Or if the ACC drops its academic standards, WVU.
No other available schools would make sense for the ACC. (East Carolina? No. Any other C-USA or MAC school? Nope. Sun Belt? No thanks.)
LikeLike
Again. Florida holds all the cards. The threat of Florida jumping ship is always going to carry far more weight than the pleas from the other SEC members to add FSU. A Florida move to the ACC or B1G is not unthinkable. The idea that (a currently down) Florida is going to O.K an (ascendant) FSU to join the SEC? Now THAT”S unthinkable.
LikeLike
There is no threat of UF leaving the SEC. Why would it do that??
FSU joining the SEC is far more plausible than UF leaving the conference.
Moreover, I don’t put any stock in the purported Gentlemen’s Agreement, as if ESPN came to the SEC and said you would make more money per school with FSU and another team in the conference than with any non-FSU combo, the SEC would invite FSU in short order. And UF would be fine with it if it meant more money for the school. Plus, academically, UF’s AAU status is no longer an outlier thanks to its recent additions.
I remember MrSec.com writing at length about the lack of gentlemens agreement, and his SEC reporting has been quite accurate when it comes to expansion matters. (He was one of the first to mention that Mizzou was a far more serious target for the SEC than was widely believed at the time).
(No, I am not MrSec.com or in anyway affiliated with him or his site).
LikeLike
GLS – In the 1980s, Florida State had a much better football program than Florida. Florida had yet to win its first SEC championship. Yet, Florida sponsored Florida State’s annual application for SEC membership.
LikeLike
Florida sponsored FSU in 1990.
I don’t think Florida fears FSU. There’s just the question of whether FSU brings enough value to a conference that already has Florida. There was an article the other day talking about how the Big 12 did a study and found out Texas A&M brought a whole lot more value to the SEC than to the Big 12 and they found out they weren’t hurt much financially by the loss.
LikeLike
A Florida move to the ACC or B1G is not unthinkable.
Actually it is. If UF tried to leave the SEC the fanbase would start taking BOR members hostage and shoving bamboo shoots under the president’s fingernails until they agreed to reverse the decision (this is only a minor exaggeration; the student, alumni and boosters would start staging boycotts and cutting off donations if Florida left).
Moreover, an ACC move would be off the table since the number one rule in all of conference realignment is no ever willing takes a paycut. Ever.
—-
All that said, I still don’t the SEC adding FSU because I tend to believe the Gentleman’s Agreement is real and as long as UF, UK, USCe and UGA stick together they have the votes to block expansion.
LikeLike
Agreed Frug. The Florida alumni/fan/donor base would never accept Florida leaving the SEC under any forseeable circumstances. I can’t imagine any plausible short or long term scenario that would force Florida to reconsider. The school would lose out on far more money in donations then they could ever hope to gain in a television contract.
I do disagree with you on the existence a gentlemen’s agreement, I don’t think it exists at all. Florida tried to get Florida State into the SEC for several decades. I think that FSU being in the SEC would actually benefit Florida because it would free up a non-conference game. FSU would be around the top half of the SEC academically and improving. I don’t think FSU will join the SEC because I don’t think FSU’s administration wants to join the SEC. I think they prefer the academic reputation of the ACC, as well as the ability to utterly dominate that conference in football on an annual basis.
LikeLike
I do disagree with you on the existence a gentlemen’s agreement, I don’t think it exists at all. Florida tried to get Florida State into the SEC for several decades.
The supposed gentleman’s agreement is that the SEC will not force any member school to accept a second school in its home market. It obviously would not apply if the member school itself was in favor of such expansion.
LikeLike
And Georgia wouldn’t care about Georgia Tech.
South Carolina and Kentucky might care.
LikeLike
If . . . FSU becomes the new dominant program in the country, I wonder ii the SEC might experience extreme pressure from fans/alumni/networks to invite FSU into the SEC in, say, 5-10 years.
Realignment decisions are not made based on a few years’ dominance. Even when Bobby Bowden was in his peak years (and UF was not especially good then), FSU never joined the SEC.
The odds of FSU returning to that level of dominance are low, simply because that feat is very difficult to duplicate.
LikeLike
FSU never joined the SEC because it chose the ACC. They had an opportunity. Conferences add Kings as 100 year decisions, and FSU is a King returning to national prominence. It also hits all the other necessities of a expansion target (fan base, location, academics on par with SEC),
That it is a King returning to national prominence makes it something wholly unique than debating newer arrivals like Boise State to the B12.
LikeLike
This leads me to a question. If programs like FSU, Miami, VT and Clemson can sustain their competitiveness over the long run, does that make it easier or harder for the ACC to add another basketball power like UConn?
LikeLike
If it’s still in the AAC, Cincinnati has a better chance than Connecticut, as Boston College probably has been promised ACC exclusivity in New England.
LikeLike
Maybe so, but if the ACC needs another team, I would think it would try to poach WVU (and swallow the bad academics) than take either Cincy or UConn. WVU provides better overall athletics than either, and with L’ville, the ACC has already eased its Academic standards.
LikeLike
Results of week #10
AP – Michigan dropped out
AP – Notre Dame moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Auburn, #9 Missouri, #10 LSU, #11 TAMU, #13 South Carolina
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #16 UCLA, #23 Arizona State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #12 Oklahoma, #15 Oklahoma State, #25 Texas Tech
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #8 Clemson, #14 Miami
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #18 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #19 Central Florida, #20 Louisville
(1) MWC : #17 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #22 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #24 Notre Dame
Texas (34) / Georgia (32) / Brigham Young (28) / Ole Miss (17) / others < 10 votes
.
…
.
USA – Michigan dropped out
USA – Arizona State moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #9 Missouri, #10 Auburn, #12 LSU, #13 TAMU, #15 South Carolina
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #18 UCLA, #24 Arizona State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #8 Oklahoma, #11 Oklahoma State, #23 Texas Tech
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Clemson, #14 Miami (FL)
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #19 Michigan State, #22 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #21 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #17 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Texas (77) / Georgia (25) / Houston (24) / BYU (19) / Minnesota (18) / Michigan (14)
.
…
.
Harris – Michigan dropped out
Harris – Notre Dame moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #8 Missouri, #9 Auburn, #11 LSU, #12 TAMU, #15 South Carolina
(4) PAC : #2 Oregon, #6 Stanford, #19 UCLA, #24 Arizona State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma, #14 Oklahoma State, #23 Texas Tech
(3) ACC : #3 Florida State, #7 Clemson, #13 Miami (FL)
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #18 Michigan State, #22 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #21 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #17 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Texas (77) / Georgia (47) / Michigan (46) / Houston (44) / BYU (21) / others < 20 votes
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 03
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #8 Missouri, #9 Auburn, #12 South Carolina, #13 LSU, #15 TAMU
(4) PAC : #3 Oregon, #5 Stanford, #19 UCLA, #22 Arizona State
(4) B12 : #6 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma, #14 Oklahoma State, #25 Texas Tech
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #7 Clemson, #11 Miami (FL)
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #17 Michigan State, #24 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #20 Louisville, #21 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #23 Notre Dame
Dropped out : #21 Michigan
Moved in : #22 Arizona State
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (6-6) : 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 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = FLORIDA STATE
ACC (6-6) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
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
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 = 4-4 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FOUR :: U = OREGON
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (4-4) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (0-1) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 1-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = FOUR :: 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)
SEC scheduled a FCS school, and both the SEC and PAC had 4 idle teams
.
Observations :
Ohio State still undefeated and Sparty is 8-1 – the good
Northwestern and Purdue still struggle – the bad
Sagarin is still not liking the B1G SoS – the ugly
LikeLike
Larry Scott is sticking around. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pac-12-extends-commissioner-larry-195005386–spt.html
How long will Slive and Delany?
LikeLike
Larry Scott: Captain Ahab pursuing a burnt orange whale…no matter how many years it takes.
LikeLike
I kinda hope so. Perhaps stability can reign for at least a while if that’s the case, at least in the left half of the country, but that’s asking a lot.
LikeLike
To be fair it’s the presidents who covet the horned one. Scott was bringing on the Oklahoma pair before that fell through (for what ever reason).
LikeLike
How long will Slive and Delany?
Scott is 48, Delany 65, Slive 73.
Unless he screws up or gets a bigger job (and there aren’t many of those), Scott could be there for another 20 years. My guess is that Slive will retire after the next TV contract is signed.
That leaves Delany, who could stick around to see if he can do one more big deal, but might not want to wait around that long.
LikeLike
Delany’s one more big deal is likely to be the next TV contract in 2016, not another expansion. The Big 12’s and ACC’ GOR’s would be a massive court battle to overcome, and there are not particularly attractive candidates outside those two leagues. Besides, if indeed the B1G does get within that $40M/school range that many are predicting, the school presidents may see no need to expand. Not even the SEC or Pac-12 would garner even close to the Big Ten in television money, so why would they want to balloon themselves to an unwieldy 16-18?
As for Slive, he may want to see the SEC Network come to fulk fruition before riding off into the sunset, but you never know. Slive and Delany are both as intelligent as they are competitive, and they may decide to keep at it into their late 70’s or even their 80’s.
LikeLike
Delany is, what, 65? With modern medicine, assuming he’s healthy, there’s no reason why he can’t keep going for another 10-12 years, close to the time the GoR’s for other conferences expire.
Could mean his legacy shot is trying to snag Notre Dame one more time…
LikeLike
I tend to think he goes out around age 70 and the next guy in gets the next round of realignment. Jim can use the next 5 years to negotiate the next contract, oversee the blending of 14, and really get the B1G CCG to capacity. Not sure the ACC CCG or PAC CCG will ever match the SEC but with the eyeballs in the B1G footprint this seems important to cement this game as a visible and viable competitor to the SEC CCG. During this time I feel you have seen the end of 2 SEC teams in the playoff as my guess Jim will make the B1G get at least 1 of the 4 spots. SEC will get another, and the last 2 will be split between the ACC, B12, and PAC.
As for Notre Dame, if they wind up anywhere it will be the ACC as they offer the best fit and get the best leverage for Notre Dame as a school. If we start to see the Irish play SEC teams OOC, then ESPN is probably blessing the Irish as a long term ACC member.
LikeLike
Dish and Disney can’t figure it out, but its not so much about money:
LikeLike
http://www.facebook.com/NIUToTheBig12
http://www.facebook.com/NIUToTheBig12/info
LikeLike
At least you aren’t advocating V-Tech leaving the ACC as part of the proposal anymore…
LikeLike
Where is Buffalo to the Big XII?
Given that the Big 10 is not smart enough to see the wisdom.
Btw…. interesting read about Maryland. http://deadspin.com/76-years-later-maryland-tries-to-right-a-college-footb-1455976233?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
LikeLike
Texas AD a real two-man race
http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/bohl-games/2013/nov/04/texas-ad-real-two-man-race/
LikeLike
Bohls normally doesn’t know anything.
But, again, these two names are no surprise.
LikeLike
If Jim D is serious about his East Coast agenda, I think he needs to invite UVA and VT to the BIG. I know it goes against his expansion game plan to only invite one school per state but strategically it makes sense because it would box out SEC from moving into the state. It would also add one school that brings a marquis academic profile and one that brings a growing football program.
Maryland was a great addition. But, like a game a of “Risk”, the BIG should lock down the Mid-Atlantic and make UVA and VT number 15 and 16.
LikeLike
If Jim D is serious about his East Coast agenda, I think he needs to invite UVA and VT to the BIG.
1. Jim Delany doesn’t invite new members. The presidents do.
2. No school is moving before the GORs expire (or are close to expiring). So there’s no reason to invite anyone now. By the time any school could consider his invitation, another decade will have gone by, and we’ll all know more. By then, that might no longer the be the best move (even assuming it is now).
LikeLike
How does doubling down in one state secure a multi state region?
UMd + UVa + a NC school does more to secure a region than UMd + UVa + another VA school. Especially when the Big Ten is more market driven in expansion. New schools will have to open new markets. One could argue even that UVa is largely duplicative of Maryland, as UMd by itself opens DC, and Virginia doesn’t have any major markets in state. But since its UVa, a premier university, its unique (and does bring the sprawling and growing DC suburbs. But Va Tech on top of those two doesn’t seem to add nearly as much to the bottom line.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/04/3341918/secs-slive-charlotte-a-new-destination.html
Slive, like Delaney is moderating his tone on NCAA changes. Seems like the P5 meeting was for saber rattling. Now they are calming things down. A few realignment comments if you read between the lines.
“What does it mean that the SEC has such a strong relationship with Charlotte – despite the league not having a school in North Carolina?
A. Once the smoke cleared (with recent conference realignment) and we were comfortable with 14 schools, we looked to how we could have a presence in North Carolina. The quality of the Belk Bowl gave us a good opportunity. And developing the SEC Network is so important to us.
Q. The Bowl Championship Series has been good to the SEC, with six straight championships and seven of the past eight. Are you unhappy with the four-team playoff that will take its place after the 2014 season?
A. Well, Auburn in 2004 was undefeated and didn’t make the (national championship) game, so it didn’t serve us well then. So, as happy as we’ve been with the BCS, I’m glad there’s a playoff.
Q. You’ve been a proponent of measured change, advocating stipends for athletics, new recruiting rules and re-structuring the NCAA’s board of governors. Why is that important?
A. Well, I believe the NCAA should be under one umbrella. At the same time, I strongly believe we need to make structural changes in the NCAA to help make it more relevant and more timely to meet the needs of the 21st century. The NCAA is still grounded in ways from 30 or 40 years ago. But we need a big tent. We don’t want to change the NCAA basketball tournament, we want the revenue distributions to stay the same, we wanted shared governance.
Q. What do you think is the biggest threat right now?
A. Agents. We’ve got a lot to deal with there.
Q. What about having super conferences, culling teams from the “power” five leagues now?
A. You have never seen that idea floated by the NCAA or anybody from any of those leagues. From the media? Yes. ”
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/04/3341918/secs-slive-charlotte-a-new-destination.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
I love how the SEC Network’s offices and studio will be in Charlotte, and not, say, Atlanta.
LikeLike
ESPNU is based in Charlotte. Maybe since ESPN already has infrastructure centered around collge sports already in place there, the ESPN-owner SEC Network will simply be an extension of what is already in place. Basing the SECN in Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, or elsewhere wouod have been more expensive and perhaps have pushed back the launch of the network. The fact that ESPNU’s facilities are less than half a mile from South Carolina, the SEC’s existing footprint, yet in a populous, growing, non-SEC state works out lovely for the SEC, but I doubt the SECN studios would go there without ESPNU already in place.
LikeLike
Actually while the studio is in Charlotte, the marketing division of the SECN will be in Atlanta.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel’s latest bowl projections:
Rose: OSU vs. Stanford
Orange: Wisky vs. Florida State
Cap One: Michigan State vs. Texas A&M
Outback: Michigan vs. Mizzou
Buffalo Wild Wings: Nebraska vs. Okie State
Gator: Minnesota vs. South Carolina
Texas: Iowa vs. Kansas State
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131104/college-football-bowl-projections/?sct=cf_t1t_a1
LikeLike
MSU vs. A&M would be fascinating– that D vs. Manziel.
Wisky vs. FSU could get ugly in a hurry…
LikeLike
Agree on MSU vs. A&M. Seems like that matchup would be a big national TV draw.
I’ll be surprised if Wisky can get into the top 14 of the BCS standings to even be eligible for a BCS at-large slot. They are 24th now and their remaining schedule won’t do them any favors.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how Wisconsin is supposed to get into the Orange Bowl. They probably won’t be ranked high enough to get an at large.
LikeLike
@Andy – I would think that Michigan State has the best chance of getting a 2nd Big Ten BCS bowl slot based on the current rankings, although the presumption is that they’ll lose in the Big Ten Championship Game and BCS bowls generally don’t like taking conference championship game losers. Wisconsin does have an easy schedule the rest of the way along with several teams ahead of them that *have* to lose at some point, so they could plausibly get to #14 in the rankings (although by no means a slam dunk).
LikeLike
Assuming MSU doesn’t lose before the Big Ten Championship game, I think their chances of an At-Large bid following a loss to OSU would be about 50-60%. Depends on how they look, of course.
Easiest way for the B1G to get two teams into the BSC is for OSU to win out in the regular season and then lose the Championship game. A one loss Ohio State is getting an at-large invite.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“Assuming MSU doesn’t lose before the Big Ten Championship game, I think their chances of an At-Large bid following a loss to OSU would be about 50-60%.”
That high? I think they would trail any major AQ with 2 or fewer losses that isn’t from the B10 as well as any 3 loss SEC teams. They currently trail 16 teams in the BCS, and I think they’d all have to lose twice to drop behind MSU except for Fresno. They might also get passed by a 13-0 NIU or an 11-1 UL or UCF.
“Depends on how they look, of course.”
True. I’m assuming a close loss. If it’s a big loss, then even more teams could pass them.
LikeLike
That probably is a little high, but I am assuming that a lot of teams will lose down the stretch, and not just in the obvious games.
The SEC will get two and no more. I think the Big XII will be a one bid league after the round robin shakes out. If the Pac-12 doesn’t get a team in the national championship, I could see them being a one bid league. I pretty much Clemson will pull a Clemson and get upset by a less talented team or two.
Frankly though, I think it will be a moot point because while I expect MSU to end up in Indy, I would be surprised if they don’t lay an egg somewhere and drop a game before then. I think they will win the Legends with a 7-1 conference record. If it plays out like that then Wisconsin has a shot with an OSU win in Indy. Even more unlikely, since the Badgers will be pretty much off the radar from here on out. I don’t see them climbing too high.
LikeLike
Honestly, Florida State is more guilty of “pulling a Clemson” in recent history than Clemson is.
2012: Loss at NC State as #3 team in country
2011: Loss at Wake Forest and at home to Virginia after starting in top 10 and loaded with future NFL players
2010: Loss at NC State, blowout loss at Oklahoma
Clemson lost to South Carolina and Florida State last year, and that’s it.
LikeLike
Fun article about Jesse Owens. Long, but easy story-esque read.
Note the meme about Ohio State and the B1G being too slow has a long tradition. “…I can’t help feeling that Owens is pretty much burned out… the Ohio State boy is far too slow off the marks to do much good …”
🙂
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/longform/peacock/?sct=hp_t11_a2&eref=sihp
LikeLike
So, A&M was feeling the heat from claiming Manzeil was worth $37 million to the University. So a bit of backpedaling, then some fowardpedaling, now the vehicle breaks apart and there is wobbly pedaling in all directions. LOL
http://tracking.si.com/2013/11/05/johnny-manziel-financial-impact/?sct=cf_t2_a2
I think the only thing we learn here is: being an up-and-coming Prince or King is not easy and there will be a learning curve.
LikeLike
Since we’re talking BXII issues, a few tidbits in Forde’s latest “40 Yard Dash”.
Nothing “new” per se, but reinforces issues related to the small Texas schools.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–forde-yard-dash–baylor-oklahoma-stanford-oregon-lsu-alabama-081933781.html
“Baylor’s lack of success over time is manifested in the school’s traditionally small fan base – Floyd Casey has been filled up to or in excess of its listed capacity of 50,000 fans just five times since the stadium opened in 1950. Four of those came against Texas A&M and the fifth against Texas, all games in which fans of the visiting team undoubtedly ate up many of the tickets.
Despite the upturn in program success and the exciting style of play, Baylor home attendance hasn’t even topped 47,000 since 2006. Not even Robert Griffin III’s Heisman Trophy season of 2011 could sell out the joint. Even once.
Baylor is building a new stadium that is set to open next year. But with an enrollment of only 12,575 and a history of empty seats, the school is wisely reducing initial capacity to 45,000.”
Wow, reducing the stadium size. Trend of the future at ALL levels?
LikeLike
Well, Minnesota technically downsized when it left the Metrodome for TCF Bank Stadium in 2009. TCF I believe seats in the low 50’s, but is potentially expandable to 80k+.
Stanford also downsized significantly. Tulane is as well. A phenomenon, but not necessarily recent.
Plus, Baylor’s stadium will be expandable to 55k+ I believe.
LikeLike
I personally felt Minnesota erred in building a 51000 seat stadium…….it sends a message, I think, as to your expectations…….I think they should have at least gone for 60000 or so….
LikeLike
Wainscott & Mushroomgod…
IMHO, The U of Minnesota actually “right-sized” TCF Bank Stadium, based primarily on the fact that there are only so many dollars going around in a sports market with high competition for the public’s dollars.
Right now, the Gophers compete with the Vikings, Timberwolves, and Wild (early season also include the Twins)–all professional teams, as well as with their own popular draws–Gopher hockey and basketball. These do not include other interests/activities (i.e. hunting, concerts, other small college athletics, etc).
Unlike most college markets, Northwestern and the U of Mn are a couple of only a handful of schools that have direct competition from more than one professional sports team in their own backyard. On a given weekend, if all teams were playing at home you’d be looking at 63K for Vikes, 51K for Gopher FB, ~18K each for Wild and T’wolves, 10K for Gopher hockey, ~14K for Gopher BB. That’s potentially 174,000 tickets.
The gopher’s stadium currently seats 50,805, but is expandable to 80,000 seats. The Vikings will be using TCF Bank Stadium for at least 2 seasons (starting 2014) to host professional games while their new monstrosity is built. As part of doing that, the Vikings will install heating coils under TCF’s turf, and are looking into expanding seating on the open end of the stadium–exact numbers and whether permanent is not known at this time. (the Metrodome seats around 63-64K)
LikeLike
One man’s “downsized” is another man’s “right sized”.
But yes, Minny did the right thing there, building 51k-ish seats, but making provisions for expanding the stadium if/when the need arises.
More schools building new stadiums should follow that example.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau – I definitely think it’s a trend for both college and pro sports. Just look at the newer MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL stadiums – outside of the gargantuan Jerry World, they’re generally “right-sized” and shy away from massive total capacities on paper. However, they all definitely have a lot more high dollar corporate/donor suites. That’s the real (if not only) focus of any new stadium project these days – when someone says that a stadium is “outdated”, that’s a code word for saying, “We need more suites.” (See Seattle and Key Arena, the fact that there isn’t an NFL team in LA, and the discussions about a new Falcons stadium in Atlanta that would have a lower capacity than the Georgia Dome.)
LikeLike
Though the new Soldier Field downsized a little too much… No excuse for it to seat only 62k and change (except architecturally, maybe). The Bears could easily sell out at 70-75k.
LikeLike
The Soldier Field problem was they decided to renovate the existing facility, instead of starting over. And its controlled by the Chicago park district.
LikeLike
And pretty much all the baseball stadiums have lower capacity than their predecessors.
Texas used to have the philosophy that they wanted a stadium big enough to hold all but the very largest crowds. Vince Dooley at Georgia, on the other hand, didn’t want to expand until they could consistently sell out the existing stadium.
I think the trend is to view creating scarcity (the Georgia philosophy) in order to maximize prices as the way to go. As if there haven’t been enough price increases, expect more.
LikeLike
Well, the NFL discourages large venues because of their terrible blackout policy, and the new MLB stadiums eschew double decks for a more scenic view.
LikeLike
The NFL doesn’t discourage larger stadiums, its each team’s decision.
LikeLike
Surprised Texas chose Patterson over Luck. Would be interesting to know how that all went down.
LikeLike
Patterson has huge (state of) Texas connections, but with how much Luck’s name was floated to the media and considered a done deal, I have to wonder if there wasn’t a late deal breaker.
LikeLike
One site said Patterson impressed them with his marketing experience.
LikeLike
I hope UT doesn’t follow asu’s new FB helmet/hollowed out bowling ball idea…
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on-college-football/23932719/photos-arizona-states-new-helmets-are-on-fire
LikeLike
Do not forget the “Starship Enterprise” version of Sun Devil Stadium that they want to construct at Tempe. I am no artist or architect, but that might be the worst design I have ever seen for a Major College/Professional facility I ever saw. Did I fail to mention it costs more than the Upgrades at Washington or Cal Berkeley?
LikeLike
Can’t imagine Texas doing that. Longhorn is a classic.
Miami U’s new-fangled helmets aren’t bad as these things go. I still like their old one better. They’re playing on ESPNU tonight. Helmets aren’t helping.
LikeLike
And keeping with the creating scarcity thought elsewhere in these threads, “Sun Devil’s capacity could also be reduced from its current 71,706 seats down to somewhere between 55,000 and 65,000.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/09/17/arizona-state-football-could-stay-and.html?page=all
LikeLike
Its official now-Patterson.
LikeLike
Luck’s name wasn’t just being floated around by the media, his name was being thrown around on all of their message boards. Just about all of their supposed insiders and board mods were saying Luck was going to be announced after the WV game. I kind of took it with a grain of salt since true insiders don’t start blabbing on message boards. And why board mods like Chip Brown would be making specific claims like Luck was going to be hired after the WV game is beyond me. All that kind of stuff does is getting the fan base all worked up about one guy, and then they get disappointed when they don’t get what they want. It’s not fair to the people getting interviewed, nor to the fan base.
LikeLike
UT’s disinformation mouthpiece spreading inaccurate information?
Shocking!
LikeLike
MHver3 is back-peddling like a hall of fame cornerback right now.
To paraphrase, he’s not wrong, but rather, something changed between his November 4th prediction of Luck and just now.
LOL.
Also, apparently The Dude has actually deleted his twitter account.
LikeLike
Yeah, about a week ago The Dude got in some be Twitter war some of the other WV bloggers, was replaced by MHver3 at Sports Man Cave and then deleted his Twitter account.
Too bad really since he was pretty entertaining.
LikeLike
Actually, it looks like he just started a new account under his real name.
LikeLike
Marketing? Trying to separate himself from “the Dude”?
I thought it was funny to look up MHVer3 on twitter and find “The Dude of WV twitter” as the 2nd entry.
LikeLike
correction-to look it up on google.
LikeLike
In view of the discussion above about stadium sizes, interesting to note the two finalists for the Texas AD job had pro experience and both were relatively new to the college AD position they were in (WVU and ASU).
Luck was GM of the Houston Dynamo and was head of the Houston Sports Authority that built Reliant Stadium, Toyota Center and Minute Maid Park. He left before it happened, but he got consideration of the idea of Dynamo Stadium east of downtown. It finally got approved shortly after he left the Dynamo.
Patterson was GM of the Aeros, Rockets, Trail Blazers and VP of the Texans.
Both undoubtedly knew the movers and shakers at UT. Both had law degrees from Texas.
LikeLike
Maryland’s symposium on B1G membership is online now.
http://lecture.umd.edu/detsmediasite/Play/9cad175eee53456a8ff51eed9127e9871d
LikeLike
They cut out after an hour in. If any listened or saw the second hour please share some of the highlights.
LikeLike
http://povichcenter.org/
Full thing is up here. One of the panelists (Tom McMillen?) totally ripped into Jim Delany about 30 minutes in.
LikeLike
I think he said what he said in a very thoughtful and respectful manner. He’s an iumpressive guy. In my mind, much more impressive than the president of the U, from what I’ve seen of him.
At the end, Delaney in effect said that MD is on the hook for whatever it loses in the lawsuit…no Big 10 assistance there……..I thought that was interesting.
No specific discussion at all about the #s which have been projected or the exact deal MD got v. what NEB or Rutgers got……it was mostly a lovefest….there were two lightweight sports journalist types on the panel, from whom you might have expected more inquiry. There were a 1000 good questions there that weren’t asked………
LikeLike
newspaper article on the Maryland symposium.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-05/sports/bs-sp-maryland-big-ten-1106-20131105_1_big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-university-president-wallace-loh
LikeLike
“Delany agreed that the process wasn’t ideal but said the conference had to move swiftly and quietly because several other institutions were seeking the same spot.”
Quote from the article linked above. Quite the interesting public admission by Delany there…
LikeLike
Other institutions being….who? Be interesting to someday learn how serious (or close) other institutions were to being offered instead of Maryland.
LikeLike
Let the speculation begin!
I assume that some of them are Vandy, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Virginia, based on the reports from April that the Big Ten researched those schools, and the news accounts from April detailing the process for the ACC signing the GoR, which included an in-person Swofford presentation in Charlottsville. It could also include SEC schools like Mizzou and…Kentucky!
But absent injecting Delany with truth serum, or hacking into B1G computers, the true identity shall not be known for a long time.
LikeLike
My wild, uninformed speculation aside, If I had to venture a serious guess as to the next school on the list, it would have been UVa, for its DC market presence and academics (though without UMd, UVa would technically not be in a state contiguous with the B1G footprint).
LikeLike
Given that President Cunningham of Texas just wrote a book 13 years after retiring as Chancellor, I’d say we won’t see a book until the GORs start expiring and realignment talk among the P5 gets serious again. (His book, “The Texas Way,” was about his time at Texas, primarily the 15 years as president or Chancellor-4 of the 32 chapters cover athletics-1 the demise of the SWC and formation of the Big 12). New AD Patterson was a student in the business school while Cunningham was a professor there.
The Dude is promising a book. Given how quickly his promised articles came out, I would guess his book, if it ever gets finished, comes out about the time the GORs start expiring as well.
LikeLike
I don’t mind if it takes 15-20 years. I’m in no rush. Just hope to read about all of the intrigue and insights someday. I’m just curious if it was something close or a reference to a school like UCONN saying,” Throw us a lifeline, please!”
LikeLike
The Dude’s book will be the autobiographical version of “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.”
LikeLike
Delany is also clever in the way he phrases things.
Saying “several other institutions were seeking the same spot” is the equivalent of saying “let me know soon since I have several other interested buyers.”
How many millions of car salesmen and real estate agents have used the same?
And Delany is not lying. The other institutions were/are: UConn, Cincy, (then) Louisville, FSU, KS, KState, OKLA, OKState, etc. etc. I am sure, in one oblique back-channel way or other, dozens of institutions raised the question of joining the B1G.
LikeLike
oh, I mean to add. I doubt UVa was one of the other schools seeking the same spot. If they had been, I suspect UVa would be in and Rutgers would still be waiting. Or that the B1G would have gone to 15.
Despite many doubters, UVa will be a big “get” for the B1G.
LikeLike
Delany isn’t quoted about other institutions, so I’d be very careful believing what was said.
LikeLike
http://povichcenter.org/povich-symposium-a-b1g-hit/
Here’s another summary.
According to this: “Delany agreed, and then gave a little more background on why the secrecy was necessary.
Maryland was one of four schools the conference was looking to include and instead of putting the names out there, the Big Ten decided to be tight-lipped about it, so the schools not chosen wouldn’t have to deal with that media frenzy.”
Hmm…..
LikeLike
Oh, I think Rutgers was the preferred #14, to be paired with UMd or UVa (or those other unnamed schools), precisely for the NYC region media market potential.
I firmly believe that the B1G and Fox (BTN) wanted to enter NYC and saw Rutgers as the best (if flawed) way to do that, but that Rutgers’ flaws are sufficient that it could not be the primary reason to expand (for if it was, Rutgers would have been invited around the time PSU was, or shortly thereafter).
Hence, UMd (for DC) and Rutgers (for NYC).
I also think that Rutgers knew this, and would do whatever the conference wanted as to timing, which is why UMd was announced first (bigger catch) and agreed to have its own announcement the very next day (an interesting/curious PR choice, since the sports world was very much abuzz about UMd).
Just my interpretation as to how things went down.
LikeLike
another link. http://storify.com/danieljtgallen then click on Symposium link. It does not seem to link properly otherwise. It’s a twitter style “report.”
some interesting things:
“Crowd boos Jim Delany because he went to North Carolina then everyone laughs because WHO KNOWS WHAT TO THINK NOW.”
Love this quote.
“Van Pelt said Maryland was seen as the “Yankee school” by the men on Tobacco Road. The Big 10 saw us as the pretty girl at the dance.”
That certainly comports with many comments here about how Maryland has become a northern-culture-type school. Also reinforced the idea that folks in Carolina have a strong sense of southern cultural.
Basketball related:
“Delaney says he’s looking to rotate the #B1G BB tourneys east because “we live in the east now.””
LikeLike
LOL at the adorable Terp kid in his Terp Halloween costume. See, there are some good things about this addition.
(Yeah, I have too much time on my hands today. Waiting for my 2 o’clock conference call to begin; it’s almost 3).
LikeLike
More:
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/blogs/terrapin_trail/article_aea2934c-468a-11e3-8fc2-0019bb30f31a.html
Liked these:
“Delany on the Big Ten’s footprint and the opportunities it presents for schools, teams and athletes:
I think if you could play in a conference that has the statdia that we have. We’re No. 1 in the country in attendance in basketball for 37 years. [You] get a chance to play in the Big House, in the Horsehoe, at Penn State, I think it very much matters when you look at the television arrangements, the bowl arrangements, the Rose Bowl, bowls in Florida, bowls in California. You can play in Chicago, you can play in Indianapolis, you can play at the Garden, you can play at Barclays, you can play here. I think the footprint is a very powerful footprint. I think the academic footprint is powerful. I think the attendance footprint is powerful. I think the BTN footprint is powerful, so yeah, I think it really matters.
And Delany on the idea that his pronouncement that he was looking for a 12th team a few years ago kicked off this latest round of realignment:
That’s the narrative some people have written. I look at what you saw Arkansas and South Carolina go to the SEC in the ’90s, you saw Penn State go to the Big Ten in the ’90s, you saw Arizona and Arizona State go to the Pac-12 in the ’70s. You saw the Big East formed out of whole cloth. So I think it’s maybe a little overstated to say that when we went from 11 to 12 it started moving for everybody? I’d say it started a little before that. What about when the Big 8 took four institutions from the Southwest Conference? Who’s to say what stared the movement to more scale? Who’s to say what pushed institutions and conferences into a second region? I think it’s hard to say that Nebraska coming to the Big Ten by itself. I think it was more representative of something that was happening and clearly we got stronger and we got stronger with Nebraska. Maybe others felt they needed to counteract that strength, but I don’t think that triggered what other people did, didn’t trigger what other people did and I think you have to be responsible for what you do and I think we tried to be responsible with that.”
LikeLike
finally, coverage in the Wash.Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/11/05/dispatches-from-the-shirley-povich-symposium-on-marylands-big-ten-move/
LikeLike
@ wainscot: very plausible scenario re: Rutgers and Maryland. Like others, would love to know all the details.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“oh, I mean to add. I doubt UVa was one of the other schools seeking the same spot. If they had been, I suspect UVa would be in and Rutgers would still be waiting. Or that the B1G would have gone to 15.”
15 makes no sense. You need an even number once you get to 12+.
LikeLike
Well if you are going to root causes for realignment, you probably blame Johnny Unitas. That Colt OT win over the Giants dramatically increased the popularity of pro football. Then you could blame Lamar Hunt and Weeb Eubank for starting the AFL, putting the Texans, Cowboys and Oilers in Texas and signing Willie Joe. Or you could blame OU and UGA for suing the NCAA and breaking their TV monopoly. Or you could jointly blame the Big 10 and Pac 10 for moving out of the CFA TV alliance. But the Big 10 taking Penn St. triggered all the realignment that occurred up to and including the formation of the Big 12 (and some of the following aftershocks in minor conferences). And the Big 10 taking Nebraska and talking about more triggered ACC and SEC expansion that wouldn’t have happened otherwise and certainly got the Pac 10 to act quickly.
LikeLike
I blame John Heisman. “It was he who got the forward pass legalized, he who originated the hidden-ball trick, he who introduced the center snap and he who invented the scoreboard, which listed downs, yards to go and other data.” And hung 222 on Cumberland.
LikeLike
Other schools that wanted to be in the B10:
Probably all of the B12 schools north of TX.
All of the old BE schools.
FSU & Miami.
Possibly GTech.
Not Vandy.
LikeLike
I blame Amos Alonzo Stagg, who had the gall–no, the temerity–to introduce football in the mid west and to build the first real football power based somewhere other than the northeast.
LikeLike
That was an enjoyable discussion and some of my more negative views on Delany changed – he’s quite a formidable debater and man he can be tough. McMillen’s civil discourse, despite his initial feelings about the BIG move, was a breath of fresh air and proof that one can disagree with grace. All the panelists were well-spoken, reflective and respectful towards each other.
LikeLike
“Maryland, for a long time, was considered the “Yankee” school by the men on Tobacco Road,”
This quote by SVP should be pasted at the campuses of Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College (and I would also say Notre Dame, but they couldn’t care less).
LikeLike
“Maryland, for a long time, was considered the “Yankee” school by the men on Tobacco Road,”
This quote by SVP should be pasted at the campuses of Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College (and I would also say Notre Dame, but they couldn’t care less).
So… Maryland isn’t going to be considered an “east coast outsider” school by the “men in Chicago?”
When I lived in Indiana not very long ago, I met plenty of people who still who didn’t like the addition of Penn State, which had been in the league for 15+ years at the time and been announced to join nearly 20 years earlier.
Does SVP not think Maryland and Rutgers aren’t going to be treated as outsiders even more in the Big Ten than they were as founding members of the ACC?
In fairness, I think this outsider treatment towards new members isn’t unique to the Big Ten. LOTS of old-school ACC people still don’t like the additions of Miami, Syracuse, BC, etc. Some even complain about Florida State during their 22nd year in the league! I’m sure the same attitude persists in SEC country, especially towards Missouri. I have no idea about Pac-12 people.
LikeLike
Fans of the Arizona schools complain to this day that they are treated like the new kid in school and they joined in 1978…
LikeLike
Well, until Colorado and Utah, they were. 🙂
LikeLike
They are by the Pac12 refs…
LikeLike
@Michael, some schools have been very welcoming of Missouri. Georgia and Florida, for instance, have been very friendly, as has Vanderbilt. Kentucky and LSU too. Tennessee and Arkansas have been less friendly for some reason. And Alabama has been pretty arrogant, but that’s expected I suppose.
LikeLike
Out of genuine wonder, what do you mean when you say schools have been welcoming or not to Mizzou? Can you give examples? I don’t doubt what you say, just want to know what it means.
LikeLike
Means some fans are hostile to Missouri and some aren’t.
Some say welcome to the SEC, others say you don’t belong here.
LikeLike
Wainscott – Mizzou was selected to play in the Independence Bowl during its last season in the Big XII. LSU bought billboards all around the Shreveport area welcoming Mizzou to the SEC. Also, I believe LSU also sent out e-mails to its season ticket holders in North Louisiana urging them to purchase tickets and support Mizzou in their game against North Carolina.
LikeLike
It looks like the Houston Astrodome is in serious jeopardy of being torn down. Voters there rejected a proposal to give that building a new life.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/referendum-to-renovate-astrodome-voted-down?ymd=20131106&content_id=63716326&vkey=news_mlb
LikeLike
I hope they figure something out. They can’t just let it continue to deteriorate and drain money.
LikeLike
It might have been solved long ago, but the Houston Livestock Show and the Texans want it torn down to use for parking. They’ve opposed most of the proposals-anything that might even slightly inconvenience them.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/ncaa-church-league-game-disqualifies-centennial-gr/nbjBR/
Its cases like this that makes me think the NCAA should just be burned down and they should start over. They let serious cases slide (see Cam Newton), go out of their way to dispose of Manzell’s problem, but rule a Colgate basketball player ineligible because he played 3 games in a church league following his two year mission trip. This after they had to reverse a similar ruling against an ex-marine who played intramurals while in the service because of a public outcry. The NCAA is politically correct. I guess they don’t like the military or Mormons or religious students.
They don’t even seem to understand its broken. Commissioner Banowsky tried to explain away the differences in penalties by the fact that different committees issued the penalties. Miami slides on one of the worst, most embarrassing cases since SMU. NCAA doesn’t even look at UNC’s academic fraud that continued over a decade. Georgia Tech gets nailed to the wall because they ticked off the NCAA while investigating one player getting $300 worth of clothes from an agent (which he returned after never wearing). Ohio St. got much the same treatment as Miami for a case not much worse than GT’s except that the coach lied to the NCAA.
LikeLike
No dount they are political and cowardly in the extreme/ Their bullying of PSU was despicable. They were easy on OSU and UNC, but jumped all over Indiana when IU admitted the telephone calls and cooperated. Problem is, without subpeona power (which I don’t think you want them to have), they have difficulties with something like the Cam Newton situation. But….they seem to use that excuse to avoid taking on the UKs and Auburns of the world.
That all said, I can’t imagine how, if the NCAA was replaced, you’d end up with a better, cleaner situation. With all the complaining about the NCAA, I’ve yet to see a workable alternative proposed. If the NCAA was disbanded, at best you’d still end up with some enforcement mechanism that looked and worked just like the NCAA……,
LikeLike
I will add this……I knew the NCAA was in trouble when Piles Brand took over and started going after schools’ mascot and nicknames. He was a politically correct opportunist from the word go.That was a signal that the academic rot and political correctness that have infested the campuses had made its way into NCAA…..thus, the handling of the PSU matter. It’s similiar though to the situation with our current president. As corrupt and worthless as he is, he is merely a reflection of the system he serves. If you want the NCAA to be better, you have to have more courageous presidents, and that’s not happening.
LikeLike
“The NCAA is politically correct. I guess they don’t like the military or Mormons or religious students.”
I completely disagree. The marine appealed and quickly (quickly was the surprise) won eligibility reinstatement. He was back practicing a few days after that story broke. What is the alternative? Allow all the AAU basketball leagues to be non counting redshirt years, unless the NCAA investigates and rules against them individually? Watch power schools boosters set up “tryout/development” FB leagues? It is simply a good rule that is an easy target when applied in obvious extreme examples, and one that many have appealed and been reinstated to far less media attention.
LikeLike
They didn’t get the marine back in until it hit the press. The player at Colgate has already appealed. They are now in the 2nd appeal. These things shouldn’t have to go even to appeal. Whether you agree with the Penn St. decision or not, its clear the publicity drove their efforts. Montana took over a year and they got a minor slap on the wrist. Montana doesn’t generate much press, even if its multiple rapes by players being protected by the coaching staff.
As for Cam Newton, they had to twist the rule to make him eligible. His father shopped him around. That was an indisputable fact. They managed to find a loophole that his father wasn’t representing him. Now Manzell would have been hard to prove. But they sure turned that around quickly. They didn’t want people talking about it during the football season while they investigated a Heisman Trophy winner. UK’s player who played in Turkey took an extended period to resolve. Miami took what, 4 years? There are a number of no-name players that get shafted by the transfer rules.
LikeLike
I’m not disagreeing about the need to reform/standardize the enforcement process. Similar violations should not become apples to lichen in results. But there are eligibility rules, and a process to address these situations. The alternative is either abandon eligibility rules, or limit them which opens the process to finding loopholes. That these situations are rare draws greater attention, and indicates the rule is not that hard for most to understand and follow.
LikeLike
I think the NCAA is a raging dumpster fire, but I agree with @ccrider55 that this rule is straightforward for most people. It has a pretty obvious and logical purpose.
What’s broken is the rule for evaluating the exceptions. Whenever there’s a case like this, the NCAA looks foolish, something it does with distressing regularity.
People sometimes forget that the schools chose to operate this way. They could strip the NCAA of its power anytime they wanted.
LikeLike
While true, with bureaucratic inertia (and a lot of other things), sometimes its just best to start from scratch.
LikeLike
I’d love to see the NCAA denuded, but it would require some kind of existential threat, not merely a stupid ruling against a Patriot League basketball player (which has since been reversed).
The university presidents, practically down to the last one, see the NCAA as a useful institution that mostly works. Even the presidents who are agitating for change (those from the P5 leagues), are seeking, at most, to create a new division within the existing structure.
LikeLike
USA Today’s annual coaches’ salaries report.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/salaries/ncaaf/coach/
Over $5 million per year.
1. Bama – Nick Saban
2. Texas – Mack Brown
3. Arkansas – Brett Bielema
Over $4 million per year
4. Tennessee – Butch Jones
5. Oklahoma – Bob Stoops
6. Ohio State – Urban Meyer
7. LSU – Les Miles
8. Michigan – Brady Hoke
17 coaches make more than $3 million per year
50 coaches make more than $2 million per year
70 coaches make more than $1 million per year
Temple, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Stanford, BYU, and Tulane did not report.
LikeLike
Bielema’s salary for this year is more like 3.2 million. I believe the 5 million number includes money Arkansas paid to cover the buyout from Wisconsin and some other fee. Still way overpaid though.
LikeLike
OU/UCLA H&H in ’18-’19.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9935612/oklahoma-sooners-ucla-bruins-announce-games-2018-2019
LikeLike
OU had a home and home scheduled with LSU for 18 & 19 and asked LSU if they could re-schedule for sometime in the 20s.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9937244/texas-aggies-no-desire-play-texas-longhorns
FWIW, TAMU has no interest in playing UT according to ESPN.
“We hope to play them again in a BCS bowl or playoff game at some point,” Texas A&M senior associate athletic director Jason Cook told ESPN on Wednesday.
LikeLike
That’s a shame. Non-conference annual rivalries are completely doable. All the in-state ACC-SEC rivals make it work. ND vs. USC, Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford. Etc.
I hope Pitt-WVU and Mizzou-KU return. Pitt-WVU is most likely because neither side really begrudges the other for leaving the Big East, while others have lingering hurt feelings.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, Texas already said that it has no interest in playing A&M. If A&M doesn’t say the same, they look like the weak sister.
Non-conference annual rivalries are completely doable.
I think Texas wants to schedule a high-visibility OOC game every year, and with 9 league games, they’d have a tough time doing that if A&M were always on the schedule. With 4 Texas teams in the Big XII, they hardly need more exposure in their home state.
A&M would have a similar issue if, as seems likely, the SEC goes to 9 games.
LikeLike
Dodds original comment was that UT’s schedule was filled up for the next 10 years. He has recently said that Texas and Texas A&M should play each other. But I don’t see it ever becoming an every year deal with 9 game conference schedules.
LikeLike
Michael:
That’s really the rub. If you visit the fan boards of either TAM or Texas, you will find thread after thread declaring that those other guys just can’t get over us. One of the proofs of that statement is that they keep posting thread after thread about us on their boards. They also keep showing up on the other guy’s board talking smack. They are like two exes bitter over the divorce.
It’s kind of sad, actually. But then breakups, even in college athletics, are seldom amicable.
LikeLike
Texas has nobody to blame but itself.
LikeLike
Look at it this way, having Chris Christie walk around in his RUTGERS shirt is like advertising on the Goodyear…..um……anyway. If he becomes President interest in Rutgers could skyrocket and Delaney will look like a genius. Could a Wellesley add be far behind?
LikeLike
Well, his own Delaware Fightin’ Blue Hens are (inexplicably, in my view) still in FCS, so Rutgers it is.
LikeLike
He was campaigning at a tailgate party.
LikeLike
Should not conferences consider contraction rather than expansion. Looking at the B12 map, if they were to dump ISU and WVU, they would have a compact eight team conference that would be reasonably culturally homogeneous (not so much KS and TX). Travel costs and times would be reduced, and they could play a seven-game round robin to determine the conference championship. They would have five non conference games: two could be big boy games (home and away) and three little boy games (home, home, home). So each B12 team would have either seven or eight home games each year.
There might be some TV revenue loss, but there would be fewer teams to share it. And just how attractive are ISU and WVU anyway? Depending on who the non conference teams were, revenues might go up.
Many years ago, there were many eight-team conferences–the PAC 8, the Big 8, and even once the B1G. The fact that all of them finally expanded probably indicates the idea is a nonstarter, but one wonders.
Are 16, 18 or 20 team conferences really desirable? Do they really make more money per team? Do travel times and costs off-set added revenues? Are they even stable, when many members have no common history or culture?
Instead of P4 or P5 conferences, why not P8 or P9, each eight teams? There would be room for a pseudo conference of independents, and plenty of scheduling opportunities.
Just saying.
LikeLike
1) Contraction in the modern era would be perceived by networks/other conferences as a tremendous sign of weakness/instability, and would only hasten the end of the B12.
2) 8 team conferences are a relic of a bygone era. Today, conference games are what makes the most money for teams. And for the B1G, SEC, and PAC 12, more does equal more money through TV networks.
3) Each conference has only a handful of perennial powers, and the other schools would be loathe to vote to kick out a longstanding member for fear they would one day be on the receiving end of such a vote. Why would, say, Kansas State want to boot ISU, when historically, its success under Bill Snyder is a fluke and they could very well be on the receiving end of such a vote one day. Same with Purdue/NW/Minny in the B1G, or Miss St/Arkansas in the SEC, or Wash St/Oregon St/ASU in the Pac 12.
LikeLike
Excellent questions. Here’s my take on it.
Eight team conferences are seldom stable. They almost always expand eventually to either nine or ten teams.
I suspect that if there were no CCG’s, ten would be the sweet spot since that allows everyone to play everyone else round robin and still have three OOC games to work with. That’s not many, but definitely workable. The beautiful thing about a round robin is that everyone plays everyone else and you all feel like you are part of the league. The sense of community is strong. Conferences with ten or fewer members seldom split up.
However, with twelve members leagues are allowed a CCG. That makes twelve awfully tempting, money-wise. But once you expand to 12, the first seeds of destruction are sown.
You can no longer play everybody else in the league. If you did, your entire schedule but one game would be eaten up by league play. So the 12 member leagues generally split into divisions, but once you do that, you play some of the teams only every other year. That starts eroding the sense of community that came from the old round-robin. Plus, with a larger league, it becomes harder for commonality of interest and purpose to be maintained. The members different agendas start fraying at the fabric of the league.
Expanding to 14 only makes these issues worse. With 14 you have no choice but to go into a division setup. The community building round-robin is a thing of the past. If you expand to 16, these issues worsen and your OOC games again drop to only one a year. What about all your traditional non-conference rivalries? They go bye-bye. You don’t control your schedule, the league does. The only way a league can allow you more OOC games is if they start juggling your schedule where you end up only playing some teams in the conference every four years or even more than that. Where’s the sense of community in that?
On paper, it works, but the sense of community from the original league has now been severely weakened. At this point there is little holding the league together beyond money — and there is always a better deal somewhere else, especially for the conference Haves. It doesn’t take much to split the league split apart.
So the upshot of all this is I really don’t think super-conferences are going to work. They have too many inherent problems to remain stable for long.
LikeLike
I agree with most of your points, but I’m not certain that a 14 team conference is doomed to fail. I think that 16 is definitely the max in terms of fostering community and maximizing financial benefits, but that even at 16, its hard to maintain non-divisional rivalries. IMHO, 18+ team conferences will be doomed to eventual failure.
I also think the NCAA will in the next few years approve a 13th game, allowing conferences to go to 10 games, while still leaving room for teams to have 2 more home games and 1 marquee non-conference game. The 13th game will also serve as a vehicle for presidents to make further expansion of the playoffs difficult/impossible.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I agree. That’s why I’ve long been skeptical of the “master of the universe”-type expansion plans where the Big Ten and others go up to 18 to 20 schools. 16 is the realistic maximum where you can play all of the schools within your own division plus play the schools in the other division frequently enough to at least feel like there’s still a cohesive unit. An 18-team league, on the other hand, is really 2 separate 9-team conferences with a single brand name.
At the same time, the notion of 10-team conferences being fashionable again is probably about as quaint as saying that World Series games need to be played on weekday afternoons again. Round robin scheduling is certainly popular with coaches and fans, but the academic and business interests that run college sports consider that a minor micro-level point when there’s a macro-level consolidation of power into the hands of fewer conferences. The Big 12 can get away with the 10-team league in the short-term since the value of every school playing both Texas and Oklahoma every year still outweighs the value of the realistic additions, but all of the other power conferences wouldn’t benefit from getting rid of the geographic, market and demographic depth that even their weakest members provide. As bad as Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota have been in football, for example, they still bring populous states and markets that Michigan and Ohio State wouldn’t otherwise be able to monetize. The SEC has very clearly benefited from their divisional play when it comes to producing national championship contenders and games involving highly-ranked teams on a week-in and week-out basis. Even if the ACC was raided of many of its best assets like UNC and UVA, the off-the-field value of schools like Syracuse and BC punch above their on-the-field weight because of the markets that they represent.
So, there’s definitely value in depth, particularly in college football where the system is set up where playoff teams essentially can only have one loss at the most in the majority of seasons. Bottom feeders inherently need to exist in college football – it’s just that the strongest conferences have bottom feeders that provide something else (i.e. marquee basketball program, large market, top recruiting area, elite academics, etc.) to compensate. This isn’t the NFL where parity is generally looked at as a positive attribute when it comes to TV viewership – college football *needs* an elite class of programs, and that means you can’t just contract all non-elite programs (as then the elite programs are no longer elite anymore).
LikeLike
Agree, and I only see the B1G going to 18 if, after expanding to 16, Notre Dame says “we want in.” Otherwise, I think 16 is as far as the B1G (and SEC and Pac) will go.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely wrong about the SEC. The relatively limited matchups between their top programs means they have a lot of clunkers to go along with the occasional blockbuster. That’s one of the reasons they are looking at 9. TV is pushing them.
Alabama gets lousy ratings against bottom conference foes considering how successful they have been (AL had a 4.2 average but only 2.8 median last year on CBS/ABC/ESPN-Ohio State only had 3.1 average, but a 3.0 median-Texas with a mediocre team had a 2.8 average and a 2.9 median on its Saturday games). And the bottom half of the SEC has been unusually weak the two preceding years, enabling a lot of 1-2 loss teams. When that ends (and it seems to be starting this year), the lack of cross-division traditional matchups will hurt them more.
The SEC needs Alabama-Georgia, Alabama-Florida, LSU-Georgia, Auburn-Florida, LSU-Tennessee more than once every 7 years.
LikeLike
The sense of community/cohesiveness of 14+ school leagues would be greatly enhanced by eliminating divisions. For example a 14 school league with an 8 game schedule could decide to protect 3 rivalries per school and schedule 1/2 of the 10 remaining conference schools every year. Every school plays every other school twice while visiting once every four years. This formula works for 15, 16 or 17 school conferences too – a 17 school conference could protect 2 rivalries and use a 9 game schedule to achieve the same result.
While divisions with round robin play within them are currently required in order to stage a conference championship game, will this always be the case? Perhaps the rumored Division 4 would scrap this rule? Will there be a monetary incentive to do this? Maybe the TV networks would apply some pressure as such a change would allow for marquee matchups like Alabama/Texas A&M vsFlorida/Georgia, Clemson vs Miami, FSU vs VT, ect to occur with much greater frequency? Or perhaps a conference like the B1G has a small window of time to add only one school (Texas, Virginia?) and wants to operate as a 15 school league for some period of time?
LikeLike
@bullet, there’s a simple solution: go to 9 conference games in the SEC, which is what I think is going to happen.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I agree. That’s why I’ve long been skeptical of the “master of the universe”-type expansion plans where the Big Ten and others go up to 18 to 20 schools. 16 is the realistic maximum where you can play all of the schools within your own division plus play the schools in the other division frequently enough to at least feel like there’s still a cohesive unit. An 18-team league, on the other hand, is really 2 separate 9-team conferences with a single brand name.”
This assumes the NCAA remains stuck in the current paradigm in terms of requirements for a CCG. If several power conferences get to 16 or more, I think the odds of a rule change for them are quite good. Then you eliminate divisions, lock 2-3 opponents and rotate the rest.
12 teams with divisions:
5 games in division + 3 rotating games = 5 * 100% + 6 * 50%
14 teams with divisions:
6 games in division + 1-2 rotating games = 6 * 100% + 7 * 14-28%
16 teams with divisions:
7 games in division + 1-2 rotating games = 7 * 100% + 8 * 12.5-25%
16 teams without divisions:
2 locked games + 6-7 rotating games = 2 * 100% + 13 * 46-54%
3 locked games + 5-6 rotating games = 3 * 100% + 12 * 42-50%
18 teams without divisions:
2 locked games + 6-7 rotating games = 2 * 100% + 15 * 40-47%
3 locked games + 5-6 rotating games = 3 * 100% + 14 * 36-43%
20 teams without divisions:
2 locked games + 6-7 rotating games = 2 * 100% + 17 * 35-41%
3 locked games + 5-6 rotating games = 3 * 100% + 16 * 31-38%
Taking 12 teams in divisions as the baseline, 20 teams without divisions would foster better relationships than going to 14 teams with divisions.
LikeLike
I wasn’t a fan of 20 teams at first. I’d prefer 16 max, but 20 is simply far better than 18 for scheduling. 4 Five-Team pods means everyone sees each other in a 3 year period, 6 years to finish a home-home. You could go with a 10 team in-conference schedule, which would then mean establishing 2 permanent rivals that rotate in years the pods match up. Moreover, when pods from the same geographic region match up, travel costs are much lower that year.
Two 10 team divisions would have a ton of potential for a powerful network that would genuinely stay strong and avoid any bundling measures (though I don’t put too much stake in these fears), programming would be more than adequately fulfilled.
The BIG would be a bona fide national conference at that point. Two 10 team divisions would setup some potentially interesting bragging rights trophies and also create passionate regional rivalries from within.
On a much more minor note, the BIG finally makes sense outside of abstract-controversial branding: West BIG (10 teams) and East BIG (10 teams).
LikeLike
I wasn’t a fan of 20 teams at first. I’d prefer 16 max, but 20 is simply far better than 18 for scheduling. 4 Five-Team pods means everyone sees each other in a 3 year period, 6 years to finish a home-home.
That only works if you can come up with pods that make sense. Pick six teams and then try to come up with pods that are attractive, competitively balanced (or at least, not ridiculously unbalanced), don’t screw up any mandatory rivalries nor create any nonsensical ones, and give all the members approximately equal access to “king” games.
Pods seem great in the abstract, but in any actual 20-team scenario we’ve ever discussed, every pod proposal was fatally flawed for one or more of the reasons listed above.
LikeLike
Marc:
Very True. Pods are inherently unstable. Why? I suspect the biggest reason might be strength of schedule. Pods invariably dilute it.
Every league has their conference elites. These are the power players, the top tier. These are the guys all the rest of the conference gear up to play. These are the play-dates that everyone circles on their calendars. These are the guys that all the rest of the teams describe as their “biggest rivals”, even though that’s often news to elite team. These are the teams that when people think of the conference, they immediately think of these teams.
There is no conference in the country — even the vaunted SEC — that has more than a handful of teams in the top tier. By definition, the top tier is highly limited. So when it comes time to divide up the conference into pods, the elites get divided up among the pods. If they didn’t, and they place all the power players in one pod, then the rest of the league is stuck playing nobody but other also-rans three out of every four years.
However, when you divide up the elites among the pods, you dilute their impact. The also-rans now would only play the big boys twice a year. The big boys, in turn, will only be scheduled to play another big boy once a season. That notorious question, “whom did they play?”, looms large. Apathy sets in. Stadiums go unfilled.
Recruiting starts being a problem. Top talent always wants to play other top talent. They want to play with the best against the best. I don’t care how storied your program may be, if you don’t make it a habit of playing other elite teams on a regular basis, you are going to find it harder to attract the blue-chip prospects.
And what happens when in the inevitable cycle of college football a power team has a few years of not so hot performance? In a large conference and/or division, at best one of the also-rans will step up and have a nice run. At worst, the other power teams shoulder the burden for a time. In smaller pods with only one power team in the pod, if the daddy goes South, there is no other power team to take the burden. With smaller numbers of teams in the pod, the odds of one of the lesser teams stepping up is greatly reduced. So the whole pod goes South with the big boy.
This doesn’t even begin to touch the headache of maintaining rivalries which you mentioned. If A rivals B, and B rivals C, it does not follow that A rivals C. “A” might rival D, which doesn’t rival B or C. And what if A and B are both conference elites? The whole thing is a royal mess.
NO PODS!!
LikeLike
But PMark, are you comparing pods with more teams to fixed divisions with fewer, or pods and fixed divisions with the same number of teams? If its the same number of team, then each season you are splitting the conference into two divisions, with some cross division games (the schools in the anchor pods playing each other and the schools in the swing pods playing each other), and the strength of schedule would on average be about the same. It just comes down to whether you’d like to see more schools annually or to have every school host every other school at least once every four year cycle.
For the silly mega-conference lineups where pods are used as the argument how its possible to schedule it at all, if the average number of kings per school is the same, the number of kings each king can play and the number of kings the contenders can play is about the same. The problem is its too damn many schools in the conference to maintain a cohesive identity as a conference.
LikeLike
PMark,
“Very True. Pods are inherently unstable. Why? I suspect the biggest reason might be strength of schedule. Pods invariably dilute it.”
I’d love to see the math to back that statement up.
“So when it comes time to divide up the conference into pods, the elites get divided up among the pods.”
They don’t have to. This undermines your original premise. Pods don’t invariably dilute anything. At most, balanced pods dilute SOS.
“If they didn’t, and they place all the power players in one pod, then the rest of the league is stuck playing nobody but other also-rans three out of every four years.”
There are also the crossover games. Or are you assuming there are none?
“However, when you divide up the elites among the pods, you dilute their impact. The also-rans now would only play the big boys twice a year.”
You’re assuming exactly 1 elite team per pod and no crossover games without ever stating either of those assumptions.
Here’s the problem with that – I guarantee you OSU would play MI every year. That means that either they are both in the same pod (invalidates your first assumption) or they are locked rivals (thus there must be crossover games which invalidates your second assumption).
“The big boys, in turn, will only be scheduled to play another big boy once a season.”
See above. Your math doesn’t work.
“That notorious question, “whom did they play?”, looms large. Apathy sets in. Stadiums go unfilled.”
And then a huge third assumption. Suddenly fans don’t care about seeing any but the top 4 teams? Nobody will show for a WI or MSU or IA game? What’s your basis for that?
LikeLike
The only way I can see 16 member leagues surviving in the long run is if the NCAA went to 13 or more games. But then I have to worry about the student athlete. That is an awful lot of pounding to take. We are already seeing far too many of them getting hurt. More games in a season just makes it that much worse.
It’s a problem, and I don’t know what the solution is.
LikeLike
That’s why 13 games, Presidents think, will prevent more than a 4 team playoff. Because they will argue that 13 games, plus a CCG, plus up to 3 playoff games will be excessive.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
I admire your faith in human nature. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, when there is exorbitant amounts of money involved, we cannot always count upon responsible people to act responsibly. There will be more and more pressure to have more and more games.
I fear for the college athletes.
LikeLike
Its not faith in human nature–its the evidence. Many presidents are on record opposing games in December during finals and games past the first week or so of January.
If the presidents were simply money hungry, there would be an FCS style playoffs, and would have been for quite some time.
I also think we overestimate the amount of times more presidents focus on sports, absent a scandal or conference shift. Its not a big part of their day. So the reluctance to consider something different, combined with the resolute opposition to playing during finals is what I rely on.
LikeLike
The January opposition really makes no sense. Lots of sports cross semester lines and not much happens the 1st week of school. I do think they are serious about not interfering with finals.
The reason they have so opposed a playoff is control over playoff $. They don’t want to share. They also don’t want to diminish what the individual school controls, which is regular season ticket sales and donations. Opposition to a playoff has nothing to do with student well-being. They have expanded post season opportunities in every other sport.
LikeLike
January opposition from presidents seems a little strange, I grant you.
However, fan interest, and especially, fan willingness to travel is less after New Years. Hence the movement back to NYD for the semi’s, and an effort to have the title game a few days later.
LikeLike
Not if CF finally has the balls to contract FBS – way, way, way too many FBS teams. Football’s popularity, field participation, will diminish & become more regionalized at the prep level, albeit the fans will always be there for top tier FBS and the NFL. Time to thin the herd. and make FCS a more interesting media package, on top of FBS.
LikeLike
January opposition from presidents seems a little strange, I grant you.
However, fan interest, and especially, fan willingness to travel is less after New Years. Hence the movement back to NYD for the semi’s, and an effort to have the title game a few days later.
The issue is, if you go to 8 games, when do the quarter-finals take place? If the bowls are the quarter-finals, then you’ve got two additional rounds in January. Where would they take place, and who would attend? Asking the fans to travel three times (quarters, semis, final) might be a big stretch.
That’s why most people think that if you go to 8 games, the quarter-finals need to be on campus. But that means it has to be in December. Of course, that also raises the prospect of a southern team playing in a blizzard in Ohio. I realize the NFL does that, but the expectations for professional players are different.
Not if CF finally has the balls to contract FBS – way, way, way too many FBS teams. Football’s popularity, field participation, will diminish & become more regionalized at the prep level, albeit the fans will always be there for top tier FBS and the NFL. Time to thin the herd. and make FCS a more interesting media package, on top of FBS.
Sorry…I’m not seeing how “thinning the herd” solves that problem. Anyhow, FCS is simply never going to have the TV appeal as FBS, which is why so many teams are in FBS to begin with.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I also think the NCAA will in the next few years approve a 13th game,”
I really doubt this. I could see it being added in double-bye years like 2013, but I don’t think they’ll eliminate the bye week in most seasons. Nor do I think they’ll start the season earlier nor extend it later. Having just gained all this playoff money, the presidents are far from having a viable excuse to do it, especially with all the reports about the dangers of head injuries.
LikeLike
Those schools who play Hawaii in Hawaii are already permitted a 13 game season, so its not unheard of.
I think its probable in the next 5 years, at the behest of the Big Ten and SEC to allow for more conference games. Could be one of the decisions made by the new Division 4.
I don’t disagree that the optics are bad, in that health issues, and monetizing players for an extra game and such, but I think Presidents have the mindset that anything is better than a 8 (or more) team playoff, and 13 games is a way to stop the momentum.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Those schools who play Hawaii in Hawaii are already permitted a 13 game season, so its not unheard of.”
Without that rule, nobody would agree to play at HI. The trip is so expensive that you need another home game to pay for it.
“I think its probable in the next 5 years, at the behest of the Big Ten and SEC to allow for more conference games. Could be one of the decisions made by the new Division 4.”
As I said, I really doubt it. The SEC has been fighting going to 9 games. The B10 won’t go to 9 until 2016. I think you’ll see the presidents stand firm on this, at least for 10+ years. Nothing is forever.
“I don’t disagree that the optics are bad, in that health issues, and monetizing players for an extra game and such, but I think Presidents have the mindset that anything is better than a 8 (or more) team playoff, and 13 games is a way to stop the momentum.”
I think they’d determine that 2 teams playing 2 more games is better than 125 teams playing 1 more game.
LikeLike
That’s a bone thrown to Hawaii as incentive for schools to travel there. Only a few teams/year can get that 13th game, and it usually costs the bye week. Sometimes a well placed bye is worth more than a game.
LikeLike
The SEC teams would gladly take a 13th game, even if not going beyond 9 conf games for the extra cream puff game or prominent non-conf game. I see the B1G being more interested in more conf games to feed the BTN. The SEC might be on board once it has its own network/network partner to make happy.
The justification publically would be to play more conf games, like the justification for 12 was for better non-conf games. What will end up in practice might very well be different.
LikeLike
8 school conferences rarely work because of two reasons:
1) 5 ooc games are tough to schedule in fb and 13 or more are tough to schedule with good RPI in bb
2) you frequently don’t have enough teams in the non-rev sports, especially with schools cutting men’s sports over the years.
There are only 5 9 team bb conferences this year and 2 8 team. And the WAC (9) and Summit (8) are very anxious to add teams, but they are at the bottom of the pecking order in the west. The Big West (9) just lost a member. The Colonial (9) was bigger but lost members and is adding schools next year (its hard to keep track of whether they will be losing as many as they add). The Ivy is the only conference deliberately staying at 8. The America East (9) has lost members and adding UMass-Lowell to get back to 9. The Horizon (9) is rumored to be looking at new members.
LikeLike
And the Ivy League with its big endowment members is a special case as far as meeting the team sports minimum rule, with its members fielding an average of over 35 teams.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Should not conferences consider contraction rather than expansion.”
No. There are all sorts of business reasons why that is a terrible idea. Here are a few:
1. They couldn’t fulfill their current TV deals. There wouldn’t be enough games.
2. With only 7 conference games, filling a schedule would be tough since other conferences are going to 9 games.
3. Conferences need large footprints to have negotiating power with the networks.
4. Size gives power to a certain extent. Would the Sugar Bowl stay a SEC/B12 game if there were only 8 teams in the B12? How many other bowls would shy away from locking them in? Would ABC or Fox spend as much on a 3 state conference that’s half the size of their competitors? Would neutral fans care about such a small conference? Would an 8 team conference get treated the same in the postseason as their12-14 team competitors?
“Many years ago, there were many eight-team conferences–the PAC 8, the Big 8, and even once the B1G. The fact that all of them finally expanded probably indicates the idea is a nonstarter, but one wonders.”
Many years ago, TV money wasn’t important and players traveled by train.
“Are 16, 18 or 20 team conferences really desirable?”
No.
“Do they really make more money per team?”
Well, this is really a chicken and egg question. It all depends on who is in the conference. In the near future, the best paid conferences will have 14, 14 and 12 teams. On the other hand, the 10 team B12 will top the 14 team ACC.
“Do travel times and costs off-set added revenues?”
No.
“Are they even stable, when many members have no common history or culture?”
We’ll find out. My guess is yes, especially due to GORs and large TV deals.
“Instead of P4 or P5 conferences, why not P8 or P9, each eight teams?”
4 or 5 conferences have more leverage when negotiating TV deals than 8 or 9 conferences do. The conference with the largest footprint, the most fans and the best teams has the most leverage. It’s a standard “keeping up with the Jones’s” situation. Once out, it’s almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.
LikeLike
In the near future, the best paid conference (when you factor in bowl and playoff $) will be the 10 team Big 12. The 14 team Big 10 will have to wait until 2017.
LikeLike
I consider 2017 the near future for this discussion.
LikeLike
With the declining attendance at College Football games, this seems implausible, but MSU is the one instance where i believe a major increase in capacity is likely….at MICHIGAN’s expense.
Michigan has always been the golden ticket for the lay-fan, but MSU’s dominance the last 7 years has changed that dynamic. The longer Dantonio/Narduzzi stay at State and Hoke/Borges stay at UM the more State will benefit in (North of Ann Arbor) fan support. Most people like the Spartan Stadium experience better as is. The short term Rodriguez era was bad. A long term Hoke era will be worse. Gotta give credit to Sparty.
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/11/michigan_state_preliminarily_p.html#incart_m-rpt-2
LikeLike
The article says they are planning to decrease capacity by 5,000 seats, in part because of Michigan’s population issues.
All they have is the blueprint if they ever need to expand, but the plan is to decrease.
LikeLike
Um…yeah. Hence the the term ‘Master Plan’ in the headline. Attendance has increased in the last three years and will continue to increase as long as Michigan is down. That”s true, and that’s the point.
LikeLike
That same article talks about how MSU is actually reducing stadium capacity to about 70k. The 90k is a master plan if there is demand.
“After [the north end zone] project is done, MSU actually will turn its attention to reducing Spartan Stadium’s seating capacity. Ianni said the venue’s master plan calls for widening aisles, installing more railings and adding more handicap seating space.
“That’s all part of this as we continue to…make this stadium more fan-friendly,” he told the radio show, adding that the stadium’s capacity will decrease to approximately 70,000. “We seem to be more comfortable with getting to that number, eventually.
“I’m of the opinion now that it’s more important to have most the comfortable stadium you can have—a place people really want to come and enjoy themselves… I’d rather say we have the best stadium in the Big Ten than we have the biggest.”
Spartan Stadium’s seating capacity is the sixth-largest among the Big Ten’s 12 football venues, trailing U-M’s Michigan Stadium (109,901), Penn State’s Beaver Stadium (106,572), Ohio State’s Ohio Stadium (102,329), Nebraska’s Memorial Stadium (91,145) and Wisconsin’s Camp Randall Stadium (80,321).
Ianni said removing 5,000 seats from Spartan Stadium is in line with population changes in Michigan over the past 10 years. Converse to how its adapted to that negative shift, Michigan State could employ its expanded seating plan if the numbers ever add up correctly, Ianni said.
“We’ve got a plan in place at our fingertips that we can jump into, (and it) can go in either direction,” he said.”
LikeLike
Size goes down but prices go up. Long term it is reaching more for the wallets of those who can afford it than appealing to being fan friendly.
LikeLike
Maryland did some astroturfin’ after moving to the Big Ten:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24199088/maryland-used-a-pr-firm-to-sway-fan-opinion-on-big-ten-move
LikeLike
I’m not endorsing what the administration did, but from a Maryland perspective, the timing of the move — just as basketball season was starting — didn’t benefit things. Officials were worried the one-dimensional yahoos of the fan base, obsessed with playing Duke and nothing else, were going to scream bloody murder. Within a month, I think most of the College Park community realized the benefits — academically, athletically, economically — far outweighed the drawbacks.
Oh, and if you remember, I had nothing to do with that campaign. On Nov. 17, I tore a ligament in my right knee, was hospitalized and in rehab for nearly three weeks and had no access to the Internet. Of all times it had to happen…
LikeLike
You generate electricity for Internet access with a bicycle/generator?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
I have been suspecting this for months now & I’m damn sure, albeit no proof, that certain interests in the ACC, Big12 and maybe even more, try do denigrate the BIG through aliases. There are some aliases, I won’t give them specific credit, who continue to drop absurd, ruthless, childish comments towards the BIG.
I’m sure we can all insert a heap of careless, almost anti-American arguments highlighting Rust Belt Economic Damnation-Shrinking Population-Slow, Boring Football-Outrageous Crime Rate comments here.
Blah, f’ing, blah!
These are half truths at most, esp considering the western BIG is not the Rust Belt and states like Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa are doing rather well compared to much of the country. And as far as I know, NO BIG state is actually shrinking in overall population, but yes, certain central cities are still losing people, most often to other parts of the same state. Much of the future eastern half of the BIG, is ahead of the curve on post-industrialization.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean as an American citizen, I don’t want to see Chicago Land, Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, Gary-Hammond, as well as other city-regions turn around. But I think Rust Belt recovery is under appreciated – things will turn around, and I believe parts of Ohio and Pa are bouncing back. I feel the same way about any region of this country still recovering from the housing crash and ongoing de-industrilaization. Admittedly, I’m most concerned about Chicago, and northwest Indiana. I’ve spent too much time in Chicago, ties are too strong, to see this city never recover in certain areas – unacceptable!
LikeLike
Bit sensitive? MSU AD was talking about it. Delaney has talked about it. Every projection shows the Big 10 states growing slower than the nation as a whole.
UVA did a 2040 projection based on the 2010 census. Big 10 drops from 27.2% to 24.1% of US population. Only Iowa is projected to be losing population. But while the US is growing by 23.8%, 4 of the 11 states growing by 10% are less are in the Big 10. The rest are from North Dakota to Massachusetts. Top Big 10 states in projected growth-Maryland (the only one above average) 24.1%, MN 20.4%, WI 14.6%, NJ 13.6%. So 2 of the 4 highest are the recent additions. Nebraska is #6 of the Big 10 states.
LikeLike
Sensitive, yes, but practical as well – urban issues and demography are everyday workday realites for me. Hollis and Delany don’t do my kind of work, nor do they have the training, I can assure you kind sir, no way in hell. When I go to Chicago for business, I don’t sit in an elegant office in Park Ridge contemplating the college sports landscape. I’m assessing brown fields, weighing risk management data, evaluating blight while working w/researchers, non-profits, private-public developers, etc. on long-term development, land use, sustainable infrastructure & energy resources & public health What Hollis and Delany say comes across as excuses galore because BIG football is mediocre on the national leve vis a vis their expansionist plansl. But hey now, it’s been this way much of my life, minus the 90s & very early 2000s. I started watching Rose Bowls in the 70s. I think the BIG won 3 Rose Bowls in the 80s & none that I saw in the 70s. It’s a great league in terms of tradition and very consistent in producing high quality NFL talent, but the college landscape, that is the the rigged, Sun Belt driven bowl system doesn’t help the BIG, though certain changes will make it better for the BIG in the future. It is what it is, an overrated football conference, an underrated basketball conference, and a fine, fine academic group. BIG does fine in many Olympic sports I care about. I like college football, but it’s a ridiculously overrated sport – thank God for the NFL.
Urban issues constantly arise in my field (private planning & public health) & there are a lot of cities, not just in the Rust Belt, that have alarming infrastructure & public health issues. You need to cite your UVa study, I’m not grasping your stats, perhaps your wording. Moreover, there so many factors that can change population trends, for example an unexpected energy shortage, or natural disasters. Moreover, local and regional economies can rebound through the rise of private enterprise, immigration, and government policies that favor corporate environments. I’m sure I’m just wasting my time to tell you to take a drive, if you have the capacity, through cities like Detroit, Hammond, Gary – I’ll be heading to Florida for much of March, where my firm will be evaluating communities that are filled with vacant houses due to the housing crisis – all these places need to be fixed, and quite badly. I spent much of this past July and August doing research in Chicago and consulting Teach For America administrators who annually do hold institute training in Chicago for their prospective teachers, mainly in west and far south side neighborhoods – it was rough & the weekly violence was alarming. I’ve seen worse, but not much outside this country.
LikeLike
Its not Chicago, Indianapolis & Columbus. Its the Andersons, Daytons, Youngstowns along with the rural declines that are going on everywhere, but heavier in the Midwest.
LikeLike
@gfunk – Interesting that you work on urban issues. One of my favorite blogs lately has been Urbanophile (www.urbanophile.com) as it focuses a lot on what has and hasn’t been successful in urban development (with much of it concentrated on Rust Belt cities). While there’s a very clear urbanist bias on the site with some unrealistic positions (i.e. generally believing high speed rail is a panacea for creating so-called mega-regions and the false hope that people will just ditch their cars and not buy larger homes if we change different policies), there are a lot of enlightening and deep economic and demographic reviews of specific cities. Personally, I’m kind of in the middle of the Richard Florida to Joel Kotikin spectrum – I’m definitely a large believer that a strong urban core is critical to the healthiest metro areas, but quality suburban areas complementing that core (or even being a powerhouse itself, such as the case of Silicon Valley) are important on top of them and those two types of communities sitting side-by-side aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’m about to go on a long sleep-deprived tangent that may or may not make sense at this late hour (but I’ve been thinking about these issues for awhile). As many of the longtime readers here have probably figured out, I’m an unabashed Chicagoan – you’ll see me having a much easier time taking criticism of the Big Ten or University of Illinois than any critique about Chicago since I legitimately believe that it’s the greatest city in the world. That being said, I’m sure your experience doing research in the city has exposed how very clearly it is segregated along economic and racial lines. Urbanophile had a post last month that brought up the notion that the segregation is so uniquely stark that it’s easy for “Global Chicago” (the Loop, South Loop, West Loop and almost all of the North Side along with the North and West Suburbs), which has less crime than the nearly crimeless Toronto (save for the crack smoking mayor) and is as economically vibrant, wealthy and well-educated of a region as anywhere in the country, to completely ignore the South and West Sides of Chicago (outside the areas immediately adjacent to the Loop and outliers like Hyde Park) that are as economically depressed as Detroit and have overwhelming gang and criminal activity. Lots of places have that “Tale of Two Cities” dichotomy, but it’s arguably more institutionalized in Chicago than anywhere else. For better or for worse, if you live in Global Chicago, all of those alarmist headlines about Chicago’s murder rate are almost irrelevant since virtually all of that crime takes place in a swath of the city that can easily be avoided and compartmentalized. Chicago isn’t one of those cities where one block is nice and then the next one looks very different – you’re either on a side of the city where it’s nice and safe for miles around or you’re in a completely bad side of town with little in between. (I find that to be different than, say, LA or Miami, where many desirable areas bump up right next to poor areas.)
This extends to the City of Chicago’s population loss over the past decade, which is very different in nature than the urban population losses in other Rust Belt cities. Chicago is actually gaining more affluent professional residents that are living in Global Chicago while the population losses are largely relegated to the poor moving out from the South and West Sides. That is completely flipped from the population losses in other Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo (where they are continuously losing affluent residents from the urban core). That further contributes to the sort of willful blindness of Global Chicago to the other part of the city – Global Chicago is growing both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population of the city, so even an overall population loss is spun into a positive (as the people moving in are wealthy and the people moving out are the “undesirables”). That’s going to mean the political will to address the economic, structural and geographic gap within the city is not going to be strong (if not outright ignored). Advocates of a strong downtown Detroit or Cleveland *have* to address the poverty surrounding them, but if you’re in Global Chicago, you can divorce yourself completely from the South and West Sides. Google and other blue chip corporations can continue to be drawn to the Loop and recent college grads (many from the Big Ten) will still move en masse into Lincoln Park and Lakeview every year without the city ever having to address the crime and education problems outside of the Global Chicago area. It’s an open question as to how long Chicago overall can continue with that approach.
Granted, the mayors of virtually every other Rust Belt city would love to face the “problem” of mass affluenza and gentrification that Global Chicago is seeing as opposed to huge losses of companies and affluent residents. That’s a whole other tangent, so I’ll stop here for now.
LikeLike
@Frank
Unfortunately urbanists dominate the thoughts of leadership in not just Atlanta, but the whole metro area. I fear for its future. They want to put in a bunch light rail (i.e. toy trains that move the same speed as express busses but cost a lot more and eliminate traffic lanes). Worse they aren’t putting them in high density areas, but imagine density will come. They want to create multiuse “town centers” in lots of neighborhoods and the 50 different tiny suburbs, ignoring that scattered employment can’t be served by mass transit and people change jobs frequently these days and moving is very expensive. The arterial road network is one of the worst in the US and they have no plans to do anything about it. Yet they want to create more density with roads that can’t handle the current density assuming 100% of new people will ride mass transit. And that ability of transit to get people to work ranks in the bottom 10 of the top 100 metro areas, despite having the best rail system not on Lake Michigan or the coasts-because of the poor arterial network, limited service to some high employment areas and low density limiting its effectiveness. This Austin blogger did his own density calculation using 2000 census data on the 32 largest metro areas + Austin and Honolulu. Atlanta was a distant 34th at 2,362. KC was 33rd at 3,041. NY was, of course, 1st at 33,092. Chiago #5 10,270. http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2008/03/weighted-densit.html
LikeLike
I dispute your implication re: Hammond. Hammond has done pretty well in NOT becoming Gary. Granted, in the neighborhoods adjacent to Gary, the blight has infected, but overall, Hammond is more like Calumet City (IL), Griffith, Whiting. Hammond has good city managers that shut down drug-infested tenement buildings, tear down bad housing stock, demand reasonably well tended lawns, tow cars without proper registration (even from driveways in the back of houses), etc.
(and no, I am not “the man” working for Hammond. LOL. Just have some good friends there and have some personal experience with Hammond vs. Cal. City vs. Lansing vs. Gary vs. Lake Station vs. Griffith, etc.)
LikeLike
@ FtT. Impressive and dense (in a good way) sleep-deprived post. As far as I am concerned, add more posts about urban planning and economic stratification. Interesting and necessary if you care about the future of America.
Not that anyone needs my personal experiences as verification, I will say that my own personal experiences agree with the idea of Global Chicago vs. the rest. And I agree that GC extends to the west and north suburbs.
If you want to really “see” the difference and actually be able to quantify the difference, just search for a house. You can buy a house in Gary, Indiana today for $3,000. I am not kidding. There are hundreds of houses in Gary for less than $10,000.
On the south and west sides of Chicago, hundreds of houses and apartment buildings for $30,000 or less.
By contrast, NOTHING that cheap in “Global Chicago.” Huge huge huge disparities of income and wealth and life style and status.
Btw, IMO, (old) Mayor Daley is the architect of the split nature of Chicago. The roots are deeper, but the housing policy of the 50s and 60s set the City in its current format.
But that’s history.
In terms of the now, there are some interesting points of political intersection. Mass transit is one of them.
The Red and Brown lines which goes north are much much better maintained than the transit lines that go south and west. Same for the buses; the better/best buses go north. The two lines that go to the airports (orange and blue) are also better maintained that the lines that go to the South and West sides.
The other main point of intersection is schools. Obviously the better public schools are north and northwest with “Magnet” schools to draw out of the south and west the better students.
There are some fascinating political battle at these intersections.
Mayors Washington and Daley were great mayors (flawed, yes) because they were mayors for both parts of Chicago. Daley in particular was able to straddle the two halves; understood the need to expand Global Chicago into the poorer parts. He did an excellent job. UIC expansion, zeroing-out Cabrini Green, building up the South Loop, creating the Roosevelt Avenue Commerce Zone, etc. etc. His effort to get the Olympic Games was intended to continue the process with new athletic facilities to be built on the southside, etc.
But for the Housing Bubble, Chicago might have succeeded in building enough new construction to “bridge” between Bronzeville and Hyde Park (where Un. of Chicago is located) at least along the lake. They got close. Hype Park basically built northward and, along Ellis Avenue, for example, it is not too bad up to about 39th street/Oakwood. Likewise, the South Loop/Bronzeville built southward and it is not too bad up until about 25th or so?
Of course, south of Hyde Park remains a disaster; same with west of the Dan Ryan.
Anyway, my biggest worry with Emanuel is that he is really only the mayor of Global Chicago.
I could go on and on. Interesting stuff here.
LikeLike
Global Chicago’s taxes does pay for a nice chunk of the other Chicago. Daley tried and succeeded in luring wealthy folks to the city despite higher taxes than surrounding suburbs, thus adding to the tax base.
Chicago has millions in institutional costs that cannot adequately be dealt with due to the realities of Illinois politics (unions), so instead, he tried some good (spuring development) and some bad (or in the case of the parking meters, hilariously awful) in order to help the city as a whole.
LikeLike
I love this blog. Come for the Conf. Realignment discussion, stay for the discussion of urban planning issues.
I agree wholeheartedly with gfunk on the B1G being overrated in football, underrated in hoops, and great research institutions.
As for Hammond, I don’t see the comparison to Whiting (outside of Robertsdale) or Griffith. Hammond I believe is now the highest pop city in Lake County, IN. Whiting is a small company town and Griffith is relatively small compared to Hammond/Gary/EC. Not sure about comparisons to Cal City and Lansing, IL.
Cannot believe I’m seeing mention of Hammond urban renewal here. You could knock me over with a feather.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“What Hollis and Delany say comes across as excuses galore because BIG football is mediocre on the national leve vis a vis their expansionist plansl.”
How are you defining mediocre?
“But hey now, it’s been this way much of my life, minus the 90s & very early 2000s. I started watching Rose Bowls in the 70s. I think the BIG won 3 Rose Bowls in the 80s & none that I saw in the 70s.”
So you ignore a roughly 15 year period of B10 success out of 43 years and then say it was often that way? It does help a narrative to just ignore those pesky data points that contradict you, I suppose.
Did the B10 stink in the Rose Bowl in the 70s and 80s? Yes. They went 1-9 and then 3-7. But your time span conveniently neglects when the B10 was dominant in Pasadena, going 17-7 in the 1946-1969 seasons and 7-3 in the 90s. The B10 was 1-5 in the 00s (1-4 in true Rose Bowls), largely because they played Pete Carroll’s USC juggernaut 4 times and Vince Young’s UT team once. There’s no shame in losing those games.
The B10 was behind the times in the 70s and 80s. OSU suffered through Woody’s declining years and then Earle Bruce’s run of 9-3 years while MI was consistently really good but not great under Bo. But you know what? The other leagues also had down periods. Where is your “fair” evaluation of all of them before proclaiming the B10 mediocre?
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“I agree wholeheartedly with gfunk on the B1G being overrated in football,”
Overrated by whom? The media says the B10 is horrible. Most CFB fans say the B10 is terrible. Many B10 fans think the B10 is terrible. Some think it is decent but not great. Where is all this overrating happening? Are you claiming the B10 isn’t a top 5 conference?
LikeLike
http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/national-population-projections
LikeLike
Bullet,
Ah yes, I have much to say here on this report, but I’m just getting on here for the first time today, and it’s a bit late. Thanks for posting. As for your other post, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) takes time, it’s not an ephemeral strategy, in most cases it works, and quite well in the long term, but communities must embrace such development, which is an ongoing, always long-term battle in planning. I hear you on buses, many fellow planners support BRT, count me as one, but the evidence is pretty sound that people prefer trains, not just for the aesthetics, but valued added impact, environmental benefits, and overall planning strategies that put less stress on land use. LRT lines have a greater tendency to trigger smarter growth, but again it takes time. As for 100% ridership of LRT lines, that’s never forecasted in my planning circles, we could only wish and we’re not crazy, and most of us dislike the label of “urbanists” – you can’t kill the suburbs, nor deprive those who prefer the rural idyll. We’re “planners” : ).
Btw, auto infrastructure is quite expensive as well, and it simply creates excessive planning and development, which in the long term expands land use more horizontally – often plotted, planned cul-de-sac communities, which are long term, inefficient examples of land use. In your case, Atlanta, that’s a hot mess of sprawl, the A, T, L simply out of control due to explosive growth and short sighted planning, decades of it. But the good folks at GT, one of the finer urban-regional planning programs in the nation, are truly beginning to take root in the city, various planning & development firms. You’ll see good work in time. At the end of the day, bus alternatives aside, which I often endorse, your average 20 cars on a highway, typically 1.4 persons in each, is nearly equivalent to 10 rail cars, depending on which rail car you compare. You can comfortably get 20 people in you average rail car.
@ Frank, I’ll reply soon enough & yes urbanophile has some great stuff. Arguably the best cite to prime your urban-regional planning interests and beyond is planetizen.com, but I stress “prime”, it’s a kind of gateway. I’m slowly becoming a fan of Atlantic Cities (part of the Atlantic Monthly world), but the journalism is dumbed down and often covers up its obvious gap reporting with visual candy, it also lacks in the citations-hyperlinking department, which are very important to me.
@BuckeyeBeau, you must be a native, you seem grounded in many of the issues I’ve had to crash course the past couple years in my Chicago work, often by long drive tours, boat rides and scores of meetings w/Chicago communities & leadership. I had to rethink Council Member (Minneapolis) with Alderman : ). I remain impressed by the optimism of many leaders in these communities and they come from a diverse range of backgrounds.
You are right, my impression is that Hammond is not Gary level in the issues you’ve raised, but it’s got plenty of issues that would be unacceptable in my home city, Minneapolis-St. Paul. Thus pardon any broad brushing on my part.
Speaking of Calumet City, one of my colleagues does work with “Friends of the Chicago River”, and continues to consult on the Ol’ Pisspot project in Bridgeport, which touches some of the points you raised about the near south side. As you know Bridgeport is not far from Bronzeville, separated by Chinatown and I think Armour Square, check out this link. There’s a lot of promise with this project and others.
http://grist.org/cities/chicago-turns-the-ol-pisspot-into-a-watery-urban-playground
My colleague brought me on a projects and vision tour this past August, esp around Ping Tom Memorial Park, and then we took an exhaustive, eye-opening boat tour along the Calumet River. I can only imagine what this part of South Chicago once looked like, it’s still quite a massive industrial grid.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
I have just read your post. Man, I’m not at all oblivious to the issues you’ve raised, and quite empathetic. Chicago is absolutely one of my favorite cities in the world, and I’ve seen my fair share. Fuck, I’ve spent months in places like Manilla and Jakarta, and nearly a year in Saigon, aside from the first two, Chicago’s violence, for example. seems lighter, though I can’t stand anymore violence.
I’m not a Chicagoan, but I’m pretty steeped in your city’s history, I’ve visited at least 100 times since the early 80s, my creative brother attended the Art Institute of Chicago & he lived in Bronzeville for nearly 3 years, and yes I often study Chicago through the academic lens, but I’m not some elitist, armchair type. I damn near did my graduate work in urban-regional planning at UIChicago, but I ended up in college town central – Madison – surrounded by loony Badger fans : ). As for engaging Chicago, aside from riding every CTA line fully, multiple times, my skin color fortunately allows me to roam parts of Chicago more freely than others. Btw, I’m not a fan of U of Chicago Sociology and the infamous concept of Redlining, which should help explain some of your concerns and points. I can likely speak endlessly & probably angrily on too may issues that intersect Chicago politics, academics and business – the fumbles, various affiliations and political leanings included. I will refrain from expressing my disappointment and other thoughts. I just hope Chicago gets it together soon. The historical racism, white flight, incarceration industry, and rapid departure of south side industries tragically did your city, the world really, no favors, and the responses and planning since, well, I’ll hold my tongue.
As of late, many of my Chicago visits have brought me through the rougher parts of Chicago via work. Thus I am admittedly biased towards socio-economic and cultural issues that strike the middle to poorer folks of the income scale. This past summer, I spent nearly two months living near Madero Middle School in Little Village. Madero was my office during this time. Btw, the view of Cook County Jail got old really fast : ). Regardless, what a great community.
One of my all-time closest friends has owned a gorgeous row house in Pullman, easily one of my favorite neighborhoods on the South Side, for years. I’ve spent plenty of nights in his guest space (not a room). He’s pretty damn abreast with Chicago issues and South Side history. It’s funny, I rarely see my North Side friends when I visit these days, I’m almost always down on the South Side, or west of Pilsen.
LikeLike
Hope I’m not restating the obvious, but transit-oriented development has a long history. The growth of Queens, the Bronx and to a lesser extent Brooklyn (which, remember, was its own city until 1898) was spurred by the growth of the New York City subway system, which enabled people in overcrowded Manhattan neighborhoods to settle into the outer boroughs, find improved housing and a better way of life and still commute to their midtown jobs via rail. There are all sorts of more recent examples, too:
* Washington’s Metrorail has revitalized aging urban districts such as Chinatown and Columbia Heights in the District, Silver Spring and Bethesda in Maryland and Clarendon and Old Town Alexandria in Virginia.
* Light rail in New Jersey has done wonders for the Jersey City “Gold Coast” region across the Hudson from Lower Manhattan; it’s become a residential and employment magnet.
* At the start of the 20th century, many parts of Los Angeles and environs grew through the area’s remarkable streetcar system. That’s long been dismantled, but L.A.’s Metrorail, less than a quarter-century old, is having the same effect, aiding development in Hollywood, Exposition Park and Culver City.
LikeLike
If buses had the cleanliness and frequency they do in Europe and better signage (rails serve as signage for trains-you know where its going), I think the rail/bus gap would significantly decrease, but it would take time. Part of the problem is outside of the few transit heavy cities, regular buses are ridden almost exclusively by the poor, the very young and the elderly. The service has been so poor for so long, no one with a choice rides it. This doesn’t apply to BRT or Park-n-rides.
LikeLike
@gfunk
Given what they have here in Georgia vs. Texas, I’ve actually been thinking we need more Aggies here (saying that as a Longhorn) to replace some of those Georgia Tech traffic engineers and planners (I’m sure you know this, but A&M has the Texas Transportation Institute and is the Texas school involved in those sorts of engineering disciplines). Although I have a friend with a son at GT who assures me the problem is that Georgia’s transportation planning is dominated by Auburn grads.
LikeLike
And as far as I know, NO BIG state is actually shrinking in overall population
During the last Census period (2000-2010) Michigan was the only state in the country that had actual net decrease in population. Though some projections say it has since reversed the trend.
LikeLike
IF Global Warming is real all that population that moved to Florida will be headed back north once the seas level rises high enough anyways.
LikeLike
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-big-ten-1107-20131106,0,2282119.story
The Sun had a longer story, but covered mostly the same stuff. It also had this:
Maryland worried about news leaks. According to emails, school officials were trying to determine the source of a Sports Illustrated report that said Maryland will make nearly $100 million during its first six years in the Big Ten. Financial stability was the impetus for leaving the ACC and moving to the Big Ten.
There was speculation in emails that the $100 million figure — which documents say is roughly accurate — was leaked by an unknown member of the Board of Regents. But that theory was dismissed by Maryland officials.
“Wallace, I think your analysis is correct,” began a November 2012 email from Chancellor William E. Kirwan to Loh. “While we know certain Regents are not above leaking info, I don’t think this came from a Regent.”
LikeLike
LOLing. Love this.
“So keep all of this in mind the next time you’re on a message board and someone who clearly doesn’t know nearly as much as you do has a differing opinion. They’re probably working for the man.”
So, who among us is “working for the man?”
LikeLike
Have we come to the conclusion yet that expansion for the power conferences is stable for about a decade?
LikeLike
Not if there is more money in more expansion than would cost in exit fees/litigation/GoR’s.
LikeLike
Not if there is more money in more expansion than would cost in exit fees/litigation/GoR’s.
I think what the @wmwolverine meant is that we have all concluded that there is NOT enough money in expansion to overcome such a high price.
LikeLike
I figured as much, but with the Big Ten’s TV deals coming up for renegotiation in a few years, I personally am not ready to state that with certainty. Nor am I ready to state that in a few years, if the SEC network it up and running and generating more revenue than anticipated, that it might want to expand to new markets or beef up overall conference quality/inventory.
LikeLike
The way the playoff/bowl distributions are set discourages expansion. The Big 12 will get around $10 million a year. The Pac 12 will get around $8 million. The Big 10 and SEC will get around $7.5 million. The ACC w/o the additional Orange Bowl access the 14 team B1G and SEC get will be around $6 million. Every two team addition basically costs everyone else $1-$2 million just on bowl/playoff money.
So expansion has a higher hurdle now. The bigger TV contracts also make it a high hurdle. The single CCG also gets spread more ways.
It could take two schools worth roughly 1.5 times the conference average to justify expansion of any 12 or more team league. Who could add that much value to the Big 10 or SEC? For that matter, the ACC or Pac 12? Its pretty limited. Its not quite as limited with the Big 12 since they don’t have a ccg yet (which basically pays for #12). But there probably aren’t two schools worth that much outside the P5. And the Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network, so they can’t profit off a big market, low athletic value school like a Rutgers.
LikeLike
Is the AAC no longer a power conference?
LikeLike
Not after this season, since it won’t have the same level of access to the big bowls as the power 5 (SEC, B1G, ACC, Pac12, B12).
LikeLike
Not this year either in reality, according to the rankings ~ the top three schools in a real power conference standings are not #17, unranked, and #20 (BCS).
But there was no point in pushing against their AQ status since they going to drop down in another season anyway.
LikeLike
An early look at the BCS bowls. I don’t assume any chaos or major upsets. I know there will be some, but I don’t have a crystal ball. I was just curious how the OR loss changed things. Please note that the SEC is a complete jumble after AL, so teams 2-5 or so could easily be switched depending on future games.
NCG: AL vs FSU
Rose: OSU vs Stanford
Orange: Clemson vs OR
Sugar: TAMU vs UCF
Fiesta: Baylor vs Fresno
The first 9 teams are easy (6 AQs, 2 replacements, 1 loss OR). For now I project a BCS buster because Fresno and NIU are both ahead of UCF. UCF could pass them and eliminate the buster.
If there isn’t a BCS buster, then the last spot gets more interesting. #2 from the B10, B12 or AAC versus someone else. Choices – WI, OU, UL, NIU or maybe ND
NCG: AL vs FSU
Rose: OSU vs Stanford
Orange: Clemson vs OR
Sugar: TAMU vs UCF
Fiesta: Baylor vs WI
Rationale – Baylor played OU, WI will get more respect than UL by then and is known to travel. If ND is available, they will be chosen.
LikeLike
ESPN sure doesn’t like the 2nd tier of the Big 12. 2 years ago in their BCS show they talked about why Alabama deserved to play LSU over 1 loss Stanford (runnerup in Pac) or 2 loss Oregon. NEVER mentioned Oklahoma St. Tonight on the OR/ST game they show the top 5 in the BCS. They talk about how Stanford needs help above them (AL/FSU/OSU). Then they mention Missouri as a 1 loss team that could threaten Stanford in the BCS. NEVER mentioned Baylor.
LikeLike
Yet one more reason to hate the BCS, and to a lesser extent the 4-team playoff that will succeed it. When you come right down to things, it’s still a beauty contest based on brand names, meaning those who don’t qualify for such status, such as Okie State in 2011, Kansas State last year and Baylor this year almost always are behind the 8-ball (even were they to finish undefeated). This isn’t true for nearly any other college sport, and I don’t think many of the posters here, with their ties to “brand name” schools such as Ohio State or LSU, comprehend the resentment from others.
LikeLike
IMO, the BCS sysyem has worked amazingly well. Keeping the emphasis on the regular season has been key. Adding a big playoff system dilutes the regular season
Everybody cries about the likes of Kansas State, OK State, Baylor or, in past years, Boise. Thing is, nobody, other than those fans, thinks those teams were/are as good as the likes of Alabama or Florida State. Everybody realizes that. .
II don’t think adding a bunch of 1 or 2 loss pretenders to a big playoff system serves what I think should be the ultimate goal: identifying and rewarding the best football team for their great season. It doesn’t happen in the NCAA tourney or in ML baseball. Let me ask you this: When the NCAA tourney was 16 teams instead of 64/66, was it more or less likely that the team that was truly best would win out? When MLB playoffs were 2 olr 4 teams v. now, was it more or less likely that the best team wiould win out?
I think the BCS has done a tremendous job of settling any legit question, year in and year out, of which team was the best in the country. And it still gave the bored huddles masses a
LikeLike
cut myself off, so I’m going to go on, as this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine…
I see it as a fairness issue. Why should a team like the Cincinnate Reds this year even be in a position where they have any chance of winning the WS? Why should teams that finish 3rd or 4th in their league have the right to play for a basketball NC? .It’s all to pacify the bored huddled masses. The ONLY reasons I see for even letting a conference runner-up in are injuries and unfair ref screw-ups. My preference would be the BCS, a 32 team NCAA tourney where only conf. winners and runners-up would be eligible, and 4 team baseball playoffs
LikeLike
I think Oklahoma St. would have beaten Alabama. And as bad as Jefferson (LSU QB) was playing on that particular day-he was prone to periodic bad days, they would have annihilated LSU much worse than Alabama did. LSU wasn’t at their best.
Have you seen Baylor this year? I think its very much up in the air who is best this year. Your statement that “everybody realizes it” is nothing but your opinion and is patently false. Prior to last night Baylor hadn’t really played anyone and pollsters were justified to be skeptical. But they look pretty good. And they will get more chances to prove themselves (or fall on their face) the rest of the season.
LikeLike
It was less likely when the NCAA tourney was 16 teams because the best teams often went to the NIT!
I agree with you and definitely see no reason for the 9th place team in the Big East who already failed to win a BE tourney should be in the NCAA tourney. But there’s no way to narrow it without opinions based on limited fact to 2 or even 4 teams many years. With 8 you could get the best team almost certainly in the playoff. Maybe once in 50 years you get a 2007 type season where the difference from #1 to #9 is hard to judge.
LikeLike
Latter comment of 8 teams is talking about football in case that wasn’t clear.
LikeLike
@bullet
If a ranking system were developed that I (and others, of course) could trust, I think a 6 team playoff would be best for FBS. The regular season would be strengthened by awarding byes to the top two teams, while such a system recognizes that there are seasons where more than 4 teams look championship worthy.
(That’s a BIG if, by the way.)
LikeLike
I don’t think that you can definitively say that the 3rd or 4th team in a league isn’t the best of all by the end of a season. Suppose a struggling team gets a few star players back from injury that weren’t available previously and then start blowing people out? Who’s to say that they weren’t the best team all along? Or what if a team adds players through trades or the development of young players? Can a team not improve throughout the season? Other teams just take a while to put chemistry together before they get it rolling. Plus, if the supposedly best team can’t pull off wins when it matters, how can they really be the top team?
LikeLike
“I don’t think that you can definitively say that the 3rd or 4th team in a league isn’t the best of all by the end of a season”
Then why play the season at all? Isn’t it to earn/win (hopefully) a post season reward, based on conference placement and season results?
LikeLike
It all depends on what you mean by the “best.” The BCS doesn’t pick what I consider the best teams, it picks the two most deserving teams, which are different animals entirely. For example, last season Notre Dame was clearly the most deserving team based on its undefeated record against mostly decent to good teams. However, I don’t know how you could have watched Notre Dame play any of their games and honestly believed they were the “best” team in the country. In fact, they would have lost to the best team on their schedule, Stanford, were it not for a tremendous gift from the Zebras. I would argue that there were fifteen or so teams that were better than Notre Dame but they didn’t earn the spot that Notre Dame deserved.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey Juergerns – This is the irony of all of these college football postseason discussions: all of the other major sports (pro and college) actually play enough games where the “best team” and “most deserving team” are generally one and the same by the end of the season, so there’s actually less need of a playoff in those sports compared to college football. Yet, with college football having fewer consequential intersectional games than ever where it’s increasingly difficult to figure out who the “best” team is and even who the “most deserving team” might not even be clear, there’s a more limited playoff system. To me, the 8-team playoff is optimal with the 5 power conference champs (as that’s objective) and 3 at-larges (with maybe one spot reserved for the best Group of 5 champ) for some flexibility. That’s still a limited field (at least in my opinion) with at least some objective on-the-field accomplishments (conference championships) involved.
LikeLike
I saw Baylor last night.
Alabama or FSU would crush Baylor.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey
College football doesn’t take the two most deserving teams. Its a real stretch to say Alabama was more deserving when picked over Oklahoma St. They may have been the best team from an eyeball test. But they only had one true quality win and lost their critical head-to-head matchup with LSU-at home. And what basis they use changes from year to year. If you picked the two best teams in 2006, most people would have picked Ohio St. and Michigan. But Michigan didn’t get it. Florida did. And coincidentally crushed Ohio St. who was definitely the most deserving and most thought was the best. Much like Ohio St. beat Miami a few years before in what most thought would be a Miami rout. Or Texas beat ESPN’s proclaimed, “best team ever” in the 2005 championship game. Eyeball tests and the opinions of ESPN talking heads are a lousy gauge. And that is what has driven it more than “deserving” when there wasn’t a W-L difference.
LikeLike
Frank, I agree with your sentiment, but I don’t think 8 is enough and I don’t like any at-larges. I would like to see a 10-team play off with all of the conference champs. Those conference champions whose conferences did the best in out of conference based on win-loss record would get byes. I would exclude any at-larges because its too subjective as to who’s most deserving. I personally believe that even the smallest schools deserve their shot. I’m not afraid to see my Gators play a Sunbelt champ in a playoff. If they feel like they can take on the big boys, I say let ’em. They may not have the tradition or resources, but 30 years ago Florida didn’t either. Frankly, I would rather see a MAC champion than the second best team in the SEC (and I am a huge SEC fan). My plan would exclude independents, but that would really only affect 2 out of 120+ schools, and no one is forcing them to be independent anyway. Bias warning, Though I have nothing against Notre Dame being independent or doing things their own way, their special treatment with regards to the BCS is far and away my biggest pet peeve with the entire system.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey Juergens – I understand that argument, but practically don’t see any way that the powers that be would allow for that to happen. The power conferences have little interest in providing that type of access to the Gang of Five conferences and they have all shown continuously that they’d rather provide a way for Notre Dame to get into the playoff and/or top tier bowl games than the all 60 or so FBS non-power schools that are on the outside looking in. The 8-team playoff that I propose is sort of a “realistic extension” – there’s a financial incentive for the power conferences to do it, they still maintain control over the system (including keeping the bowls), the length of the postseason is still manageable, and the access is provided to all of the power players and top at-larges but still limited enough to preserve the financial value of the regular season. To be clear, I *always* assume that the conferences aren’t giving an inch on matters such as not reducing the 12-game regular season schedule, pushing back the start date of the season or having playoff games being played earlier in December. I often see playoff proposals that look for fairly substantial changes to how the regular season schedule works, which would get those proposals tossed in the garbage sight unseen by the powers that be.
Also, I do think flexibility for at-larges is very important for the system (even though I sympathize with the champions-only argument). A football version of the very old-style NCAA Tournament with only conference champs and allowed the NIT to become almost as good or better quality of a tournament wouldn’t ultimately be an advancement and, most importantly, the people that are paying for this (the TV networks) simply have no interest in that. To be honest, I have no interest in that, either. Florida vs. a Sun Belt team is an early season guaranteed blood money game and what few people want to see in the most important games of the year. Basketball can allow for those types of matchups because it’s not really a big deal physically or financially to play an extra game, but each football game being played in January should not have any riff raff. Frankly, it may be tough enough to get my desire to use the bowls or even any automatic qualifications for conference champs in the next go around. There will likely be a much stronger faction looking for a straight 1 through 8 seeding with no regard for conference championships or the bowls than advocates for all of the Group of Five champs.
LikeLike
The Big 12 came out in favor of having the first round of this playoff in early December. I don’t think that is as much a non-starter as you assume. I think it is more likely than not if they go to 8 teams for 2 reasons:
1) Travelling 3 weeks in a row or playing home sites in January is a serious challenge and
2) The lag between the bowls and the end of the regular season creates sloppy play and some ugly games. A number of the coaches spoke out because of that reason. Playing the first round in December narrows it to 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 weeks, not much more than a typical bye week.
LikeLike
@bullet – I didn’t recall the Big 12 saying that, but you could be correct. Regardless, up to this point, the preservation of the bowl system has been a pretty clear goal of the power players and early December playoff games simply are in direct conflict with that. The losers of those playoff games aren’t going to want to go to bowls (and the bowls don’t like teams coming off a big loss in the first place), which takes a large number of quality teams out of the bowl system.
I’m with the others that are perplexed by the presidents’ insistence that not going deeper into January is an issue. Sure, it’s not completely desirable, but of all the things that these conferences are doing in the name of the almighty dollar that can muddy their academic missions, having only 2 or 4 teams nationwide playing playoff games later in January being a supposedly major issue simply sounds like B.S.
LikeLike
I’m with the others that are perplexed by the presidents’ insistence that not going deeper into January is an issue. Sure, it’s not completely desirable, but of all the things that these conferences are doing in the name of the almighty dollar that can muddy their academic missions, having only 2 or 4 teams nationwide playing playoff games later in January being a supposedly major issue simply sounds like B.S.
I don’t get the academic argument either, but there is a practical side to it. As it is, some bowl teams have had trouble selling their allotments, even for BCS bowls. The Rose Bowl isn’t usually a problem. But historically, the Rose Bowl was your team’s last game of the season. Would enough of the fans travel if the Rose Bowl (and the other quarter-final bowls) were merely “qualifiers” into a semi-final round?
LikeLike
@Marc
That sounds more like an excuse not to have an 8 game playoff, but they are couching it in academic terms.
@Frank
The Big 12 liked the idea of home sites in December with the final in the traditional bowls. With the SEC and Big 12 taking over the Sugar and ESPN owning almost all the miscellaneous bowls, the traditional protection of the bowls at the expense of the schools is definitely weakening.
Having the quarterfinals on NYD certainly enhances the bowl tradition, but it makes the semis and championship more difficult logistically.
They got rid of the consolation games in basketball, so losers would probably want to be done if they lost in December. A really good site against a good opponent (maybe another loser) probably wouldn’t be enough consolation. And early December works much better at home sites. That’s not a good time for travel, so the bowls wouldn’t want to be on those dates.
LikeLike
That sounds more like an excuse not to have an 8 game playoff, but they are couching it in academic terms.
You are absolutely right. But even assuming the presidents are being disingenuous, the problem is very real.
The Big 12 liked the idea of home sites in December with the final in the traditional bowls. With the SEC and Big 12 taking over the Sugar and ESPN owning almost all the miscellaneous bowls, the traditional protection of the bowls at the expense of the schools is definitely weakening.
There is still a lot of resistance to home sites in December, due to the possibility of a game like Florida State at Wisconsin in a blizzard.
They got rid of the consolation games in basketball, so losers would probably want to be done if they lost in December. A really good site against a good opponent (maybe another loser) probably wouldn’t be enough consolation. And early December works much better at home sites. That’s not a good time for travel, so the bowls wouldn’t want to be on those dates.
This is the argument against an 8-team playoff. The four quarter-final losers would be top-10 teams, traditionally premier bowl teams. Now you’re either saying that they don’t go to a bowl at all, or go into the bowl having lost their last high-profile game. It certainly seems like a lot of the bowls would lose their luster, especially the top ones that would normally get those teams.
LikeLike
The President’s say they don’t want students playing football in two semesters. That’s not a real problem. That’s BS.
They didn’t argue against the logistical problems of multiple neutral site games or home games in January. Those are real issues in an 8 team playoff. But that is not what they were talking about.
I don’t think weather at December home games is much of an issue. FCS and Division II and III do it. For that matter Army and Navy play in mid-December in Philly and the Pinstripe bowl is in January in NYC.
As for the bowl games, any expansion of the playoff to some extent diminishes bowl games. But the reality is that they are already diminished. The BCS did that a little. But its been a long term trend with the flood of bowl games and the bigger salaries and pressure for winning.
LikeLike
The President’s say they don’t want students playing football in two semesters. That’s not a real problem. That’s BS.
It’s not exactly a news flash that the presidents are disingenuous about athletics. It’s been true since forever. You have to look at the deeper issues, even if the presidents are not honest enough to admit those issues publicly.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think weather at December home games is much of an issue.”
As I recall, many in the south strongly disagree with you. Now, it may be cover for wanting home field advantage themselves, but the weather is one thing they often cited. Remember, the weather up north in December is a big enough deal that the B10 doesn’t want it’s CCG outdoors, at least not yet.
LikeLike
vp19,
“This isn’t true for nearly any other college sport,”
You think the tourney is filled and seeded fairly? UNC in a bad year doesn’t get favorable treatment? Power schools don’t get in over more deserving mid-majors?
“and I don’t think many of the posters here, with their ties to “brand name” schools such as Ohio State or LSU, comprehend the resentment from others.”
I disagree. We understand it. That doesn’t mean we sympathize. If the current system benefits us, why complain? Fairness is for suckers. Brand name schools have put decades of effort and money and fan support into earning those brand names. Those schools and their fans built the sport and made it possible for everyone else to profit from it. The schools that rode their coattails are complaining about not getting enough money, access, coverage, etc. How bad do you expect us to feel?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be so sure the Orange takes Oregon. I don’t think they would take a west coast team unless the alternatives were really bad or the west coast team was USC.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I wouldn’t be so sure the Orange takes Oregon. I don’t think they would take a west coast team unless the alternatives were really bad or the west coast team was USC.”
Look at their choices. A non-AQ, a barely eligible B12 #2 (if one is in the top 14), the AAC champ or a top 5 OR.
I think they’ll look to match OR and Clemson for an offensive explosion. If they’re too worried about ticket sales, then they’d take UCF but I’m guessing they expect Clemson would sell the bowl out all by themselves.
LikeLike
UCF would not be that bad of a choice for the OB. Fans are local, and though the fanbase isn’t huge, this would be their first major bowl game, and unlike UConn’s trip to the Fiesta Bowl way out in Arizona, making the trip to Miami is very feasible. UCF has a shot at 11-1; fans would show up. For Clemson’s part, they’ll show up especially if the team is 11-1 and coming off its first win over South Carolina in five years.
So here’s my way too early BCS Bowl predictions:
Rose: Ohio State vs. Stanford
Fiesta: Baylor vs. Fresno State/NIU
Sugar: Auburn vs. Oregon
Orange: Clemson vs. UCF
BCSNCG: Alabama vs. Florida State
LikeLike
Traditionally, i.e. pre-Nike$$$$$, Oregon was considered a good bowl team because the fans traveled. I can’t imagine it’s gotten worse in the last 25yrs. I think with the likely options the Orange would take a hard look at the Ducks.
LikeLike
If one of Northern Illinois or Fresno State goes unbeaten there will be a non-AQ even if Central Florida passes them. The top non-AQ champ is in if they are in the top 17 of the final BCS standing which one should have no problem of if they finish unbeaten.
LikeLike
No, they have to be in the top 12 if they aren’t ahead of an AQ champ. But it seems likely that they will meet one of those two goals if they go unbeaten.
LikeLike
Need pounding head icons here. You are right. Top 12 unless they are ahead of an AQ champ. If they are ahead of an AQ champ it’s top 16 (could of swore it was 17).
LikeLike
Yep, but I’m not assuming they make the top 12. They might, but there are too many game left to predict that.
LikeLike
I wonder what that idiot Jim Rome is saying about Baylor right now. In case you don’t remember, he said this about Baylor right around 2011:
http://youtu.be/Uj-VinD6jEc
LikeLike
He’a a moron, but a highly paid moron. Jim Everett planting him might have been a top 5 TV sports moment of all time. His voice grates on me and I can’t personally stand him. But, he laughs all the way to the bank. Those guys have to be obnoxious to get near the top. You see it over and over again.
Obviously, a lot of what he said about Baylor was then true. RG III, like Johnny Football, changed everything.
LikeLike
OT – I thought you might find this interesting. Just read through an article about the rising popularity of American football in, of all places, Brazil. This is coming from the Rio Times:
http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-sports/american-football-on-the-rise-in-rio/
Of course, that’s not to say that it’s close to displacing that other football. However, if you are worried about demographic trends with respect to who will be willing to suit up to play college football, perhaps 50 years from now we’d be seeing more people coming up from south of the border. Imagine the recruiting that would happen then.
LikeLike
Are there any AAU Universities in Brazil? Woohoo! The B1G spans half the globe!!
LikeLike
I get everything negative people say about the BCS and it might keep my team out of the national title this year, but last night is a great example of how it has brought a ton more attention to college football at a national level and made the regular season very meaningful.
Instead of 2 games that were important at the conference level, you had two that were important at the national level. Especially in Ohio and Florida people were watching that Stanford game in particular hoping hard for an upset. That won’t be completely gone with the new system, but it will be diminished.
LikeLike
Is this a good thing that Ohio St. could go unbeaten and end up out of the BCS? And for that matter, had Oregon, FSU, Alabama and Baylor run the table, they might have been left out in a 4 team playoff. How does that make the regular season more meaningful for Ohio St.?
LikeLike
Any single loss, to whoever, is critical. Ask Stanford about Utah. This year it had more impact than next. For tOSU, every game FSU, Ala. etc is important, as well as their own.
LikeLike
@ Eric & ccrider55:
I agree wholeheartedly about protecting the value of the “regular season” games. This is one reason I hope that the playoff never expands beyond four. With only four slots, every single game matters since the zero-loss teams will likely get in and any remaining spots will almost certainly to to a one-loss team.
The regular season still matters very much.
However, defending the BCS system (even defending it very mildly) is a lost cause at this point.
IMO, the old bowl system was fine. This obsessive “need” to have only one team declared the “victor” is childish and myopic. I see no reason that two teams can’t be deemed the National Champions. There is nothing wrong with arguing about it. That is part of CFB tradition and is fun.
Further, single-game-elimination type playoff systems do NOT guarantee that the BEST team is crowned the NC. A couple of years back, NE was the best NFL team, but the Giants got lucky in the SB. The NCAA tournament does not always result in the best team in the nation winning the NC.
In any event, I had no vote and will never get a vote on how CFB evolves.
I want the regular season to remaining compelling (like last night). In my view, that will remain true as long as the number of teams stays at 4.
LikeLike
I agree with you 90% Buckeye…..I like the BCS, but I liked the old bowl sysyem better. The one big downside of the BCS is that it diminished the bowls and harmed what I always thought was the single beat day of the year…Jan. 1st. I do like the BCS better than even a 4 team playoff
LikeLike
Traditional bowls, then 1 vs 2 afterwards. Sigh.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau, I disagree with two teams being champions. I think that being a champion means that you alone are the best, and no one else shares it with you. if there are two national champions, there are no national champions.
LikeLike
This obsessive “need” to have only one team declared the “victor” is childish and myopic.
You’re obviously free not to like it. But I fail to see how it could be deemed “childish and myopic,” when every other sport I can think of works that way.
LikeLike
Sounds like a politician. They’re so myopic anyone who disagrees with them is childish.
LikeLike
I like the BCS, but I liked the old bowl system better. The one big downside of the BCS is that it diminished the bowls and harmed what I always thought was the single beat day of the year…Jan. 1st.
I don’t really see how the BCS “diminished” the bowls. All it did was re-shuffle the participants, to ensure that #1 would always face #2. The remaining bowls were still great games (for the most part), as they’d always been.
Spreading out the games to New Year’s week was an error, as all the parties now admit, but it wasn’t an essential feature of the system. They could have kept the BCS (if that was the system they wanted) and just moved the games back to their traditional dates and times.
Traditional bowls, then 1 vs 2 afterwards. Sigh.
I’m not sure how that’s an improvement. The main problem with the BCS was correctly identifying the right two teams to play. Waiting for one more round of games to make the decision doesn’t fix that problem.
LikeLike
[Warning: Playoff supporters should avoid this post. This does not speak to the listening.]
Okay, you don’t like the word “childish.” How about “thought-police-enforced-hive-minded?”
It is common for differing groups of people to have differing opinions and varying definitions. The insistence that we all think alike is hive-minded. The insistence that there be only one definition of “national champion” is group-think. Debates and differing viewpoints are good and are part of CFB tradition. The B1G is better for the fact that Penn State fans get to debate who was the “real” NC with Michigan and Nebraska fans. It gives us connections; broadens our conversation. How dull to live an world where the discussion is closed with a curt: “they won the game.” I assert that New England was the NFL National Champion in the 2007-08 season. The Giants were merely the winner of the Super Bowl.
Having said that, like it or not, “childish” is the right word. People want a singular definition of NC so they can “win” the argument and “prove” who is “right.” Childish. People want a defined-by-others sense of certitude. Childish. People want CFB to be “like all the other sports.” Childish (among other things). People want to see the best teams play. Childish gluttony. Not satisfied to watch the gladiators fight a few bouts, the child wants them to fight and fight and fight until only one is left standing. “Daddy, make the gladiators play one more game.” (4 team playoff). “Make them play two more, 3 more, etc.” Me me, more more, want want.
For those that believe the student-athletes are being exploited, THIS is the source of the exploitation. A child-like insistence on being ever-entertained.
Aw, but it is said: “I am not being exploitative because I want the players to be payed!!” But, of course, the NCAA is the one that will be paying. Any parent will recognize that as the very definition of “child.” A child says: “I want. Mommy Daddy, buy it for me.”
I stand by my word “childish.”
Upon further review, “myopic” may not be accurate. Holistically speaking, I think CFB should be expansive and inclusive. Prior to the Bowl Alliance and the BCS, it was quite the free-for-all in terms of who could impress the voters and many teams got a NC “nod” including BYU, Clemson, Colorado, GTech, Washington, etc. It was not just the traditional national powers.
Now that the playoff is here, I suspect we will be seeing the same cast of characters over and over again. I think that is bad ~~ short-sighted ~~~ for the overall health of CFB.
On the other hand, I am now beginning to think there are compensating factors. Whereas then, there was a broader group of “eligible” teams, now there is a longer list of “achievements.” In the playoff era, there will be 12 teams that can trumpet some national-level achievement: appearance in a “Playoff Bowl” (4 teams); victory in a Playoff Bowl (4); appearance in a Semi-Final Bowl (2), NC Runner-up (1) and NC (1). We will see how it goes, see how the Selection Committee selects. But maybe all that extra Bling will compensate for the net loss of awarded national championships.
A B1G example: as we know, the B1G used to have shared conference championships. IMO, that was good for the B1G in general as many programs were able to claim championships. That helped many of the mid-tier programs. That is now gone. Consequently, the list of teams that are going to win B1G Championships is going to shrink quite dramatically. However, there are now Divisional Championships to award. Those lists probably expand dramatically. Maybe those offset.
I withdraw “myopic” for now.
LikeLike
Okay, you don’t like the word “childish.” How about “thought-police-enforced-hive-minded?”
The anti-playoff forces have certainly been vocal over the years. You seem to discount the possibility that both sides of the argument have been fully aired, and intelligent people have chosen which side they prefer.
What’s “childish” is calling other people’s legitimate opinions “childish”.
People want a singular definition of NC so they can “win” the argument and “prove” who is “right.”
OK, I have an idea for you. Let’s cancel this year’s Michigan/OSU game, and let computers decide which team is better. That would be the BCS way. And after all, you’ve just informed me that it’s childish to prefer that sports teams actually play their sport to decide who is better.
By your argument, you ought to prefer it this way, because the computers will overwhelmingly choose OSU, but if they play the scheduled game, there’s a possibility that OSU will lose.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t really see how the BCS “diminished” the bowls. All it did was re-shuffle the participants, to ensure that #1 would always face #2. The remaining bowls were still great games (for the most part), as they’d always been.”
1. The NCG removed the top 2 teams from the bowl(s) they would’ve been in, automatically diminishing the bowls.
2. Having a NCG reduced the importance of the other bowls because they no longer could impact the national title race except in very unusual circumstances (#1 USC in human polls doesn’t make the NCG due to the computers). Thus, the bowls were diminished.
3. The Coaches’ poll voters were required to put the NCG winner as #1 even if the bowls told them someone else was better. Thus, the bowls were diminished.
4. By making the postseason all about the championship, the BCS diminished the major bowls. They all used to feel really important every year, and now they are clearly second class citizens.
5. New Year’s Day used to be a huge day with all the major games, but the BCS spread them out over a week and made them weeknight games that started late for the east coast so many kids can’t see them and adults go to bed before they end. Thus, the bowls were diminished.
6. New Year’s Day used to be a cornucopia of big games. The BCS moved the biggest game to a weeknight several days later after everyone had shifted their attention to other things (NFL, NHL, NBA, MBB, etc). Thus, the bowls were diminished.
“Spreading out the games to New Year’s week was an error, as all the parties now admit, but it wasn’t an essential feature of the system.”
That doesn’t matter. It was a “feature” of the BCS, and thus bowl diminution due to it is correctly attributed to the BCS.
Traditional bowls, then 1 vs 2 afterwards. Sigh.
“I’m not sure how that’s an improvement. The main problem with the BCS was correctly identifying the right two teams to play. Waiting for one more round of games to make the decision doesn’t fix that problem.”
How do you know that? A round of intersectional games between top 10 teams is a tremendously helpful set of data when trying to determine which team is best. You also get to use all the other bowl results to analyze conference depth and the relative strength of various teams.
Could the bowls muddy the waters? Sure. All the undefeated teams could lose, leaving a jumble of 1 loss teams. But if everyone has a loss, there is never a clear best team anyway.
On the other hand, the lesser 1 loss teams could all lose and help clarify the rankings.
The biggest problem of both the BCS and the playoff is their rigid structure. There must be exactly 2 or 4 (or 8, etc) teams given a chance. What if 5 teams or 3 teams or only 1 team deserve a shot? The old bowl system could accommodate that.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
I don’t want to get in the middle of your larger discussion with Mark, but wanted to comment on something you said.
Upon further review, “myopic” may not be accurate. Holistically speaking, I think CFB should be expansive and inclusive. Prior to the Bowl Alliance and the BCS, it was quite the free-for-all in terms of who could impress the voters and many teams got a NC “nod” including BYU, Clemson, Colorado, GTech, Washington, etc. It was not just the traditional national powers.
Now that the playoff is here, I suspect we will be seeing the same cast of characters over and over again. I think that is bad ~~ short-sighted ~~~ for the overall health of CFB.
On the other hand, I am now beginning to think there are compensating factors. Whereas then, there was a broader group of “eligible” teams, now there is a longer list of “achievements.” In the playoff era, there will be 12 teams that can trumpet some national-level achievement: appearance in a “Playoff Bowl” (4 teams); victory in a Playoff Bowl (4); appearance in a Semi-Final Bowl (2), NC Runner-up (1) and NC (1). We will see how it goes, see how the Selection Committee selects. But maybe all that extra Bling will compensate for the net loss of awarded national championships.
A B1G example: as we know, the B1G used to have shared conference championships. IMO, that was good for the B1G in general as many programs were able to claim championships. That helped many of the mid-tier programs. That is now gone. Consequently, the list of teams that are going to win B1G Championships is going to shrink quite dramatically. However, there are now Divisional Championships to award. Those lists probably expand dramatically. Maybe those offset.
I don’t think the longer list of accomplishments ever makes up for the reduced access. Fans don’t celebrate the lesser accomplishments unless their team generally stinks. I think the playoff will be like the Tourney in that people will care about making the Final Four and winning the NCG. Making and losing the NCG won’t get much notice. I also think the playoff will just diminish the accomplishment that making a BCS bowl was. Rather than building higher levels, I think fans will keep the NCG the same and lower the value of the other accomplishments.
As far as the B10, I don’t think you will see an expansion of divisional winners versus old title winners except for the obvious expansion impact. The East will be dominated by OSU, MI and PSU with MSU perhaps a notch below. IN, RU and UMD will rarely if ever win the division. In other words, no change from the old system. In the West, it’ll likely be NE and WI on top with IA and NW behind. MN, IL and PU may get an occasional title, just like before. I think the change will be the top teams winning fewer titles of all sorts versus the old shared-title days.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
Again, I’m not trying to jump into your conversation.
“You seem to discount the possibility that both sides of the argument have been fully aired, and intelligent people have chosen which side they prefer.”
I’ll just point out that your wording makes it sound like you believe all the intelligent people have chosen the same side (yours and not Beau’s). Maybe that was intentional and maybe it wasn’t.
“OK, I have an idea for you. Let’s cancel this year’s Michigan/OSU game, and let computers decide which team is better. That would be the BCS way.”
That’s reductio ad absurdum and you’re better than that, Marc. Also, that wouldn’t be the BCS way because they proved to be afraid of listening to the computers. The BCS would have voters choose the better team with a token input from computers.
LikeLike
1. The NCG removed the top 2 teams from the bowl(s) they would’ve been in, automatically diminishing the bowls.
But the NCG is itself a bowl. You seem to be counting only what was lost, and not what was gained. I suppose you would be right, in the narrow sense, if you pick some arbitrary date in the past, and say that any new bowl added later diminishes the existing ones.
By making the postseason all about the championship, the BCS diminished the major bowls. They all used to feel really important every year, and now they are clearly second class citizens.
Even in the pre-BCS days, most of the bowls were just exhibitions. In fact, for much of their history, the polls selected the national champion at the end of the regular season, making the bowls as meaningless as they could conceivably be.
“Spreading out the games to New Year’s week was an error, as all the parties now admit, but it wasn’t an essential feature of the system.”
That doesn’t matter. It was a “feature” of the BCS, and thus bowl diminution due to it is correctly attributed to the BCS.
I think everyone agrees that that aspect of the BCS failed miserably. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t a key feature, the way matching #1 vs. #2 was a key feature.
“The main problem with the BCS was correctly identifying the right two teams to play. Waiting for one more round of games to make the decision doesn’t fix that problem.”
How do you know that? . . . Could the bowls muddy the waters? Sure. All the undefeated teams could lose, leaving a jumble of 1 loss teams. But if everyone has a loss, there is never a clear best team anyway.
On the other hand, the lesser 1 loss teams could all lose and help clarify the rankings.
You made my point for me. Depending on how the bowls turn out, the waters could be clearer, muddier, or just the same as they were before.
The biggest problem of both the BCS and the playoff is their rigid structure. There must be exactly 2 or 4 (or 8, etc) teams given a chance. What if 5 teams or 3 teams or only 1 team deserve a shot? The old bowl system could accommodate that.
Accommodate it…how? If you think that the championship should be decided by voting, there is no particular “right time” to vote. In the old days, the final vote was after the regular season, which was much shorter than it is today. Obviously, each game you play is another data point that, depending on the outcome, might clarify or jumble the result.
In sports, the way you decide is to have the contenders play each other directly.
LikeLike
“In sports, the way you decide is to have the contenders play each other directly.”
Apparently not: Ala v LSU do over…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“But the NCG is itself a bowl.”
No, it isn’t. The word bowl appears nowhere in it’s name. It’s “the BCS National Championship Game.”
“You seem to be counting only what was lost, and not what was gained.”
The bowls didn’t gain anything.
“I suppose you would be right, in the narrow sense, if you pick some arbitrary date in the past, and say that any new bowl added later diminishes the existing ones.”
Yes. That’s a lesser issue for a small bowl, obviously. When a new game takes the top 2 teams, of course the other bowls all suffer.
“I think everyone agrees that that aspect of the BCS failed miserably. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t a key feature, the way matching #1 vs. #2 was a key feature.”
And I’m pointing out that that’s irrelevant. It was part of the package and people can correctly blame the BCS for diminishing the bowls because of it. Your opinion of how key it was is meaningless to the discussion.
“You made my point for me. Depending on how the bowls turn out, the waters could be clearer, muddier, or just the same as they were before.”
But that wasn’t your point. I didn’t try to provide evidence for how often each would happen. Without knowing that, there is no basis to claim it wouldn’t help to have those extra data points. You denigrate the old days of the polls declaring a champ before the bowls. That would seem to indicate you think the bowls provided useful information about which teams were best.
“Accommodate it…how?”
Because the voters could take into account as many bowls and teams as they felt necessary. They weren’t restricted to only considering 1 game.
“If you think that the championship should be decided by voting, there is no particular “right time” to vote.”
Sure there is. At the end. The one reasonable discussion was whether to vote before or after the postseason. That’s because the separation in time was so great as to make the bowls a separate season in many respects. As the season lengthened and travel became easier, they made the correct decision to include the bowls.
“In sports, the way you decide is to have the contenders play each other directly.”
Not always. And there is zero evidence that this produces the “best” team more often than other systems.
LikeLike
#1 vs. #2 after the bowls IMO is the worst of all possible systems. Many teams still treat bowls as exhibitions. So a team may get jumped up because of a dominating win over a team that wasn’t particularly interested. It emphasizes one of the biggest flaws of the current system, which is the “who lost last” or “who looked good last week?” Writers aren’t the most intelligent people. Asking them to remember what happened 6 weeks ago is a challenge, let alone 4 1/2 months. So teams with similar records get rated much because of what happened in 1 of their 13 or 14 games.
I much prefer the current BCS or the old bowl system to a 1/2 matchup after the bowls. In many years, you would get rematches. If you disallowed rematches, you would have 1 beat 2 and then have to play say a #4 who beat #10. Worst of all systems.
In any event, while we may not go from 4 to 8, we aren’t going back to 2.
LikeLike
@bullet – I agree that we certainly aren’t going to go backwards. For any unseeded bowl system to work, it would probably need to be a situation where the 2 or 4 highest ranked teams heading *into* the bowls would automatically advance if they win in order to prevent exactly what you’re saying in terms of teams jumping each other with dominating performances against teams that aren’t interested. That would also maintain a lot of the traditionalist argument of putting greater weight on regular season games – if your ranking is literally “fixed” based on your regular season performance, then you can’t control your own destiny unless you’re in the top 2 or 4 (or however many teams would be playing after the bowls).
LikeLike
“In sports, the way you decide is to have the contenders play each other directly.”
Not always. And there is zero evidence that this produces the “best” team more often than other systems.
Well, college football is one of the older team sports commonly played in the United States, and of the leagues (pro or amateur) that came along later, none thought that the college football championship model was worth emulating. Even college football itself, below FBS, did not emulate that model.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well, college football is one of the older team sports commonly played in the United States, and of the leagues (pro or amateur) that came along later, none thought that the college football championship model was worth emulating.”
Of course not. No other sport is as limited in game number or frequency. That has a huge impact on the choices available to you. A 162 game FB season with 7 game playoff series would mean a regular season over 3 years long and almost 2 months for each playoff series. A baseball season only feels that long.
Besides, pro leagues are focused on making money. Their goal isn’t to reward the best team.
“Even college football itself, below FBS, did not emulate that model.”
That’s because CFB established the bowl system before there were other levels. No bowl would ever take those teams, so they needed a different solution. They relied on NCAA charity to hold a playoff, in part because they couldn’t afford intersectional games to help determine which teams are best. I-A is a completely different animal.
There’s also the historical divide that CFB started long before anyone really cared who was #1. They played bowls for fun and to reward the players while the cities hosted them to promote tourism. The AP poll started in 1936 to help sell papers. The UPI started in 1950ish for the same reason. The fan obsession with knowing who is #1 is a fairly recent development.
LikeLike
@Frank
And that 1 vs 2 system you are discussing after the bowls is a serious violation of KISS. Networks and the public would never buy it.
LikeLike
And that 1 vs 2 system you are discussing after the bowls is a serious violation of KISS. Networks and the public would never buy it.
I think Frank is proposing the traditional bowls as the quarter-finals, not the semis. There would be two rounds after the traditional bowls, not just a 1 vs 2 game.
As long as there was just only a single round, there was a reasonable argument about who should be in it, how the two participants should be selected, and when the game should be played. Now that we have a full-blown two-round playoff, I can’t imagine them going backwards.
LikeLike
The regular season is still critical to OSU because they have flat out not looked as good as FSU or Alabama………and that’s ALWAYS the case. There are NEVER more than 2 teams that have a LEGIT bitch….it’s always ‘cry me a river’ stuff.from lesser teams.
LikeLike
So far in the BCS system there has been 1 team with a real gripe about being let out and that was the year Auburn was unbeaten. If we get 3/4 unbeaten power conference teams this year, that number will go but it will still be an anomaly.
Regardless, the way it made the regular season more meaningful is that I cared a hell of a lot about a few games that otherwise had no effect on my team or the Big Ten race. If we had an 4 team playoff, I probably would have watched, but I wouldn’t have really cared about the results. You go up to an 8 team playoff, and the game wouldn’t have even likely pushed Oregon out of the playoff and the reason to watch would have diminished a lot further.
I guess how I look at is like this. I like college basketball a lot too, but try as I might, I really care about the results in other conference until NCAA Tournament time. I might occasionally be rooting for a team, but none of it feels like it’s actually relevant to my team. College football is the opposite. I’m rooting for the Big Ten out of conference and rooting throughout the season for the top teams in other conferences to lose.
LikeLike
@Eric – I understand that sentiment, but the major difference with college basketball is that conference championships have become meaningless since the NCAA Tournament field is too large, whereas college football conference championships are becoming meaningless because the field is too small. (The fact that many playoff participants would be conference champs is tangential to how highly ranked they are in terms of the perceptions of the selection committee.) That’s a large risk that I see going forward in even the new 4-team playoff, where there’s such a large emphasis on which conference you’re off-the-field financially (which has driven conference realignment), yet that may end up being meaningless when it comes to on-the-field competitiveness. One of those items will have to give eventually unless there’s a system that can accommodate all power conference champs.
The games last night were great, but the flip side is that there are 5 Big Ten games every week (the ones not involving Ohio State) that don’t mean anything at a national level, 4 Big 12 games per week (the ones not involving Baylor) in the same position, no other Pac-12 games may really matter nationally unless one of the top 4 teams loses in the next month, etc.
We have probably a larger proportion of traditionally minded college football fans here than the average sports blog, so we tend to give a lot of weight to evenings like last night, but we have to remember about the other 95-plus percent of games that have been totally devalued. That has long-term negative implications for the sport as people have more entertainment choices daily. To me, that can only be rectified by going to an updated old school plus-one system (where we have the traditional bowl matchups and then have #1 vs. #2 play after that) or the 8-team playoff I described previously (using the traditional bowl matchups such as the Big Ten/Pac-12/Rose Bowl), as each of those systems put the weight on objectively winning your conference first – you get your shot if you win your power league. The current BCS system and new 4-team playoff inevitably put the subjective beauty contest first, which is what detractors of how the college football postseason works justifiably have an issue with. When you have multiple teams with the exact same record and they’re all from power conferences (so even the “worst” strength of schedule has a fairly high floor), trying to parse who is the best or most deserving on shifting (or even arbitrary) criteria is what’s maddening about the process.
LikeLike
And look – I’m saying all of this while fully supporting the notion that the new 4-team playoff should NOT have a requirement or quota for conference champions. When I see people advocating that, it’s a halfway approach that I don’t think would work in this particular format. Either allow all of the power conference champions into the playoff (which means expanding the format to 8) or don’t consider their league championships as being necessary at all. Once you start having to rank which conference champs are the best, you might as well rank everyone.
LikeLike
Frank, I guess where I disagree is that the other conference games have little value. Conference championships are a major award onto themselves and the races will always draw well regionally and to an extent nationally. The difference with the BCS is that some of those game now also take on a lot more extra national attention.
I get what you are saying beyond that (and even go a step further and think only conference champions/independents should be in the 4 team playoff or should have ever been in the BCS title game either), but I don’t think the old bowl system or a bigger playoff is going to effect that attention all that much. If most/all conference champs are in, then those races effect on your conference are small and the reasons to pay attention aren’t much bigger than now.
To put another way, if you live in Big Ten country and weren’t paying attention to the Big 12/ACC/SEC/PAC-12 conference races now, I don’t think you’d be anymore likely to in either the old bowl system or a 4/8/16 team playoff than you are now.
LikeLike
@Eric – Where I compare it is to the NFL (which as I’ve said before has had the best model in terms of ensuring high regular season interest with even more monstrous interest in the postseason). I know that not everyone here wants college football to be like the NFL, but when it comes to the arguments that I see in terms of supposedly lower regular season college football interest with a playoff expansion, it’s a relevant comparison. That’s because every power conference other than the Big 12 has now moved to a very NFL-like-concept: divisional play. In an environment where the Big Ten champ automatically gains access to a playoff, it’s not just the Ohio State games that matter at a national level. Under that format, the Michigan State-Nebraska game next week suddenly turns into an extremely important game beyond the Big Ten fan base since that would determine control in the Legends division (which in turn is a de facto playoff game since the Big Ten Championship Game itself would be a de facto playoff game). Virginia Tech-Miami would have similar stakes tomorrow in terms of control within the ACC Coastal.
What the NFL has displayed is that there is an incredible amount of value in that trickle-down effect of having a larger number of games becoming relevant to the playoff race via divisional play. Let’s go back to the very worst division in the history of the NFL: the 2010 NFC West. The divisional race came down the 6-9 Seahawks vs. the 7-8 Rams playing in the last week of the season. You really can’t get more putrid than that in terms of a divisional championship game. Yet, the NFL decided to slot that matchup for the last Sunday Night Football game of the season as opposed to some other high profile games occurring the same week that didn’t have the same stakes (i.e. Bears-Packers). It turned out that bet was right: it ended being the highest-rated week 17 NFL game since the turn of the century simply because people want to watch games with stakes involved (even if the actual teams are craptacular, as they definitely were with the Seahawks and Rams that season).
So, I understand the sentiment for the tradition of college football of having a small handful of games per year involving a small handful of teams where there are monster stakes involved. There’s no doubt that those particular games are fun. However, I think that there would be greater interest in the sport from top-to-bottom if it has a lot of games involving a lot of different teams where there are at least some stakes involved (leading up to the conference championship games where you are guaranteed massive stakes). That’s what the NFL is extremely successful in doing and, with college conferences getting larger with divisions and marquee non-conference games becoming rarer, college football should learn a lot of lessons from that.
Plus, my own proposal (8-team playoff using the traditional bowl tie-ins) is as much about my personal love for the traditional Rose Bowl. I’d rather have a true Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ Rose Bowl that’s a national quarterfinal every year than the glorified (albeit still very cool) consolation prize that it has become that won’t feature champs from either league frequently (and won’t be guaranteed to be Big Ten vs. Pac-12 once every three years when it’s hosting a semifinal). Same thing with the Sugar and Orange Bowls. Expansion of the playoff doesn’t have to mean an eradication of tradition. In fact, it could actually be a vehicle to restore much of the original tradition of the postseason.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Where I compare it is to the NFL (which as I’ve said before has had the best model in terms of ensuring high regular season interest with even more monstrous interest in the postseason).”
You ignore two HUGE factors in that interest level – gambling and fantasy football. I certainly don’t want to see gambling become as big in CFB as it is in the NFL. It’s too big already. I also hate what fantasy play does to any sport, as people start rooting for players and not teams.
Also, it’s apples and oranges to compare CFB to the NFL due to size (125 vs 32) and the lack of parity (the difference between #1 and #125 is much, much bigger than the gap from #1 to #32). What works for a league of 32 roughly comparable teams is not necessarily the right answer for 125 schools that are all over the map in terms of skill level, split into 10 leagues plus independents.
LikeLike
Depends on your definition of a “real gripe.” If it is a P5 conference team who was unbeaten and was left out, you are correct. If it was a “best” team who didn’t even get to play for the title, knocked out by a team with the same record, there are a lot of candidates.
Cincinnati was an unbeaten AQ in 2009. TCU was unbeaten and ended up a solid #2 in 2010. Utah was unbeaten in 2008 while the winners had losses. Texas and USC may have been the best teams in 2008 as well, but didn’t get to play. USC had a complaint in 2003 when OU played LSU. The BCS has failed miserably many years. It really is indefensible except that it did a better job of matching good teams than the prior system. That’s not saying much. The previous system got it right sometimes too before the bowls locked up all the conference champs.
The old bowl system has some arguments for it, but 10 years from now, no one will be sentimental about the BCS. It merely entrenched the most hypocritical parts of the old system.
LikeLike
To me, once you lose a game you lose the ability to complain much. Maybe you should have been in, but you lost that power on your own.
Cincinnati was an AQ team, but I didn’t include them since any right to complain went away with their blowout loss to Florida in the Sugar Bowl. For the non-AQ I hold a slightly higher standard. Your schedule is a lot less so you have to be dominant most the season. I’d possibly add Urban Meyer’s Utah team and maybe 2010 TCU to the list though.
There won’t be a lot nostalgic for this system, but I think I’ll be one of them. It’s what I fell in love with college football with and despite all the complaints, I think worked out pretty well.
LikeLike
To me, once you lose a game you lose the ability to complain much. Maybe you should have been in, but you lost that power on your own.
If you’re a one-loss team, and other one-loss teams have made it, naturally you have a right to complain. As long as any one-loss team makes it, the criteria for whom to exclude become arguable.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24199088/maryland-used-a-pr-firm-to-sway-fan-opinion-on-big-ten-move
Who’s doing this on this board?
LikeLike
Andy is underpaid for the output.
LikeLike
Frank, you know your stuff very well. I think 16-team Conferences is the solution to get to the 8-team playoff. Personally, I think the 16-team “super” conferences is possible under the BCS format but instead of Harris, have the AP back in the fold or you keep the 4-team format but it’s only Conference Champions against each other and you get the real 4-team “Super” Conference that has always been rumored.
Texas & Notre Dame join ACC as full-members.
Missouri & Vanderbilt join Big Ten.
Kansas & Kansas State join Pac-12 but I think you add Colorado State & Utah State too to make your identity as a super conference. Utah State is the weakest link in being added but I think the addition would actually help them academically & athletically.
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & West Virginia to the SEC.
At that point I think you get the “super” conferences you want.
LikeLike
@Bob Marley: Do the schools and conferences get a vote? Because in quite a few cases, the conferences don’t want the schools you’ve “assigned” them, or vice versa.
Schools and conferences aren’t going to choose each other, just to faciliatate a fan’s football playoff dream. Many of the moves you’ve suggested make no sense at all, either for the league or the school concerned.
To give but one example (of many), I think Missouri is very happy with the SEC, and the SEC is very happy with Missouri. To the suggestion of swapping them out with Texas Tech, I think both parties’ response would be: no thanks.
LikeLike
Missouri & Vanderbilt join Big Ten.
a) Vanderbilt is the school that created the SEC and charter member
b) Vanderbilt is private, and SEC needs a private for FOIA protection
Vanderbilt leaving the SEC seems like a non starter
LikeLike
Both sides are claiming victory in the O’Bannon case following a judge’s ruling.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/11/08/ncaa-class-action-lawsuit-obannon-amateurism/3479501/?sf19272027=1
A federal judge on Friday partially granted class action status in a lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the plaintiffs, including former and current Division I men’s basketball players and Football Bowl Subdivision players, will be allowed to challenge the NCAA’s current restrictions on what athletes may receive in exchange for playing sports. The ruling sets up the prospect of a fundamental change in scholarship rules and the concept of amateurism.
However, Wilken denied the plaintiffs’ bid to certify a class that was seeking potentially billions of dollars in damages from the NCAA for improper use of athletes’ names and likenesses in a variety of forms, including live television broadcasts.
LikeLike
I really recommend everyone read the whole article; there is a lot of important stuff in it.
LikeLike
Can someone link the actual 24-page opinion? I have been trying to find it.
Based on the news reports, this seems the exact opposite of what the NCAA wanted.
LikeLike
I can’t find the opinion, but based on the article it appears the result is about half way what the NCAA wanted. The NCAA’s goal was to prevent the class certification which would blunted the potential impact of any litigation (since it would have required all potential defendants to go through the effort and take on the risk of filing their own individual lawsuits instead of just joining into one already in progress). They failed in that respect and it will give the plaintiffs more leverage as they attempt to challenge the amateurism policy.
However
The NCAA did catch a major break since the judge denied the plaintiffs the right to seek monetary damages for the usage of their likeness rights by the NCAA and its members. That is huge since it not only limits the monetary impact in the event the NCAA ends up losing the lawsuit it also discourages more players from joining the lawsuit since there is little chance at a big cash payout at the end.
LikeLike
Actually I should amend my final statement slightly.
There is a potential for plaintiffs to get some money in the event the NCAA ends up settling (in order to prevent the amateurism model from going on trial) but it won’t be anything close to the big payday O’Bannon and company were seeking (half of all the revenue from TV, video games etc…)
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Based on the news reports, this seems the exact opposite of what the NCAA wanted.”
No, this was a great compromise decision for the NCAA. The judge eliminated the possibility of past damages. Now the suit is only about what future rights student-athletes might have.
LikeLike
…this was a great compromise decision for the NCAA. The judge eliminated the possibility of past damages. Now the suit is only about what future rights student-athletes might have.
I think you’re mistaken. If this holds up, the NCAA is the overwhelming loser.
The judge denied class certification for past use of athletes’ likenesses, but granted it for future use, as well as the whole amateurism principle. This is huge, because past damages are limited, but the future ones are infinite.
If she was going to cut the apple in half, the players overwhelmingly prevailed on the bigger and juicier half of the apple.
LikeLike
yep. the decision allows the O’Bannon plaintiffs to challenge the NCAA’s right to adhere to the principle of amateurism.
LikeLike
But, as with so many things, we need to see the actual Opinion to know what the Judge really said.
LikeLike
This probably summarizes it as well as any.
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/11/09/2920381/judge-says-athletes-case-ncaa-amateurism-rules-forward/
“While the NCAA is now protected against any threat of an immediate payout now, it still faces a major threat: the possibility that the O’Bannon case could ultimately invalidate the current financial structure of college athletics.”
LikeLike
“…it still faces a major threat: the possibility that the O’Bannon case could ultimately invalidate the current financial structure of college athletics.”
Or it could completely vindicate the system. There is no compulsion to participate, the amateurism rules are widely known,
and have been upheld in prior court decisions.
Or somewhere in between.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think you’re mistaken. If this holds up, the NCAA is the overwhelming loser.”
Obviously the NCAA would have preferred winning totally. But since they didn’t, winning on the past use is big for them. That could have cost the NCAA billions (that’s what damages they were claiming) and there is nothing they could do about it. The NCAA has control over what they do in the future at least. They’ve dropped the video game, for example.
The decision may be bad for the NCAA’s version of amateurism, but that remains to be seen. They could win in court on that. They could also change the rules. I’d love to see them eliminate all athletic scholarships and special funding for athletes in response to this. Then the 2 or 3 big names on a team can get paid and everyone else can suffer due to their greed. Then the players can unionize and agree to go back to the old rules because they were better overall for the players.
“If she was going to cut the apple in half, the players overwhelmingly prevailed on the bigger and juicier half of the apple.”
There was almost no way the judge was going to prevent the future use issue from going to trial. Thus, the NCAA won on the only part that was really at issue in my mind. That’s why I see it as a win.
LikeLike
I don’t see it working that way though Brian. You drop the rules on amateurism and allows boosters to give (above the table), they are still going to want to get depth at the schools and while the disparity between what the best and rest get might be there, there’s still going to be money flowing to all the players at the major schools. Even you outright got rid of the athletic scholarships, I think you’d more than make it up with booster money being sent there instead of to pay for the huge coach salaries and facilities.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I don’t see it working that way though Brian. You drop the rules on amateurism and allows boosters to give (above the table), they are still going to want to get depth at the schools and while the disparity between what the best and rest get might be there, there’s still going to be money flowing to all the players at the major schools.”
Everyone has a limited budget, though. The market value of players will skyrocket as teams compete for them, and thus a large chunk of the boosters’s total money will go to land a few players. That will leave very little for the lesser guys.
“Even you outright got rid of the athletic scholarships, I think you’d more than make it up with booster money being sent there instead of to pay for the huge coach salaries and facilities.”
The schools aren’t going to let the boosters give them less to let the players get more. Required donations and ticket prices aren’t dropping. Salaries never go down and neither do construction costs. It will just be an added layer of financial competition between schools.
LikeLike
@ Brian:
You said: “Everyone has a limited budget, though. The market value of players will skyrocket as teams compete for them, and thus a large chunk of the boosters’s total money will go to land a few players. That will leave very little for the lesser guys.”
What you say is true in the abstract but ignores that the system itself is a fluid ecology and is currently artificially constrained. Changing the rules is like changing the environment. Freely allow “boosters” and the number and type of “boosters” will multiple to fill every “ecological” niche. The new booster $$ would be enormous.
Every fan would become a mini-boosters. Every business with some advertizing dollars would become a booster. Every Frat House and Sorority would sponsor a player/player group.
And every school would quickly figure out how to nearly zero-down the transaction costs. Get 11W and MGoBlog etc. etc. to post a link so that fans can donate $5 to the “Team.”
Then the schools will get organized. If the schools can raise billions for their respective endowments, the schools will have little trouble raising $50M a year to support the “players.”
LikeLike
“Every fan would become a mini-boosters. Every business with some advertizing dollars would become a booster. ”
Not me!
If I’m going to support a professional sports venture it will be a pro team. I’ll more likely support the local boys and girls club fundraising efforts.
LikeLike
I think you seriously underestimate the backlash. The academic side doesn’t like sports already.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
My point is, that would happen across the board. And then the price for the #1 QB recruit would just get higher and higher, and you’re right back to the starts getting most/all of the money and the scrubs being thankful for a spot on the team. If schools have =$50M to spend on players, a top 5 recruit will shop his services until someone offers $10M+.
LikeLike
Seems to me the rulings are very much the NCAA way, but the tone is toward the plaintiffs. Her reasoning seems to be a loophole ruling for the NCAA on past damages. I don’t think the NCAA could realistically expect that she wouldn’t grant class action of some sort. Its kind of like, “well you didn’t ask for it before so I can’t really figure how much, if anything, you lost. But we’ll let you go to trial on the issue going forward.”
LikeLike
The plaintiffs could still end up with nothing or could destroy college athletics as we know it. A full win for the plaintiffs would mean wholesale elimination of non-rev sports.
LikeLike
The plaintiffs could still end up with nothing or could destroy college athletics as we know it.
I agree that they could still end up with nothing. I disagree that a win would “destroy college athletics as we know it.” The NCAA also made the same argument in the TV rights case that they lost. They make that argument every single time they get sued, win or lose. Somehow or other, college athletics is still with us.
A win for the players would simply mean that the NCAA is out of the price-fixing business. Monopolists always argue that their monopoly is necessary. They are always wrong.
A full win for the plaintiffs would mean wholesale elimination of non-rev sports.
To the contrary, the non-revenue sports would be the least affected. Remember, Ed O’Bannon sued because he wasn’t being paid for the use of his likeness on a video game. There is no XBox game for women’s rowing.
A second issue is allowing the players to monetize their own value, should they so choose. Here too, the non-revenue sports would be the least affected, because practically none of those players have any sports value to monetize.
LikeLike
The 1984 end to the NCAA TV monopoly wasn’t a bad thing, but it did drastically change things. The gap between the haves and have nots has grown dramatically.
Money doesn’t grow on trees. If the colleges end up giving more money to football and basketball players, the non-revs, which are subsidized by most schools and by football and basketball in the others, would have to be cut.
Now its not certain the players get a lot more money in a plaintiff win. It could conceivably mean a bunch get less while the projected stars get more.
Like the 1984 ruling, if the players win, there will be winners and there will be a lot of losers. I think its pretty certain non-rev athletes will be among the losers.
LikeLike
The 1984 end to the NCAA TV monopoly wasn’t a bad thing, but it did drastically change things.
Sure, but the word you used was “destroy,” not “change.” Yes, things changed. At this point, I think you’d find very few people who’d prefer to go back to the way it was.
LikeLike
If the programs paid out millions extra it would destroy it as we know it. It would look very different. Not just the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Monopolists always argue that their monopoly is necessary. They are always wrong.”
Not always. There are many things best done by just one entity.
LikeLike
“Monopolists always argue that their monopoly is necessary. They are always wrong.”
Not always. There are many things best done by just one entity.
I was referring to the situations where the main argument is coming from the monopolists themselves. No one has suggested, for instance, that we ought to have multiple defense departments competing with each other to provide the best navy. I’m sure the navy would dispute that idea, but everyone would.
LikeLike
Rutgers is expected to make the official announcement on the new ticket policy on Monday.
nj.com
LikeLike
Under the new pricing policy, individual tickets from the 30 yard lines to the 50 yard line will increase from $52 to $55 per game. Seats from the 30 yard line to the end zone will rise from $50 to $55 per game.
The season ticket package for those seats – Rutgers has just six home games next season – puts the school in the middle of the pack price-wise in the Big Ten.
The donations to buy season tickets, while rising $100 for each section, will keep Rutgers at the bottom of the 14-team league. Donations for the 50 yard line will rise to $350, for the 40 yard line to $250 and for the 30 yard line to $150. All of that money supports scholarships for student-athletes.
By contrast, Nebraska requires a $3,500 donation for 50 yard line seats. The donation at Maryland — joining the league with Rutgers next year — for the premium seat is $2,000. Wisconsin requires the next-lowest donation for a 50 yard line seat at $400.
“Knowing what our season ticket base is (22,000 this year) and knowing that we still have a stadium to fill, we don’t want to price anyone out of the stadium even though we need to raise some revenue while also trying to compete in the Big Ten,” athletic director Julie Hermann said, adding that the donation increase “is nominal and still at the bottom of the Big Ten.”
Rutgers is also expanding the footprint of donations required to buy seats, essentially extending it from end zone to end zone.
Though season ticket packages for next season are technically less than this year – there are just six home games in 2014 compared to seven this fall – there will be an increase in the Family Zone from $99 to $150 for season. Those are sections 201, 214, 217, 218, 229 and 230 in the upper deck.
LikeLike
Hermann Addresses 2014 Tickets
LikeLike
So for the B10 to get a 2nd BCS team, Clemson has to be upset by both GTech and SC (or both NIU and Fresno have to lose). That’s pretty much it, right?
LikeLike
Oh, or if MSU upsets OSU. That _might_ do the trick. Or if OSU somehow gets to the national title game.
LikeLike
OSU getting to the national title game would not help MSU’s chances. OSU’s title game appearance would still count as the Big Ten’s only autobid, and right now there are a lot of teams ahead of the Big Ten’s potential #2’s.
If MSU upsets OSU, then MSU would get the auto-bid, but OSU would get a serious look as an at-large.
LikeLike
I would be very hard to imagine Ohio State going undefeated until the conference title game, losing that, and then not getting an autobid.
LikeLike
*At-large bid, not auto bid.
LikeLike
If OSU makes the national title game, it’s extremely likely that the Rose picks a B10 team (so long as one is eligible) over higher ranked teams.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Oh, or if MSU upsets OSU. That _might_ do the trick. Or if OSU somehow gets to the national title game.”
If MSU win the CCG to be 12-1 and OSU loses it to be 12-1, both would most likely get bids.
Think of it this way:
6 auto bids
maybe an automatic BCS buster
Replacements for AL and FSU (SEC #2 and Clemson, most likely)
1-2 open slots
Selection order is Orange, Sugar, Fiesta.
Orange = Clemson vs ???
Would they rather get OSU, OR, UCF or NIU/Fresno?
I’ve got to think OSU is more desirable based on the fan base being larger and closer.
If OSU wins out and makes the NCG, WI is the only hope to get a second bid. 10-2 WI might be eligible, especially if ASU keeps winning. The Rose would definitely want a B10/P12 game if possible.
If OSU wins out and goes to the Rose, the B10 has to hope for no BCS buster. That would mean 2 at large spots open. One will go to Oregon (Orange or Sugar). If UCF is in, the Orange might take them. Otherwise, it’ll be OR. The Sugar would take OR or another at large. B12 #2 might be tempting if it’s 11-1 Baylor. Otherwise, B10 #2 might be more appealing than the AAC champ.
LikeLike
Barring upsets of Alabama, Florida State, and Ohio State, three of the games are pretty easy to figure out.
– The BCSNCG will Alabama vs. Florida State.
– The Rose will be Ohio State vs. Stanford (or whoever wins the Pac-12 should the Cardinal stumble).
– The Fiesta will be the Big 12 champion, most likely Baylor but possibly Texas or Oklahoma State, vs. either NIU or Fresno State because the Fiesta gets the last at-large pick.
The other two games are a little hazier.
-The Orange will go with Clemson if it can finish the rest of the season, including the finale against South Carolina, without another loss. If Clemson loses, though, that opens the door for Wisconsin. The Tigers would almost certainly drop out of the top 12, and Wisconsin, if it still happens to be outside the top 12 at that point, would almost certainly move into it upon a Clemson loss.
– For Clemson or Wisconsin’s opponent in the Orange Bowl, there would be a choice between UCF and Oregon. Just a hunch, but I think that the OB is more likely to go with UCF (due to proximity lending itself to ticket sales) than it would be if it gets Wisconsin. If Wisconsin is in the game, though, I think Oregon becomes more attractive because it would create a Rose Bowl East matchup. Again, it’s just a hunch. Either way, the Orange Bowl’s choice for Clemson/Wisconsin’s opponent will determine who the Sugar Bowl gets because it chooses ahead of the Sugar this year.
– The Sugar will feature one SEC team among Texas A&M, Auburn, Missouri, or South Carolina. I’d guess A&M because Missouri is pretty likely to lose to A&M and/or Alabama while Auburn is likely to end the season with a loss against Bama. South Carolina still faces Clemson, and I think Clemson will finally beat them this year. Bowls tend not to choose teams coming off losses, and A&M is the least likely to finish the season with another loss.
– The SEC team’s opponent in the Sugar Bowl will either be UCF or Oregon, depending on whom the Orange Bowl does NOT choose.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, Oregon ought to be rooting for Ohio State the rest of the way. If Michigan State beats Ohio State in the B1G championship game, the bowl games will look more like this:
BCSNCG: Alabama vs. Florida State
Rose: Stanford vs. Michigan State
Fiesta: Baylor/Big 12 champion vs. Fresno/NIU
Sugar: Texas A&M/SEC team vs. UCF
Orange: Clemson vs. Ohio State
BCS Standings would look something like this:
1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Baylor
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Clemson
7. Ohio State
8. Texas A&M
13ish. Fresno
15ish. UCF
And Oregon would be headed to the Alamo Bowl. There’s just no way the Orange Bowl would take the Ducks over Ohio State.
LikeLike
Michael, your rankings are strangely devoid of SEC teams. Not sure how you reconcile that.
LikeLike
Did Alabama and Texas A&M changes conferences and not tell anyone?
LikeLike
I’m assuming (as noted) that Alabama would be undefeated, meaning that Mizzou and Auburn would have second losses. Clemson would hand SC its third loss.
Not sure what else there is to reconcile.
LikeLike
I think there’s a good chance of that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Orange took a 10-2 Michigan St. over Oregon. Its a long way from Corvallis to Miami.
LikeLike
Perhaps UT can run the table and gain some interest. After all, Waco is much closer… 😉
LikeLike
I’m not sure why Ducks fans would take a side trip to the home of their arch-rivals en route to south Florida. The University of Oregon is in Eugene; Oregon State is in Corvallis.
LikeLike
If UT runs the table, they play Fresno in the Fiesta. Baylor then has to hope they get an at-large bid.
LikeLike
To Corvallis to show off their luggage with bathing suits and sunscreen while leaving a few South Beach brochures.
LikeLike
In a follow-up to the discussion that we had about the divide between “Global Chicago” and the rest of the city earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune today actually examined the influx of young college grads into the city versus the exodus of middle class families:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/plan/ct-edit-xproject6a-demog-20131110,0,7578113.story
Here’s more hard evidence of how Chicago’s overall population losses are much different compared to the rest of the Rust Belt cities. Chicago was the only one of the 10 largest American cities to lose population from 2000 to 2010, yet during that exact same period, it had the largest *increase* in population of young college grads (both percentage-wise and outright numbers) of that same top 10 group. It’s a completely different context for those population decreases compared to, say, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo.
Now, as the Tribune noted, the issue is getting those young college grads to stay. I was someone that loved living in the city, but made the same choice that many others have made as described in the Tribune article in leaving for the suburbs for better public schools and the general environment in terms of raising a family. Anecdotally, I do see a lot more younger families choosing to stay in the city than before, but they are generally at the top of the income charts (meaning that they can either afford private schools and/or live in one of the handful of neighborhoods that has public schools that are on par with the top suburbs) as opposed to the middle class. So, that exacerbates the “Global Chicago”/South and West Sides of Chicago divide even further.
LikeLike
This is true in most major cities. Schools are bad, housing prices are high, so once you get kids and need more space, you head to the suburbs. A lot of people also head during middle school. There are pockets with good elementary schools, but good middle schools are harder to come by. This was true in both Houston and Atlanta where we have lived pretty close in.
The trend toward San Jose style corporate campuses is a threat to the cities. In Houston, EXXON-Mobil is building a massive complex 20 miles north of town and moving employees there from all over the city, but mostly from downtown, the Greenspoint complex near the airport and Greenway Plaza just southwest of downtown. Their middle class employees tire of the commute and can’t afford to live close in and pay private school tuitions.
LikeLike
However, in Chicagoland, that engineering corridor along Diehl road in the far west suburbs that was built up in the ’80’s (and contributed to Naperville North’s academic achievements) has hollowed out in recent years. BP recently moved their trading operations that were in the old Amoco campus there to downtown Chicago. Possibly all their engineers as well (though I don’t know that part as well).
A big part of the difference may be due to the difference in public transit infrastructure. As someone who has done it, a 100 minute door-to-door commute where most of it is by train isn’t all that bad (as you can sleep on the train). A 90 minute driving commute through rush hour traffic would be hell.
LikeLike
http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2013/11/office-space-is-spreading-out-so-traffic-will-too/
This article, while primarily talking about Houston, talks about how what little office growth is going on in the U.S. is generally outside the central cities. Sprawling San Jose has as much as San Francisco. Houston and New York are the only places with 10 million sq. feet being built, with EXXON-Mobil’s and NY’s World Trade Center contributing about 3 million sf in both those places. 1 million sf is roughly a 50 story office building.
It mentions Houston’s energy corridor, which is a west side corridor with BP and many other energy companies starting about a dozen miles west of downtown along I-10. As jobs get spread geographically its harder to keep a strong center and harder to serve it with mass transit. And that’s pretty much the trend all over the U.S. Even NY has moved a bunch of jobs to New Jersey (although its all pretty dense over there).
LikeLike
The Bay Area doesn’t really have a center. To someone from Chicago or NYC, SF is a toy city. Also, the hippies in SF have some insane and stupid building restrictions.
The point I was making is that those cities that have a strong public transit system that feeds in to a central core (NYC and Chicago are really it in the US) will see less jobs sprawl outward compared to other cities.
LikeLike
Moreover, San Francisco’s strict building limits as to size and character created a severe housing shortage and led to a drastic increase in housing costs, pricing people out. Now, the city wants to spend more on affordable housing, while maintaining the city’s charm and character.
Good luck with that.
LikeLike
In a similar vein, after years of bulldozing everything, Atlanta is now trying to preserve everything as it was in the 70s and its an arduous process to get anything approved. Net result is a lot of people choose to move to the suburbs because they can’t afford heavily renovated houses and don’t have the time to take on a house needing serious updating.
Houston has about a 10% lower cost of living than Atlanta, despite booming, partly because it has no zoning at all. And it is producing a number of the mixed use projects planners like because you don’t have to bribe politicians and fight NIMBYs to get it done. Not that it has a great transit system, but it is easier to serve with transit than most other new, planned cities, because developers have chosen to build in clusters. Houston has 4 major “downtowns” within or adjacent to Loop 610 (downtown, Uptown-Galleria, Greenway Plaza, Texas Medical Center) and a half dozen or so other major activity centers as opposed to the bits and pieces everywhere that happen in places like Los Angeles and Atlanta.
LikeLike
Great article Frank.
this quote I thought was very important: “If you drew a circle with a 2-mile radius around Chicago’s City Hall, as the Census Bureau did, you’d find the population in that ring had grown by 48,288 residents — 36 percent — between 2000 and 2010, even as the overall population fell. Census researchers measured the growth within similar rings in other metro areas. Chicago outpaced them all.”
That is a giant giant “kudos” to Daley’s success in building up the near loop to the east (luxury condos and townhouses) and to the south and west (more affordable lofts and condos).
I think the luxury buildings are key. If you want corporate CEOs/Managers to keep their workers downtown, you need to have luxury apartments for those CEOs/Managers.
Schools are key too, but that can be a lagging indicator. Here’s a recent Crain’s article about private schools expanding/opening.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130928/ISSUE01/309289971/private-schools-are-popping-up-around-town
LikeLike
In regard to your comment on CEOs, someone did a study on companies moving office space. There was a very strong correlation between where the CEOs lived and where they relocated to.
LikeLike
Foremost your citing a Tribune article, hardly hard evidence. But I’ll accept it as full truth for the sake of this discussion. Chicago is still not that much different than Detroit or Cleveland on many of the issues covered in this article, esp along the depopulation lines and reasons why. Similarly, Minneapolis has witnessed, though not on a Chicago scale, albeit per capita stats would be interesting, surging, younger professional growth. However, we’re not a Rust Belt City. Chicago is one of many cities that attracts younger professionals. Retention is difficult in some of these cities as well. In SF, it’s inevitably about affordability once the idea of starting a family becomes reality. In Mpls, we are dealing with major public school issues as well, thus first tier suburbs become attractive to upstart families, as many of these places are going faux-urban to attract young families (a bit disgusting but effective). We also have an incredibly tight rental market because these younger professionals often leave for the coastal mega-cities, often returning in a few years (it’s more a Minnesota thing). Like Chicago, minority migrants don’t necessarily move into Mpls or St. Paul (central cities). New majority-minority suburbs have surfaced over the past decade & plenty of 2nd to 3rd generation Black American families leave Mpls for these burbs – slightly better schools, less crime. Many of the outlying burbs have the manufacturing jobs that attract migrant Latinos as well.
The more important issue raised in the article is “retention” and such shouldn’t be focused only on the new professionals, but also the once entrenched generations that are leaving Chicago or any city center as well. Ultimately, Chicago’s issues resurface all the bullet points that caused the mass flight to begin, which is not much different than the rest of the Rust Belt or much of the Mid-Atlantic to Northeast, though every city has its unique, provincial measures of problem solving. The list is long and filled with the usual: rapid deindustrialization, crime, environmental pollution (<– the costs of cleaning up, especially), the Drug War (which is truly understated since may hard hit communities in major cities are dominated by minorities), disinvested public education, the rise of the knowledge economy, the Industrial Prison Complex (see Alexander's "The New Jim Crow"), the promise of suburbia, post WWII.
Sorry if I didn't get to other above posts-responses. Once these threads go past 500, I get too lazy to scroll. I should probably use the "notification" option, but my email is already too full every time I check.
LikeLike
A difference for Chicago, or Minneapolis, is that the metro population isn’t stagnate or declining like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburg and Buffalo.
LikeLike
Sort of realignment news. The Nebraska Cornhuskers, Texas A&M Aggies and the West Virginia Mountaineers all won their first championships since joining their new conferences, all in women’s soccer. Texas A&M had to come back to win 2-1 against Florida, while Nebraska and WVU held on to 1-0 victories against Iowa and Oklahoma State, respectively.
UCF also won their first championship in the American Athletic Championship, after defeating Rutgers in women’s soccer on penalty kicks. Rutgers was one kick away from winning women’s soccer championship in their one and only season in the AAC but the UCF goalie saved the fifth shot and then saved the final shot.
Maryland wins the conference field hockey championship in their final season in the ACC, defeating UNC, 2-0.
LikeLike
Nebraska won the Big Ten volleyball their first year in the league. I think they have both a women’s and men’s track title at some point and also a gymnastics league title from last year.
LikeLike
aha. arch is a husker fan. that explains a lot.
LikeLike
Is Mike a bigger Husker fan? It seems he has more info as to UNL’s conference results.
LikeLike
According to the Big Ten conference, Nebraska has 6 conf. titles as of 7/1/13
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been posted here but an interview with Vanderbilt AD David Williams about the possible changes in the NCAA:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20131102/SPORTS0602/311020084/?nclick_check=1
LikeLike
Not only is the Georgia Dome going to be torn down after only 25 years, after about 20, Turner Field will be abandoned and the Braves will move to Cobb County. This one is totally out of the blue.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/atlanta-braves-leaving-turner-field-for-new-ballpark-in-nearby-cobb-county?md=20131111&content_id=6383014168&vkey=new_mlb
LikeLike
Where Braves’ ticket buyers live.
LikeLike
The center of the Braves ticket buyers would be almost right in Perimeter Center on the Fulton/DeKalb County line. Perimeter Center is the 2nd largest employment center in the metro area after downtown and where the Atlanta paper moved to a few years back. “Perimeter” is what they call the Loop-I-285 in Atlanta. The new stadium location is on the Northwest corner of the Perimeter. And it is outside the MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) service area and about as far as you could get while still being on the Perimeter from any train stop.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The center of the Braves ticket buyers would be almost right in Perimeter Center on the Fulton/DeKalb County line. Perimeter Center is the 2nd largest employment center in the metro area after downtown and where the Atlanta paper moved to a few years back.”
Yes, put the new stadium on Ga 400. Works for me.
“The new stadium location is on the Northwest corner of the Perimeter. And it is outside the MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) service area and about as far as you could get while still being on the Perimeter from any train stop.”
Well, yes. Cobb County doesn’t want “those kinds of people” being able to take a cheap train ride out to their neighborhoods. On the other hand, CCT runs an express bus from Arts Center Station in Atlanta to Cumberland Mall (about 3 miles from the new stadium). I’m guessing they’ll run express buses for the game either from in town or from Cumberland.
I’m sure the malls are thrilled that all their parking will be filled by people too cheap to pay to park at the stadium and will instead take a bus the last little bit instead.
LikeLike
Proof yet again that professional sports, college sports, and colleges themselves are completely immune to the economic downturn that effected the rest of us in the real world. Where else do you see structures built as recently as the early- to mid-90’s and still in good condition, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, simply get abandoned to build even more expensive ones? Where else do multi-million dollar projects like luxurious new student unions get built for 18-year-olds?
Good grief.
LikeLike
I’d be inclined to have the feds save the communities from themselves and ban tax-exempt status for any bonds to replace or significantly renovate any stadium less than 30 years old.
They didn’t vote on the Falcons deal. I think they were sure it would be defeated. The immediate public money is $200 million, but the public is paying for a bunch of maintenance down the road. Its amazing the NFL can put $1 billion into a stadium.
http://tracking.si.com/2013/10/29/budget-design-approved-for-new-falcons-stadium/
LikeLike
Michael that is so true: Exhibit A is the $44m upgrade at the Robeson HUB Center @ Penn State (State College), and care to guess which Public (or Quasi-Public) University charges the HIGHEST In-State Tuition in the B10? If you guessed PSU you guessed right. You would think that after the payouts from Sandusky Victims, and the massive Graham Spannier Construction frenzy, that lessons would be learned? In a short answer NO.
LikeLike
This is terrible. The traffic at the 75/285 interchange is ridiculous already, and now they want to add 50+ weeknights of baseball games and concerts to rush hour? There will be roughly 24 lanes of interstate parking lot for an hour or more on those nights. I’d tell someone in Atlanta to leave by 2:30 if they were coming out for a 7pm game. From 3:30-7 both interstates are a nightmare 5 days a week already.
On top of this, the locals are paying $450M of the new stadium cost.
I often get home about the time games are ending, and I live a couple of miles from the new site. It’ll be nearly impossible for me to drive those last couple of miles. I’ll have to seriously consider moving.
LikeLike
The Astrodome has one last chance since no one wants to pony up $100 million to tear it down.
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/231439861.html
LikeLike
The Big Ten enters eight teams in the women’s soccer tournament (nine if you include Rutgers).
http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/soccer-women/d1
LikeLike
Playoff committee has first meeting; begins to grasp huge responsiblity
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd
LikeLike
We had a huge hockey brawl the other night.
A college hockey brawl.
A women’s college hockey brawl — involving Ohio State (and Bemidji State).
Here’s the lowdown: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-college-hockey-brawl-literally-breaks-a-record-for-am
LikeLike
“The fight was so massive in fact, that it broke NCAA records for any division or gender for penalty minutes and game disqualifications. There were 287 penalty minutes and 19 game disqualifications total.”
Ohio State’s coach “didn’t exactly clear up the cause of the epic scuffle, only saying it had something to do with the way Bemidji State was celebrating.
Coach said: “I’ve got to believe that our players, and as a staff, as a program, we’re not happy with teams celebrating on our ice surface and going off the ice yipping and hooting and hollering. What happened at the end of the game doesn’t happen often in women’s hockey…
But I can tell you this: We’re happy to at least see our girls show some fight and some spirit. Outside of that, I think hockey in general is trying to get that stuff out of the game. We have our own issues to deal with.”
LikeLike
Crazy thought of the day regarding expansion:
Made with the following assumptions:
1) SEC will ultimately stop at 16 teams
2) UNC and NCSU cannot be in separate conferences due to NC politics/one governing body for both schools
3) Duke will not leave the ACC without UNC and will not go to an academically-inferior conference.
4) The SEC is more desirous to capture eyeballs in NC than in VA
5) Wake Forest can get SEC Network on basic TV, not necessarily because of Wake, but because of Wake plus other SEC teams (like Rutgers)
Crazy thought: #15: FSU, #16: Wake Forest.
Pros to WF:
Presence in NC, reputable academics, school plus SEC opponents can translate to carriage on basic cable in state (like Rutgers in NYC), good basketball name brand, less NC state politics (could be easier and cleaner to add than an uncertain, messy fight in NC politics); NC overall market more valuable than what Va Tech can bring, More likely to defect than Va Tech (politics got Va Tech in the ACC)
Cons to WF:
Overall mediocre/bad in football (thought with equal or more recent success than UNC/Duke/NCSU)
Not a name brand in football
Fewer alumni
Smallest BCS conference football stadium (sign of weaker fan support)
Does Wake actually provide more value in NC than Va Tech in Virginia?
FSU’s pros and cons have been oft-mentioned on here, so need not dwell on them.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but even the mayor of Toronto wouldn’t touch it.
LikeLike
Lol.
LikeLike
Not a chance. I don’t think the SEC would have any interest in Wake Forest whatsoever. I think that ECU would be far more appealing to the SEC if the SEC was that desperate to get the North Carolina market. (And I don’t think that the SEC has any interest in ECU) Wake Forest has very dedicated fans, but there are just so few of them. There frankly isn’t enough interest in Wake in North Carolina to get coverage in the state. Like many private schools, Wake Forest’s student recruitment pool and alumni base are spread out across many states. There is absolutely no comparison between the value of Wake Forest in North Carolina and Va Tech in Virginia.
Another point to consider is that Wake Forest would probably not be willing to make that move. Wake Forest’s fans and alumni are just as attached to the ACC as UNC’s or Duke’s. The history and culture of the ACC are perfect for Wake Forest, as are the academics. Wake’s administration would also have to give serious thought as to whether the school could honestly hope to compete at even a marginal level in the SEC on a regular basis, which is not very likely. In the ACC, Wake is competing against a number of private schools and small public schools, but it still has one of the smallest athletic budgets (it’s hard to get accurate data for private schools) of any school in the conference.
LikeLike
No. I know this is purely anecdotal evidence, but I can count on both hands all the people I know who are Wake Forest hands or went to Wake. That’s coming from a guy who lives in Raleigh and has long-term ties to the state.
Wake fans are hard to find, even 100 miles from Winston-Salem. There’s just no buzz whatsoever about them. Sure, there’s respect for Wake. People know it’s a very good school. People are aware of the basketball history with Chris Paul and Tim Duncan and are impressed with what Jim Grobe has been able to do with their formerly awful football program, the past few years notwithstanding. But loyalties lie elsewhere. As a matter of fact, going around town here, it’s easier to find fans of UNC, NCSU, Duke (those three are obvious), East Carolina, App State, Clemson, South Carolina, and even more distant schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Florida State, Penn State (surprisingly high number of PSU grads in the area), and others than there is to find Wake Forest fans. Wake just is not a big school at all, and without a tradition as super-strong as Duke basketball, it’s very difficult to draw in new fans. Other schools are just more appealing to the general public.
Wake Forest would get the SEC Network on basic cable in the Winston-Salem-Greensboro-High Point market, the Charlotte market (if South Carolina doesn’t get the SECN on by themselves), and that’s about it.
LikeLike
Thanks for the insight. I was just wondering if Wake could be a Rutgers-type vehicle into NC, but you and others make good points that WF likely would not even do that for the SEC.
Any read on NC politics regarding UNC and NCSU potentially playing in different conferences? I know there is a common Board of Chancellors for both schools (and other public schools) but would the Board require UNC and NCSU as a package (as Kansas/KSU and Okla and OK State are rumored to be)?
LikeLike
There is some dispute as to that. My impression is that UNC and NCSU would be joined at the hip, but other schools such as ECU, UNCC, and ASU have been in other conferences for years (or are entering FBS in different conferences) so it’s a little bit hard to say whether they could split or not. I don’t really know anything, but this is my perception.
I think that both schools would prefer to stay in the ACC for as long as possible (Which I personally believe will be many, many decades if not longer). If the ACC were to get so far behind other conferences financially or there was severe enough defection from the ACC that the conference doesn’t really remain a viable home, I think that the board would do everything possible to protect both schools but wouldn’t hold either back. For example, if the Big 10 and the SEC were to both offer UNC membership, but both refused to take NCSU, I think UNC could leave to either on its own. In that scenario, NCSU would have no option either way and preventing UNC from moving would be leaving both schools out in the cold. If on the other hand the Big 10 offered only UNC but refused to take NCSU but the SEC offered both if UNC joined, I think the board would force UNC into the SEC, because NCSU wouldn’t need to be left out in the cold. Similarly, if UNC decided today that it wanted out of the ACC while the conference remained very viable, I think they would have to take NCSU along wherever they went because they would be leaving NCSU out in the coldover unnecessarily by leaving.
While different state legislatures and governing boards are different, I suspect that the same scenarios would apply to both the Kansas and Oklahoma schools as well. Neither school could be responsible for putting the other in a bad position and the “Little Brother” must be protected to the greatest extent possible, but both don’t have to be left out in the cold if only one can find a home.
LikeLike
“…but both don’t have to be left out in the cold if only one can find a home.”
Can a king who doesn’t abandon their sibling be considered left out? In what would seem to be an attempt at “final” consolidation leaving a king (or two) out would by definition fail its goal. I think OkSU, NCSU, and TT aren’t at the risk some think they are.
LikeLike
To follow up, this post seems to be a good primer on the politics for Va Tech and NCSU if either wanted to leave the ACC:
“In the last hour a pair of emails have dropped into the MrSEC.com inbox asking if NC State and Virginia Tech are “really” going to join the SEC. After a little digging I found that the folks over at OutkickTheCoverage.com have posted a story today predicting a 16-team SEC with four divisions, semifinals for football, and the Hokies and Wolfpack as the most likely entrants into the league.
Now, we first wrote about the possibility of SEC football semifinals back in August of 2009. And we still believe that the SEC could someday end up with 16 schools, but only if the landscape changes elsewhere. After speaking to people at schools across the conference, we do not believe the SEC is fishing for new members at the current time. In any way.
In our view, if a 16-school is being discussed in the press, that’s a long-range discussion. Especially with the BCS system sitting on the verge of change that might slow the current realignment push to a halt.
That said, if the SEC expands again, stretching into new markets and new territories is clearly the goal. That was the goal when Arkansas and South Carolina were added. It was the goal when Missouri and Texas A&M were annexed. It’s been the goal of every league throughout the expansion/realignment process. Our readers know we’ve been beating that drum for two years now. (Only Florida State — in our opinion — would offer enough name brand value to make them a viable option from inside the existing SEC footprint.)
Looking outside the league, Virginia Tech does make a great deal of sense for the SEC. But the Hokies used up a lot of political capital to gain an invite into the ACC. It’s hard to imagine them having the clout or the intestinal fortitude to jump leagues again anytime soon. Especially after Tech officials made it very clear this summer that their school is better off in the ACC from a travel perspective and an academic perspective.
As for NC State — a school oft-mentioned because no one believes North Carolina and/or Duke would move to the SEC — there would be some serious political issues to work out as well. NCSU is a “constituent institution” of the University of North Carolina system. In other words, the schools have a connection. We’re not talking Texas and Texas A&M, here.
State has a 13-person board of trustees. One member is the president of the student government. Four trustees are appointed by the governor. The remaining eight NCSU trustees are elected by the UNC board of governors.
If State’s administration decided that their school would be better off in the SEC, it appears from afar that at least two of the eight trustees put in place by UNC’s board would have to okay the move. And that’s if all the other non-UNC-elected trustees favored the move. And that’s if a vote to switch conferences only requires a 7-6 majority.
Is it possible that State would move from the ACC to the SEC? Sure, anything’s possible. Especially when millions of dollars are on the table.
But it would appear Virginia Tech and especially NC State would have to wage some large-scale political battles to exit their current league.
If they even wanted to switch leagues.
If the SEC decides to expand again.
The talk of 16 schools is fun and it’s always good for pageviews. Trust us, we know. But for now, there’s nothing to suggest that the league will be expanding again in the short-term.
(Usual caveat: Never say never.)”
http://www.mrsec.com/2012/01/virginia-tech-and-nc-state-to-the-sec-prepare-for-some-political-battles/
LikeLike
As I’ve mentioned before, Tech and UVa really aren’t joined at the hip. The “Tech-to-ACC” drive in 2003 was as much a by-product of the instability of the Big East as a football conference as it was to get the Gobblers in the ACC; if the SEC had come calling at the time, Tech could have gone there without any political fallout.
LikeLike
The issue is that the SEC has higher aims than NCSU. NCSU would be a final backup plan like Rutgers was for the B1G.
LikeLike
“NCSU would be a final backup plan like Rutgers was for the B1G”
You mean that school that kept popping up in the top group when evaluating potential adds since the ’80s? How was choosing not to expand from 12 not last choice?
Sheesh. Why introduce a controversial and over hashed position rather than advancing the reasoning why NCSU isn’t likely?
LikeLike
vp19,
VT really wanted to join the ACC back then. They’d been trying to get in the same conference as UVA for a long time. They would’ve chosen the ACC over the SEC back then.
I’m not saying they are tied together, but VT really wants to be with UVA.
LikeLike
If the SEC were to expand, would Cincy be an option? Decent tv market, northern most school, Rival to Kentucky, get into BIG country, great institution, basketball tradition, football has been very good recently. I know they dont compare to SEC schools in football but could play at an NFL stadium if needed to. Basketball is back to going to ncaa tourny year after year. Its a pipe dream but UC was on the rise when the BE fell apart. The school took off when they were excepted to the BEast. Dont know if they would be considered but we need to get out of this conference we are in now. Im hoping that the ACC and the BIG XII have to fight over us but not sure thats going to happen.
LikeLike
If the SEC were to expand, would Cincy be an option?
It’s practically inconceivable. Cincy has had decent football success in the weakest BCS league. They’d struggle mightily against an SEC schedule. Many of the other points you mentioned, the SEC just doesn’t much care about (playing in an NFL stadium in Ohio, getting another basketball school, giving Kentucky a rival, recruiting in B1G territory).
This is a school that even the Big XII didn’t take. They weren’t the Big XII’s second choice either: that would have been Louisville. The SEC is sitting pretty at 14 teams. If they expand, it’ll have to be compelling. Cincinnati isn’t compelling.
Now, the question is, if there were a 15th team that the SEC felt it had to have, could Cincy be the 16th? Probably not, because the most logical expansion route for the SEC is into North Carolina and Virginia. If they manage to crack the ACC, they’ll have their choice of 16th teams. I can’t imagine Cincy cracking that lineup.
LikeLike
Wainscott, this sounds like an incredibly harebrained scheme to somehow get Kansas into the ACC.
LikeLike
Missouri’s in the SEC, Andy; you should be happy with that. Stop worrying about Kansas — and I thought some of my fellow Maryland fans were obsessively paranoid about Duke.
LikeLike
I don’t really care if Kansas gets into the ACC or any other conference.
But please, Andy, feel free to troll away. Its like you didn’t learn your lesson above when Our Humble Moderator scolded you for starting an entire thread to publically attack someone because they dared to have a different view as to Mizzou’s 2013 football prospects.
LikeLike
Not good for football. HS player dies of brain trauma.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9966789/charles-youvella-arizona-high-school-football-player-dies-brain-injury-suffered-game
Interesting stat in the article.
“The report revealed that the reported concussion rate for the average high school football player is nearly twice that of a college player, and far outpaces that of other high school sports.”
LikeLike
My gosh that’s awful.
LikeLike
The only way FB remains a flying weapon, high impact sport and reduces these occurrences and the inevitable concerns is a combination larger helmet/shoulder-pad/flackjacket system. Something looking like a Buzz Lightyear getup – isolate the head from any possible direct impact.
LikeLike
I was in a discussion the other day and someone came up with the suggestion I have previously made-make players play both ways. Defensive players can’t even last a long series with 30 seconds between plays. If you make them play both ways, players will get smaller. The training will have to be different. It won’t do away with the problem but will reduce it. Talked with someone else who knew an NFL assistant who was a player in the early 90s-coach said it is a totally different game from then in the violence of the collisions.
The players have gotten bigger, stronger, faster, more specialized and lost their endurance.
LikeLike
Maybe high schools need to get tougher on steroids.
LikeLike
Two-way football also reduces rosters and allows more schools to field teams. Wasn’t it about the time two-platoon college football was instituted that schools such as Marquette, Detroit and George Washington dropped the sport?
LikeLike
I don’t know if that was the reason, but it happened around that time. They allowed platoon football with a rule change in 1941 but abolished it in 1953. They gradually liberalized it year by year until by 1965 there were again unlimited subsitutions. (paraphrasing from the NCAA records book).
LikeLike
“They allowed platoon football with a rule change in 1941 but abolished it in 1953.”
Perhaps a way to have a bit more consistent product during the second war to end all wars, and provide opportunity for the influx post war?
LikeLike
Its not really the direct impact on the head. Its the shaking of the brain. Someone tackled hard in the chest could get a concussion from his head whipping back and forth. Ground contact causes concussions. Probably where most of those HS basketball concussions come from. They do need to figure something out.
LikeLike
I disagree. Isolating the head from direct impact includes eliminating ground/head impacts. The neck becomes the single spring/shock absorber connection to the body, tremendously reducing peak acceleration and deceleration numbers. I could see potential neck muscle strains, but I’d trade that for concussions.
Stupid idea, I know. But I think it’s more likely than you’re idea, which I fully agree with, of returning to a limited substitution per play rule. That would return the value to multi purpose players in shape to go both ways for extended time (ie. smaller), and smart enough to alter potentially injurious collisions for player and team benefit.
LikeLike
I think mine is a great idea, but I agree, extremely unlikely. I didn’t start any of these recent conversations I had with friends and acquaintances. A LOT of people are talking about this. A number of people have the opinion that football will disappear. That should be very concerning for the NFL and for the colleges who rely on football to support the rest of their athletic departments and drive donations.
If colleges lose on O’Bannon, limited substitution could be a way to differentiate themselves from being an NFL minor league, reduce costs and reduce the impact of the O’Bannon case.
The size these players are, even in HS, is not good for their long term health. Not good for their knees. Not good for their heart. Not good for their back.
LikeLike
The thing is, this is a suburban discussion. Dirt poor minorities aren’t going to stop playing football when they see the chance to make millions at the end of it.
LikeLike
Well off “majority” kids won’t either, but a change in rules that values multi dimensional
LikeLike
Oops.
…players and reduced/eliminated their current interchangeability would reduce the risk. In fact it would make injury avoidance a much more important part of program building.
LikeLike
But who’s going to watch them if suburban kids lose interest?
LikeLike
The Roman interest in the Circus wasn’t based on the upper class participation.
LikeLike
I think it was more the masses. The wealthy and upper middle class need to provide the finances to support major league sports.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Or it would make them more tired and more prone to injury. Or they would have 4 deep players on the best teams and the smaller teams would get hurt later in the game as fresh two-way players came in.
It might also make for more people getting cut from teams or dropping the sport because they don’t get to play.
LikeLike
How long has this been going on? It might explain my missing bag at O’Bare.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78158061/
LikeLike
…O’Hare…
(sigh, edit function?)
LikeLike
You have an alligator skin bag?
LikeLike
Once had my bag stolen at O’Hare by members of United’s ground crew. Never flown through O’Hare or United again.
LikeLike
I once saw someone walking their pet tiger on a leash. Their pet tiger was full size-6 ft. long and several hundred pounds. So far as I know, he was not an LSU fan.
LikeLike
Hope you gave them a wide birth…
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78133034/
LikeLike
Serious wide berth. And came back a different way.
LikeLike
Read in the paper a few months later he had to move his pet out of the city. He was keeping it in a residential area of Houston with single family homes, townhomes and apartments. That was against the law.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel nails the impact of the 4-team playoff vs. the BCS:
“Admit it, you are going to miss the BCS. Since 1998, interest in college football has grown exponentially. The BCS rarely provided the perfect national title matchup, but it created drama and controversy. The next system may be better, but what will you miss the most?
— Brandon, Austin
Even though the “Every Game Matters” mantra is applied selectively, it’s a fact that the regular-season stakes will change in the new system. Case in point: Last Thursday’s Stanford-Oregon game was so captivating because it likely knocked the Ducks out of the national title picture. If that game happens under the same circumstances next year, a loss would hurt Oregon’s playoff chances, but the Ducks would remain very much in contention. For all we know, the selection committee might prefer one-loss Oregon to undefeated Ohio State.
I still want the four-team playoff, but I’ll miss the all-or-nothing feel of individual regular-season games.”
Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131113/oregon-johnny-manziel-college-football-mailbag/#ixzz2kYSgmlEn
LikeLike
Who F’ing cares! Not a question. We need to crown the truest possible NC at the end of the day. Even the 4 team playoff won’t do enough.
LikeLike
Surely crowning the “truest” national champion should be balanced with a meaningful regular season.
Plus, the “truest” national champion is a term of art that can assume almost limitless meanings. I could argue the only way to have the truest national champ is to have a full FBS round-robin, but that’s impossible, so the “truest” cannot be conclusively determined.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9970317/using-team-metrics-select-college-football-playoff
ESPN is already making up new stats to stick their nose into the playoff committee’s discussions.
CDR is supposed to measure how difficult it would be for an average I-A team to achieve the results that team did against that schedule. SOS is heavily factored in. In other words, this measures how deserving each team is. ESPN’s stats geeks say this approach is the best way to pick the 4 teams for the playoff.
FPI is supposed to measure team strength. This isn’t about your resume, but about how dominant you are. ESPN’s stat geeks say this should be used to seed the 4 teams.
Current result:
1. FSU vs 4. OSU
2. AL vs 3. Stanford
LikeLike
Schlabach went on a tirade about how Baylor should be number three. They REALLY don’t want a Big Ten team in the Championship game.
LikeLike
You mean Schlabach doesn’t want a Big Ten team in the championship game. I doubt he speaks for ESPN. I’m sure corporate ESPN/Disney would love to have Ohio State, with its nationwide passionate fan base in the game over Baylor.
(Not a knock on Baylor success this year, mind you. Just my view as to the financial and TV realities of a major brand like OSU vs. a lesser brand like Baylor.)
LikeLike
http://www.deadline.com/2013/11/tv-will-be-the-fastest-growing-source-of-sports-team-revenues-study/
Sports execs had better pray that pay TV’s programming bundles stay intact. Rights payments from television networks and other media will grow 37.8% from 2013 to $17.1B in 2017, according to a study out today from PwC. That makes it the fastest growing source of revenues ahead of gate receipts (+10.9% to $19.1B), sponsorship deals (+25.7% to $17.7B) and merchandising (+4.6% to $13.8B),
LikeLike
That’s just one game. A perceptually (& perpetually) weak B1G gives ESPN one more talking point when B1G negotiations start up in ’15. Yes, ratings are the largest determining factor, but an OSU National Championship (as unlikely as it may be against Alabama) would greatly enhance the perception of the B1G for the next 3-4 years.
LikeLike
That’s just one game.
Well, if it’s just one game then it shouldn’t that much effect on the value of the future Big Ten deal.
LikeLike
Very interesting chart on profitability of Athletic Departments:
LikeLike
Frug: I do not necessarily agree with the idea that there will be no Expansion except MLS. There have been lots of discussions about the NHL Expanding to Seattle and perhaps an additional team in Canada.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9971974/gamble-ad-tom-jurich-saves-4-million-louisville-cardinals
Louisville gave the Big East its 27-month notice that it was leaving the league back in October 2011–13 months before it receieved an invitation to join the ACC. That is BOLD. What if the ACC didn’t take them?
LikeLike
Was there a risk that an unannounced and unknown (publicly) notice of leaving would have been insisted on by the BE had Louisville not gained an invite? Or would it have just gone away?
LikeLike
Jurich sure has the magic touch. That guy should be named King of LVL.
LikeLike
What if the ACC didn’t take them?
Honestly, nothing. This was certainly outside the box thinking, but the more I think about it, the less risky it seems. Worst case scenario for Louisville, nobody else invites them so they just stay in the Big East and since there was no paper work filed no one would ever know.
LikeLike
This is a case where the rumor mill had something right. There were a lot of stories that Louisville had notified the BE it was looking. It didn’t go so far as to say they gave notice.
LikeLike
Was it Louisville or Cincinnati that a couple years ago had recruits supposedly being told they’d be playing in the B12?
LikeLike
Louisville. Cincinnati is doing it now. There were some pretty convincing stories FSU was telling recruits they would be playing in the Big 12 as well back when all the rumors were floating about.
LikeLike
frug,
Using that logic, which I think is actually pretty sound, do you suppose UConn, Cincinnati, and/or any other schools with Big 12 or ACC aspirations would give notice to the AAC? Nothing to lose and lots of savings to gain, right?
LikeLike
In a lot of ways, it would have been irresponsible for them not to.
LikeLike
LikeLike
2016 ACC basketball tournament will be held in Washington, DC at the Verizon Center.
Hopefully after 2015 it’ll never go back to Greensboro; it just screams “small time” when it’s held there. At least needs to be in Charlotte if not DC or New York.
Any New York tournament, I think, will be in Brooklyn after the A-10’s deal expires. Madison Square Garden is pretty well locked down by the Big East.
LikeLike
Sorry I meant to include this link: http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detail/Washington-DC-Host-2016-ACC-Men-Basketball-Tournament_11-13-13_yxzhg0
LikeLike
I assume that was as soon as they could move it there after UMD left. They do seem to like sticking it to UMD over hoops issues.
LikeLike
How will the Big Ten respond? I won’t at all be surprised if Maryland hosts some sort of conference championship event in the next year or two (wrestling? men’s lacrosse? men’s soccer at the Germantown, Md. Soccerplex, where the ACC semifinals and finals will take place this weekend?), but in terms of getting metro D.C. into the act, the B1G’s options are few. I’m not sure how long the contrast lasts for the CCG in Indianapolis, but FedEx could be a possibility; the men’s basketball tourney could wind up one year at the Verizon Center by decade’s end. How about holding the baseball tournament at Nationals Park (I think it was at Target Field this past spring)?
LikeLike
Delany did mention hosting “championships” out east recently. I personally think it would be a bad idea to put basketball out there (too far from most the big basketball fanbases) and think the CCG in football would be risky too (need right teams in it to sell out), but a lot of other sports would make sense. Lacrosse I’d definitely put in the east given that’s where it’s most popular.
LikeLike
vp19,
“How will the Big Ten respond? I won’t at all be surprised if Maryland hosts some sort of conference championship event in the next year or two (wrestling? men’s lacrosse? men’s soccer at the Germantown, Md. Soccerplex, where the ACC semifinals and finals will take place this weekend?), but in terms of getting metro D.C. into the act, the B1G’s options are few. I’m not sure how long the contrast lasts for the CCG in Indianapolis, but FedEx could be a possibility; the men’s basketball tourney could wind up one year at the Verizon Center by decade’s end. How about holding the baseball tournament at Nationals Park (I think it was at Target Field this past spring)?”
I’d guess MBB/WBB will show up there fairly soon. Probably not football because of the distance for most fans and the need to fill a bigger stadium, plus they seem to prefer indoors. I think NE has baseball for a while. IA should almost always host wrestling in my opinion. LAX would make sense. Some of the other non-revenue sports, too. Hockey could play there once in a while.
LikeLike
I tend to agree also that football won’t shift east, but mainly due to the lack of a suitable domed stadium in the NY/DC areas for such a game.
Had, say, the West Side Stadium been built in Manhattan, or if FedEx Field had a roof, then I would think football could definitely be held there. But Delany’s been consistent on wanting the game in a dome to make it easy on fans/sponsors and allow the champion to be determined on the field, without the elements factoring in.
(Though, a B1G Title Game in Lambeau would be just flat-out awesome.)
LikeLike
I don’t know about other sports but wrestling is on a straight rotation. Illinois last year, preceded by Purdue, Northwestern and Minnesota. Next up, Wisconsin followed by Ohio St.
LikeLike
Oops , forgot Iowa and Michigan between Minn. and NW.
LikeLike
Maryland has hosted several NCAA wrestling championships (though they were at Cole Field House), so a Big Ten wrestling tourney at Comcast wouldn’t be out of the question.
LikeLike
Do you guys think the basketball tournament would work out east? I worry the early games would be too empty too often. The only big basketball fanbase nearby would be Maryland. Maybe I’m overselling that vs. Indianapolis/Chicago, but it just seems a long way for most fans.
LikeLike
@Eric – No, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I’m sure the Big Ten will try, just as the ACC tried sites outside of its core like DC, but the marquee events (football and men’s basketball) really ought to avoid the outlier markets and aim for permanent sites. We’ve seen conferences prior to this try to move events to those outlier markets and they rarely work well. Now, there are certainly other events that make much more sense with outlier markets that have higher interest in certain sports (i.e. Nebraska with baseball and Maryland with lacrosse).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I don’t know about other sports but wrestling is on a straight rotation.”
And that’s a shame, because clearly some hosts are better than others. IA and PSU pull much larger crowds than anyone else. I know it’s a big home mat advantage, but I think crowd size at home matches should determine who gets a shot to host the tournament. All the top tier schools in a sport can share it equally.
UMD or JHU should host lacrosse for the foreseeable future, IA and PSU for wrestling, NE for baseball, etc.
I think the hoops tourneys will rotate out east every 5 years or so, but they should mostly be closer to the middle.
LikeLike
The MBB tourney in Newark (just a hop and a skip from NYC) _could_ work. A bunch of B10 schools have thousands of alums there. A few thousand from each one would fill up the arena.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/popwarner/pop-warner-youth-football-participation-drops-nfl-concussion-crisis-seen-causal-factor
Since we’ve been talking demographics, Pop Warner football participation down about 10 percent over the last two years.
would love to see this state-by-state.
wonder whether this kind of trend really matters for CFB and NFL purposes. that is, how many six years old players are needed to produce enough 19 year old players?
LikeLike
http://rushthecourt.net/2013/11/12/after-just-one-game-the-andrew-wiggins-backlash-has-begun/
A good article re: media and the oft-mentioned phenomena of hype-hype-hype-then-trash-trash-trash. The article is long, dense and well sourced.
The focus is on Jeff Goodman’s (as the exemplar) various opinion over the last year or 2 concerning Kansas Bball player Andrew Wiggins and Kentucky’s player Julius Randle. Essentially, Wiggins was the better recruit. Goodman wrote: “Wiggins made Randle look ordinary, as if he was just another Top 100 player. I will confess that I’m a huge Randle fan, but he was outclassed — in every manner.”
That was a few months ago.
Now, Goodman (and others) are in the process of reversing course opining that Wiggins is not living up to his potential, etc.
We see this happen in the media all the time. Just the first time I saw someone take the time to document it.
LikeLike
Sadly, another one.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9976227/mo-football-player-dies-2-weeks-injury
LikeLike
Pop Warner participation dropped almost 10% in two years. Perhaps a result of greater concussion awareness.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/page/popwarner/pop-warner-youth-football-participation-drops-nfl-concussion-crisis-seen-causal-factor
LikeLike
I’m not a doctor, but here’s my read.
Someone said it right earlier about the brain moving being the issue.
The injury increase is almost certainly a simple function of size increase in players and speed of the players when they collide. Force = mass x acceleration.
Just like a car accident, the injury is probably caused by the sudden acceleration/deceleration forces and not the hit itself. The brain moves in the skull no matter what. No reasonably sized solid helmet will fix that.
Due to self preservation, less padding would probably reduce the ferocity of the hits (acceleration), it would also reduce the mass of the players (minimally).
I love football, but my boys aren’t playing it.
LikeLike
Unless you have helmets that can cushion against the acceleration.
Or switch to rugby. Players can’t get immense because they have to run the whole game. No one’s crazy enough to tackle with their head with no helmet or pads. For that matter, only arm tackles are legal.
LikeLike
Spring and shock absorber, not a hard shell, is what reduces the sudden acceleration. On a person that is the neck and muscles, but direct head contact defeats its ability to absorb.
The cushioning inside a helmet absorbs an inch or so of motion (sudden acceleration/deceleration is attenuated) and that helps…as long as there is an effort to avoid head hits and its protecting from occasional incidental/accidental contact. That’s not how the current generation of flying missiles and highlight hitters play.
LikeLike
jj and richard, u’re most of the way there: the issue is that helmets only protect against the cracking of the skull (to be pedantic here, the skull is the actual bone part of your head which surrounds ur brain). the brain essentially “floats” freely surrounded by liquid within the skull (maybe a way to visualize this is to think of an uncooked egg: the shell is the skull, the yolk is the brain, the egg white is the liquid which suspends the brain….this example is not to scale). concussions occur when the brain slams into the skull inside of the head (think of a car accident, the car aka skull stops moving but the passengers aka brain continue to bounce around inside). the crux of this analogy is that a helmet is not a seatbelt in the car cash example, a helmet is like your car’s bumpers
you’re correct: F=ma: as players get bigger and faster, the higher the right side of the equation and therefore the worse the injury (think of a car crash at 10 mph vs 70 mph)
LikeLike
Correct charlie. And unless that helmet dissipates force rather than absorbing it, the player is taking the forces that really matter. Unless some miracle of plastics develops, the problem is not fixable by a sturdier solid piece helmet.
LikeLike
Or they could put squishy soft foam on the outside of the hard helmet shell. Sure, the players would look like mushroomheads, but which would you rather have? Mush on the outside of your head or inside it?
LikeLike
Former coach Kearney files lawsuit against UT
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/longhorns/2013/11/former-coach-kearney-filing-lawsuit-against-ut/
LikeLike
Sad. She’s trying to bring down as many others with her as she can. She’s got no one to blame but herself and she’s destroyed her career. She was a great story. After a traffic accident they didn’t think she’d walk again. She did and was the best women’s track coach in the country.
LikeLike
Where would niu fall in the categories? How about adding niu (Chicago mkt), Tulane (new orlean mkt n aau school), rice (Houston mkt n aau school), Cincy (Ohio recruiting mkt n travel partner for wv), ucf + usf (in state rivalry, Florida tv market n recruiting) ?
LikeLike
I’m a bit concerned that BIG basketball continues to trend more in the loss column when it comes to recruiting, esp in the footprint. This trend holds course despite the consistent prep talent in the footprint, as well as the best attendance, 4 coaches with HCing Final Four success, and overall tourney success, albeit NC wins are below the old Big East, ACC, and SEC during the modern era. Moreover, many teams are certainly capable of and desire an uptempo system (OSU, MSU, Illinois, Iowa, IU, Minnesota, Michigan).
This recruiting year, especially, there are 10 Top 25 ESPNU players from the BIG footprint, and 22 total in the ESPNU 100 – the numbers seem to go up if you reference Rivals, 247 or Scout. I am not counting players out of Md nor Jersey yet. And a hat top to future member Md, they took care of business on the recruiting trail and signed 3 players that at least fall in the future footprint (current BIG plus Jersey and Md).
As of now, and I don’t think this will change much by Spring, BIG programs have only signed 6 of 22 from the footprint – that’s just over 25%. There is a chance Illinois lands Alexander and IU signs Lyle. But I don’t see anymore commits after these possibilities.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/playerrankings/_/order/true
Granted, the BIG has signed top 100 players outside the footprint, but not enough to get over the hump, which includes 0 for f 5 in NCG losses since MSU won it all in 2000, nearly 14 years ago. The Big East, SEC, and ACC have all won multiple NCs in that time frame.
Some of these footprint players did sign with Big East schools that fall in the region (Xavier & Marquette).
Despite being a die hard MSU fan, my alma mater, Minnesota, will not sign any of the 3 top 25 players from this class and they missed out on another top 150 recruit who signed with Xavier.
As of now, the SEC and ACC have definitely signed more top 100 players. Upon quick glance, thus my accuracy isn’t guaranteed, the smaller Big East may have signed more top 100 players as well – that’s 4 less teams at the end of the day – this recruiting cycle will usher in the BIG @ 14 teams.
Clearly the BIG needs to keep pace in the hoops department, it does earn revenue and attract national attention. The BIG continues to take swings, nationally, when it comes to football. Thus, a consistently successful BIG basketball conference is helpful when it comes to the big two sports, it somewhat softens the negative football perception. Moreover, we always hear bout BIG profits and financial wealth, but it doesn’t translate on the basketball recruiting trail nor the NCG stage.
I’d love to see this change. My BIG basketball passion was conditioned by the 79 Spartans throughout the early 90s. The BIG was far more exciting, uptempo and successful on the national stage than this past decade to 15 years. And I could always count someone becoming a force at the NBA level, which really isn’t the case with current BIG NBA players. Zach Randolph and Deron Williams collectively hold 4 all star appearances & both are arguably trending down with their careers.
LikeLike
PS The Alexander kid (<– and that's being kind) did a classless act during his press conference today: he fake picked Illinois then went with KU. Clearly the rumors surrounding Izzo's recruitment the "middlemen" was a warning here on Alexander's character. What a CLASSLESS ACT!
LikeLike
Paying attention to a “hat game” press conference was your first mistake.
LikeLike
@gfunk – Believe me, Illini Nation is NOT happy about that hat fake by Cliff Alexander. The Snider de-commit hurt, but I can’t blame a 17-year old kid for changing his mind up until the day he has to sign (as many of us here probably have hemmed and hawed on college or job decisions). It sucks, but it’s normal.
However, the Alexander hat fake was calculated and classless. The “17-year old kids don’t know any better” doesn’t apply – that was a grievous lack of respect on national TV and someone his age should know that. Of course, that might be the problem – it could well be that Cliff thought it would be looked at as a harmless joke and that there wouldn’t be any blowback, which is unbelievably naive considering that kid was addicted to Twitter and toying with fan bases’ emotions.
And to be clear, I was a sucker for all of this after having sworn off following recruiting after the Eric Gordon fiasco several years ago. I’ve wasted 2 months following rumors about this guy, which was only slightly worse than the 2 years that I wasted on LeBron to the Bulls rumors. (LeBron was probably the prime example of being oblivious to how The Decision was going to be received in Cleveland and every other non-Miami market. I’ve actually never blamed LeBron for the concept of The Decision special, as he certainly was much more deserving of that fan fare compared to these high school recruits. However, he completely handled it wrong. A simple, “I love the Cavs fans and what they’ve done for me and I’ll always be an Ohio guy” would have at least dulled the pain a little bit, but his total side stepping of saying anything to that effect added fuel to the fire.)
LikeLike
If he has ANY intention of ever living in Illionois…..probably wasn’t a good move. There are a lot of Illinois frans and they will always view him in the same light. Plus a lot of other college basketball fans now see him as a clown. No problem if he turns out to be the stud he no doubt believes he is and has a nice NBA career…..if he ever has to actually work at a living, will cause some harm. A little parental guidance would have gone a long way.
LikeLike
Understand your concerns as I also follow recruiting closely.Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the Synder kid from KY switched from ILL to U of L. Bad day ar Black Rock for Illinois.
I do think over all, however, that Big 10 basketball remains strong.
Matta and Crean will continue getting top classes. Groce is an upgrade over Weber. POS Jr. (ie Pitino) is an upgrade over an old and tired Tubby Smith. Although Minnesota struck out on the 5*, the 3 kids they got all look solid. Collins is an upgrade over a disinterested Bill Carmody. Minnesota needs to get a basketball complex asap however. Miles is doing well at Nebraska, which now has all the bells and whistles. Rutgers’ new coach is an upgrade. Chambers at PSU has been getting a few players.
I really don’t see any program that’s in acute distress. Painter at Purdue seems like a mediocre recruiter but a solid coach who retains and develops his players. I wonder about Iowa’s recruiting-seems like ”13 and ’14 will be down years for them.
LikeLike
“I wonder about Iowa’s recruiting-seems like ”13 and ’14 will be down years for them.”
Iowa will finish in the top half of the conference for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
I agree, but their ’13 and ’14 recruiting classes aren’t looking good.
LikeLike
“I agree, but their ’13 and ’14 recruiting classes aren’t looking good.”
2013 was a class of one. 6’6″ SG Peter Jok was a player recruited by every school in the country before a knee injury his sophomore year. He ended up winning Iowa Mr. Basketball last year and a lot of people think his explosiveness is back to where it was. We’ll see. He’ll play a lot as a freshman.
2014 has a couple of solid 3 star players but is unimpressive after missing out on Tyler Ulis. Fran has shown the ability to find diamonds in the rough, so I’m not doubting the guys he is bringing in.
He also acquired Jarrod Uthoff from Wisconsin, which will be a huge help.
LikeLike
Sounds like Uthoff is solid. Why did he leave Wisconsin?
BTW, Wisconsin’s recruiting leaves a lot to be desired. Kids just don’t want to play that style.
LikeLike
To add to that……Maryland’s recruiting class is very good, as was last years……they will be a top 5 Big Ten team immediately.
To me, Big 10 basketball has one huge disadvantage. Other than at IU, ILL, MD, and Purdue, basketball is decidedly the #2 sport. There are also 20 other sports fighting for attention, some of which have significant fan bases–volleyball at NU, ILL, PSU, MINN, Purdue…hockey at MINN, WIS, UM, MSU and so on…….meanwhile, at schools like Butler and Xavier, men’s basketballi is the only game on campus……….makes a big difference.
LikeLike
Well, bball recruiting has been national for a while now (maybe due to AAU teams traveling all over the country?) so just because a school is in a footprint doesn’t mean it’s more likely to get a kid.
Looking at the ESPN 2014 bball recruiting rankings, the top 20:
ACC: 4
BE: 4
B10: 3
SEC: 3
Pac: 2
The B10 footprint actually contains 6.5 schools in the top 20 in recruiting (splitting G’town between the B10 and ACC footprints, more than any other conference footprint, but it seems that the new conference and TV deal has really helped out the BE.
As a comparison, back in 2012, only 2 schools that will be in the new BE were in the top 20 in recruiting. 5 schools that will be in the B10 next year were in the top 20; 6 schools that are in the ACC now were.
LikeLike
Forbes’ 2013 college rankings are out. Don’t think much of them, but they like IU so I’ll throw them out.
17. Northwestern
29. VA
30. UM
38. UNC
53. ILL
66. TX
68. WIS
73. MD
83. GT
93. PSU
97. IU
106. PUR
109. MN
110. VT
125. RUT
138. OSU
140. UCONN
154. MSU
182. OK
183. IOWA
193. Pitt
202. FSU
208. MO
246. KU
247. NEB
LikeLike
Calipari is pretty much the best recruiter in college MBB (and Brad Stevens is probably a basketball savant):
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/10/30/what-schools-recruit-the-best-the-worst-and-perhaps-a-bit-too-well/
LikeLike
The Kentucky results are especially dramatic. Our calculations (which are a bit of the back of the envelope variety) suggest that the probability of Kentucky’s results occurring by chance is just 1%. But again, we do acknowledge that there may be something special about this program that our model doesn’t capture. However, we should also note that we do not find a similar “specialness” for schools such as North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and UCLA. And to take things just a step farther if we just look at John Calipari’s results across Memphis and Kentucky our estimated probability of his recruiting results is less than .1%. As before we acknowledge that we may be omitted a variable or two that captures coach Calipari’s recruiting gifts, but our model doesn’t identify other high powered recruiters such as Thad Matta, Bill Self or Coach K as outliers.
LikeLike
I would guess he is emphasizing history too much. You don’t have to recruit 25 players like football. The head coach is more important in recruiting and it doesn’t take as many players. With Texas #1 and Florida #3 in over-achievers, he probably is not considering that Texas has been good the last 15 or so years and Florida has been very good. Neither school, Florida in particular, has much history in basketball.
LikeLike
CREAM
LikeLike
I assume this article was not written by Bobby Knight.
LikeLike
Missed doing this this past sunday on updates, inserted here to keep up to date
Updated Sagarin after week 11 run with SoS rank mid season point +4 :
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
002 003 002 001 Florida State 42 / 68 / 54 / 62
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 012 012 Clemson 45 / 39 / 42 / 53
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 065 080 Maryland 94 / 83 / 85 / 90
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 069 065 Syracuse 39 / 38 / 53 / 56
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 064 060 Boston College 26 / 22 / 20 / 30
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 083 104 North Carolina State 117 / 87 / 80 / 60
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 079 090 Wake Forest 102 / 85 / 71 / 57
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 029 032 Miami (FL) 75 / 82 / 56 / 47
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 039 027 Virginia Tech 37 / 37 / 35 / 17
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 033 025 Georgia Tech 29 / 35 / 40 / 31
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 060 047 Pittsburgh 57 / 42 / 32 / 24
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 049 041 Duke 92 / 80 / 84 / 82
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 052 048 North Carolina 4 / 18 / 26 / 32
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 089 099 Virginia 35 / 31 / 23 / 15
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 005 007 Ohio State 76 / 69 / 81 / 81
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 006 006 Wisconsin 83 / 90 / 59 / 44
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 048 066 Penn State 63 / 36 / 49 / 46
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 054 058 Indiana 27 / 33 / 36 / 52
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 077 077 Illinois 40 / 34 / 27 / 29
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 146 168 Purdue 21 / 20 / 11 / 23 Best SoS in B1G according to Sagarin
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 015 020 Michigan State 104 / 92 / 86 / 91
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 038 054 Michigan 85 / 84 / 66 / 68
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 044 050 Nebraska 119 / 110 / 101 / 98
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 042 040 Iowa 47 / 43 / 34 / 49
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 053 059 Northwestern 81 / 59 / 39 / 37
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 057 056 Minnesota 103 / 89 / 75 / 77
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 004 003 Baylor 100 / 96 / 93 / 96
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 021 035 Oklahoma 56 / 44 / 48 / 58
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 030 044 Texas Tech 87 / 79 / 67 / 78
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 013 017 Oklahoma State 54 / 52 / 38 / 59
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 023 031 Texas 18 / 13 / 24 / 33
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 045 068 Texas Christian 8 / 10 / 17 / 34
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 028 022 Kansas State 12 / 19 / 29 / 27
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 080 098 Iowa State 15 / 7 / 5 / 18
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 059 071 West Virginia 14 / 8 / 8 / 19
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 106 130 Kansas 36 / 24 / 18 / 25
.
PAC – North = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 003 004 Oregon 68 / 54 / 62 / 39
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 018 010 Washington 3 / 16 / 14 / 28
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 010 005 Stanford 11 / 9 / 12 / 2 Top 10 SoS
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 040 034 Oregon State 74 / 60 / 52 / 43
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 051 045 Washington State 16 / 15 / 7 / 6 Top 10 SoS
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 108 114 California 10 / 3 / 6 / 5 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 020 014 UCLA 50 / 28 / 41 / 26
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 008 009 Arizona State 13 / 12 / 10 / 7 Top 10 SoS
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9 Top
035 039 037 029 Utah 5 / 4 / 4 / 1 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 032 024 Arizona 55 / 55 / 60 / 38
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 025 021 Southern Cal 22 / 23 / 19 / 21
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 086 085 Colorado 31 / 26 / 13 / 4 Top 10 SoS
.
SEC – East = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 007 008 Missouri 30 / 29 / 30 / 36
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 022 036 Florida 7 / 14 / 9 / 13
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 017 023 Georgia 2 / 1 / 1 / 8 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 014 016 South Carolina 20 / 11 / 16 / 16
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 047 063 Tennessee 25 / 5 / 2 / 3 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 043 037 Vanderbilt 46 / 25 / 22 / 14
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 082 093 Kentucky 6 / 6 / 25 / 20
SEC – West = 1 of 10 Top 10 SoS
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 001 002 Alabama 43 / 41 / 47 / 42
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 009 011 Louisiana State 9 / 30 / 28 / 22
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 011 015 Texas A&M 28 / 32 / 46 / 51
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 019 013 Auburn 33 / 51 / 50 / 41
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 026 028 Mississippi 1 / 2 / 3 / 9 Top 10 SoS
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 055 055 Mississippi State 34 / 58 / 33 / 12
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 074 079 Arkansas 17 / 17 / 15 / 11
BYU had the #10 SoS this week
LikeLike
I suspect Sagarin has tweaked his system again. Some of those changes (or lack thereof) in SOS don’t make sense. Baylor beat OU, easily their best opponent this year, and their SOS decreased? The Big 12 SOS decreased across the board, mostly significantly, and they didn’t play any ooc games and there really weren’t many around the country. Now if all their ooc opponents lost it would make a difference, but I’m sure it wasn’t the case. And the impact shouldn’t be so dramatic this deep into the season.
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (6 teams) after Week #11 : 6 of 125 = 4.80% of total :
Big 5 schools : 4 of 62 = 6.45% of population : 4 of 125 = 3.20% of total
B 12 = 01 of 10 => 10.00% : Baylor
B1G = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : Legends -> NONE \\\\//// Leaders -> Ohio State
ACC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> NONE
SEC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Alabama
PAC = 00 of 12 => 00.00% : North -> NONE \\\\//// South -> NONE
Non Big 5 schools : 2 of 63 = 3.17% of population : 2 of 125 = 1.60% of total
MWC = 01 of 12 => 8.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 01 of 13 => 7.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 00 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
IND = 00 of 06 => 0.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 0.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 0.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 9 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : NONE
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 9 – 0 Ohio State
B 12 : 8 – 0 Baylor
SEC East : NONE :::: SEC West : 9 – 0 Alabama
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 10 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 9 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #12 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs ACC
9-0 Florida State vs 5-4 Syracuse | Saturday 3:30 pm | ABC / ESPN2
B12 vs B12
8-0 Baylor vs 7-3 Texas Tech | Saturday 7:00 pm | FOX
B1G vs B1G
9-0 Ohio State @ 3-6 Illinois | Saturday 12:00 pm | ESPN
MAC vs MAC
9-0 Northern Illinois @ 9-1 Ball State | Wednesday 8:00pm | ESPN2
MWC vs MWC
SEC vs SEC
9-0 Alabama @ 4-5 Mississippi State | Saturday 7:45 pm | ESPN
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #12 ********
9-0 Fresno State
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #11 ********
Oregon 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
******** 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
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#10) ********
AAC 6-2 Cincinnati
ACC 6-3 Georgia Tech
B 12 6-2 Texas
B1G 6-2 Nebraska
B1G 6-2 Wisconsin
CUSA 6-2 East Carolina
CUSA 6-3 North Texas
IND 6-3 Old Dominion
MAC 6-3 Bowling Green
MAC 6-3 Toledo
MWC 6-3 Boise State
PAC 6-2 Arizona State
PAC 6-2 Arizona
PAC 6-2 UCLA
SunB 6-2 LA – Lafayette
SunB 6-3 Texas State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#11) ********
B1G 6-4 Iowa
CUSA 6-4 Middle Tennessee
MWC 6-4 Utah State
PAC 6-3 Washington
SEC 6-3 Georgia
SEC 6-3 Mississippi
SunB 6-4 Western Kentucky
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 11 according to Sagarin ************
(6) PAC / (3) SEC / (0) ACC / (0) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (1) non Big 5 schools
01 Utah (PAC) 4-5, 1-5
Utah State (MWC) + Weber State (FCS) + Oregon State + @ Brigham Young (IND)
BYE + UCLA + Stanford + @ Arizona + @ Southern California + BYE + Arizona State
02 Stanford (PAC) 8-1, 6-1
BYE + San Jose State (MWC) + @ Army (IND) Arizona State + @ Washington State
Washington + @ Utah + UCLA + @ Oregon State + BYE + Oregon
03 Tennessee (SEC) 4-6, 1-5
Austin Peay (FCS) + Western Kentucky (Sun Belt) + @ Oregon (PAC) + @ Florida
S Alabama (S B) + Georgia + BYE + South Carolina + @ Alabama + @ Missouri + Auburn
04 Colorado (PAC) 3-6, 0-6
Colorado State (MWC) + Central Arkansas (FCS) + Fresno State (MWC) + BYE
@ Oregon State + Oregon + @ Arizona State + BYE + Arizona + @ UCLA + @ Washington
05 California (PAC) 1-9, 0-7
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland State (FCS) + Ohio State (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon
Washington State + @ UCLA + Oregon State + @ Washington + Arizona + Southern Cal
06 Washington State (PAC) 4-5, 2-4
@ Auburn (SEC) + @ Southern Cal + Southern Utah (FCS) + Idaho (IND) + Stanford
@ California + Oregon State + @ Oregon + BYE + Arizona State + BYE
07 Arizona State (PAC) 7-2, 5-1
BYE + Sacramento State (FCS) + Wisconsin (B1G) + @ Stanford + Southern Cal
Notre Dame (IND) + Colorado + Washington + BYE + @ Washington State + @ Utah
08 Georgia (SEC) 6-3, 4-2
@ Clemson (ACC) + South Carolina + BYE + North Texas (CUSA) + Louisiana State
@ Tennessee + Missouri + @ Vanderbilt + BYE + Florida + Appalachian State (FCS)
09 Mississippi (SEC) 6-3, 3-3
@ Vanderbilt + SE Missouri State (FCS) + @ Texas (B 12) + BYE + @ Alabama
@ Auburn + Texas A&M + Louisiana State + Idaho (IND) + BYE + Arkansas
10 Brigham Young (IND) 6-3
@ Virginia (ACC) + Texas (B12) + BYE + Utah (PAC) + MTSU (CUSA) + @ Utah State (MWC)
Georgia Tech (ACC) + @ Houston (AAC) + Boise State (MWC) + BYE + Wisconsin (B1G)
LikeLike
Link to Judge Wilken’s decision from 11/8/13 re: O’Bannon.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2013/order+on+class+certification
LikeLike
my first thought was, “wow, good and smart Judge.” Nice tight narrow Opinion; only discuss/decide what needs to be discussed/decided.
other thoughts: this distinction between individual licensing and group licensing is an interesting potential compromise.
This is a nice quote from the Opinion: “Although it is true that class members’ publicity rights vary widely in value, it does not necessarily follow that a model of equal sharing among team members would inevitably create a conflict of interest. As noted above, Plaintiffs allege harm to competition within a group licensing market, not an individual licensing market. This distinction is important because it renders irrelevant any differences in the value of each class member’s individual publicity rights. After all, even if some class members suffered greater economic losses than others because the NCAA prevented them from licensing their individual publicity rights, those losses would have no bearing on this case, where Plaintiffs seek compensation only for losses suffered in the group licensing market.”
IMO, group licensing agreements are much more manageable. No out of control boosters, much less chance of boosters “buying” recruits with promises of post-signing licensing deals; money flows are clean and easy to monitor; money can be put in trust; etc.
Still a giant Title IX problem, but an interesting idea. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers were clever in using the idea of group licensing agreements rather than individual licensing agreements.
LikeLike
Results of week #11
AP – Notre Dame and Texas Tech dropped out
AP – Texas and Georgia moved in
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Auburn, #9 Missouri, #10 TAMU, #11 USC, #18 LSU, #25 UGA
(4) B12 : #4 Baylor, #12 Oklahoma State, #22 Oklahoma, #23 Texas
(4) PAC : #5 Stanford, #6 Oregon, #13 UCLA, #21 Arizona State
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #8 Clemson, #24 Miami
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #14 Michigan State, #17 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #15 Central Florida, #19 Louisville
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
Mississippi (68) / Minnesota (60) / Nebraska (16) / Duke (11) / OTR < 11 votes
.
…
.
USA – Texas Tech and Notre Dame dropped out
USA – Texas and Minnesota moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #8 Missouri, #9 Auburn, #11 TAMU, #12 South Carolina, #18 LSU
(4) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #16 Michigan State, #20 Wisconsin, #25 Minnesota
(4) B12 : #4 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma State, #17 Oklahoma, #24 Texas
(4) PAC : #5 Stanford, #7 Oregon, #15 UCLA, #22 Arizona State
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #6 Clemson, #23 Miami (FL)
(2) AAC : #13 Louisville, #19 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #14 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #21 Northern Illinois
Georgia (44) / Nebraska (43) / Ball State (22) / Duke (22) / Va Tech (15) / OTR < 15
.
…
.
Harris – Texas Tech and Notre Dame dropped out
Harris – Georgia and Texas moved in
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #8 Missouri, #9 Auburn, #10 TAMU, #12 USC, #17 LSU, #25 UGA
(4) B12 : #4 Baylor, #11 Oklahoma State, #20 Oklahoma, #24 Texas
(4) PAC : #5 Stanford, #6 Oregon, #16 UCLA, #22 Arizona State
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #7 Clemson, #23 Miami (FL)
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #15 Michigan State, #21 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #14 Louisville, #19 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #13 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
Minnesota (97) / Nebraska (90) / Mississippi (41) / Duke (28) / Ball St (23) / OTR < 20 votes
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 04
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Auburn, #9 Missouri, #10 USC, #11 TAMU, #21 LSU, #25 UGA
(4) PAC : #4 Stanford, #6 Oregon, #13 UCLA, #19 Arizona State
(4) B12 : #5 Baylor, #12 Oklahoma State, #18 Oklahoma, #24Texas
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #8 Clemson, #23 Miami (FL)
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #16 Michigan State, #22 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #17 Central Florida, #20 Louisville
(1) MWC : #14 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #15 Northern Illinois
Dropped out : #23 Notre Dame and #25 Texas Tech
Moved in : #24 Texas
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 4-4 : NB5 = 1-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = THREE :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (4-4) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (1-0) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
ACC : B5 = 5-5 : NB5 = 2-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = FLORIDA STATE
ACC (5-5) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (2-0) : 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 = NONE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (4-4) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 1-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = ALABAMA
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (4-4) :::::::: FCS (1-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
SEC scheduled a FCS school and B1G had 3 idle teams
.
Observations :
Ohio State still undefeated and Sparty is 8-1 – the good
Northwestern and Purdue still struggle – the bad
Sagarin is still not liking the B1G SoS – the ugly
LikeLike
Big crowd in Lawrence today vs West Virginia:
LikeLike
Well they had their choice of great seats to watch a nice win.
LikeLike
Yep, they finally ended that 27 game conference losing streak.
Meanwhile, WVU looks terrible. So does TCU. And Colorado. And Rutgers.
LikeLike
And Arkansas, Kentucky, Miss St, Tennessee, and even Florida.
LikeLike
was only talking about expansion teams.
LikeLike
Andy, king of the sour grapes.
LikeLike
No need for that. Just pointing out that most expansion teams are doing quite badly. Given the subject matter of the article this comments section is connected to, I’d call it a relevant observation.
LikeLike
WVU and TCU are competing in a tougher conference then they’ve had in the past and are struggling relative to their recent past.
Colorado was doing terrible their last few years in the Big 12 and has maintained that in the Pac-12.
Rutgers has not moved yet.
Texas A&M has done better than they have since the late 90’s.
Missouri’s two seasons in the SEC are similar to years they’ve had lately in the Big 12: last year below average, this year above average.
Nebraska is pretty much the same team in the Big Ten that they were in the Big 12 under Pelini.
Utah is struggling in a much tougher conference.
Probably still too early to surmise much on Syracuse and Pitt, but neither are lighting the ACC on fire in year one.
Overall, teams moving up to the Power Conferences are not having the success level they achieved in non-BCS leagues – not a surprise.
Teams moving from one BSC conference seem to be faring about the same as they did in their previous homes with the exception of Texas A&M. We’ll see in the next few years how much of that can be attribuated to Johnny Manziel.
That’s in the short term anyway.
LikeLike
pretty fair.
I’m guessing A&M will move down a notch after Manziel.
I’m thinking A&M and MO will win 8 or 9 games per year in the SEC
Utah and Colorado will win 5 or 6
Rutgers 4 or 5, Maryland 6 or 7.
TCU and WVU you would think would be at 6 or 7 but so far no.
Pitt and Syracuse maybe in that 6 or 7 range.
Your huskers should definitely be winning 10 or 11 per year in that division. Anything less than that is a bit of a failure I’d say.
LikeLike
I’ll give the Huskers a semi-pass on their first two B1G years since the 3 cross division games were OSU, Wisconsin and Penn State. Pelini’s problem at NU is both that he loses at least one game per year that he absolutely shouldn’t (Minnesota this year) and that he has 1-2 blowout losses in big games.
Not sure that Pelini puts focus into recruiting to ever get over the 9-10 win hump. Plus a complete disregard for special teams play probably swings one potential win into a loss each year.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
Just noticed your MSU v Columbia tweet. Man, I got a headache, literally, watching that game. We took only 7 3’s and made none. Appling’s stat line was a near reverse from the Ky game & we got OUTREBOUNDED. Thank God Columbia, brain trust aside, had two consecutive shot clock violations near the end of the game – an early Christmas present. Columbia “Bo Ryaned” us, albeit we’ve been beating Wisky lately, but not with consistency. UNC had a close call as well.
But, in my long, glorious, up and down fandom with MSU basketball, such early season, inexplicable performances are routine. MSU lost to Wright State (which I distinctly remember), and Northwestern (perhaps twice) during their NC seasons. I didn’t see the NW games, still a little young and college hoops wasn’t televised like it is today – but I did see a handful of MSU’s 78-79 campaign, esp the tourney games. In years we’ve made FF runs, bad losses have occurred as well.
LikeLike
One thing I can confidently say, the top 3 in the BIG are absolutely capable of playing with most teams in CF.
OSU can play FSU or Bama tough, I don’t know if they’d beat them, but the match ups would produce competitive games.
Wisky and MSU can hang with most teams in the Pac12, much of the SEC, and likely Baylor. I’m just not sure MSU could score quick enough if they got into a track meet with Baylor or Oregon. I do think Wisky is quite capable of beating an Pac12 team not name ASU with the game clock running on fumes : ) & they could keep pace Baylor.
MSU has a huge monkey to get off their back today – Dantonio has never been part of a team that has beaten Neb: 0-8 as a HC or Assistant.
PS Not to refresh a delicate wound with Wisky fans, but if you at least get a shot to beat ASU due to sound officiating & you win, OSU may be above FSU in the BCS rankings.
LikeLike
Ouch! May have truly spoke too soon on OSU. What a mental letdown they’re having with Illinois. Getting exposed on special teams and being careless.
OSU will need to rip off a lot of points the rest of the game, or . . . : ).
LikeLike
OSU = exposed, me as well. But I do believe they can play with most teams. It will take a miracle for OSU to get to the BCSNCG, and an even bigger one to win it all. Special teams = rotten.
So the Evan Spence comments are now officially amongst the top 10 of dumb quotations made by OSU players over the years & that’s already an impressive list.
At least they won a big game in basketball today: beat a ranked Marquettte team in Milwaukee.
LikeLike
This season’s Buckeyes do not have one of their top set of linebackers, and so having some of their starting linebackers out does no good to this defense, which has been the more suspect side of their team this season to date.
Luckily for the Buckeyes the wind seemed to trouble their offense more than the Illini defense.
LikeLike
Bruce,
Alabama didn’t exactly blow me away today, not at all. Stanford lost. Baylor had to come from 14 down to win by a slightly larger margin than OSU over Illinois, though TTech is better than Illinois. But, OSU was on the road & they were in control from the beginning. I didn’t like those tds they gave up on special teams, truly dumb mistakes and this is a department that Meyer hasn’t addressed since arriving in Columbus.
Still, it’s really looking like FSU won’t lose in ACC play and they’ll beat Fl rather badly. Bama will find a way to win out, but damn you never know. I think Baylor is going to lose to either UT or OkSt.
As for OSU, watch out for MSU, they’re finding an offense. But, they got burned up by Neb today, though MSU had to break a huge streak in Lincoln. Until today, MSU had never beaten Neb.
LikeLike
Alabama didn’t exactly blow me away today, not at all.
You have to look at the whole resume. Most dominant teams have an off-day at least once in the season. If they played like that against Auburn, you’d have a valid point. Against Miss. St., not so much.
LikeLike
It was a classic trap game. But Alabama hasn’t impressed me that much all season. They didn’t really face an offense they shut down until LSU (in other words they only faced 1 team with a decent offense before LSU).
LikeLike
Okie State about to win big at Texas and place another nail in Mack Brown’s figurative burnt orange coffin.
LikeLike
Might be a day to buy a lottery ticket. Kansas and Wazzu win. Duke thumps Miami. Colorado leads.
The universe has a bearing going out.
LikeLike
Finish of Auburn Georgia.
Two teams I’m following and both have interceptions slip through the defenders hands for a TD. I’ve decided I’ll have to root for Rice today. They’re leading.
LikeLike
Rice 52 LaTech 14
Such a good day.
LikeLike
Rice stadium looked the emptiest I’ve ever seen it. They’ve got a pretty good team this year.
LikeLike
Everyone was up under the deck because of the rain. The seats near the field were deserted. 19k attendance.
LikeLike
USC knocks Stanford down. Oregon gets a reprieve of sorts but still difficult for the Ducks as they’d have to depend on Baylor, OSU and Florida State to stumble. I don’t see that scenario happening.
LikeLike
Duke is on a roll and the clear favorite for the Coastal. Good thing that FSU does not need strength of schedule support for their NCG quest…because neither the Florida game nor the ACC championship game are going to be huge difference makers.
LikeLike
Looks like the ninth ACC CCG still won’t feature the Florida State-Miami game conference honchos envisioned since divisions were set up.nearly a decade ago…but who would envisioned Wake, BC (and now possibly Duke) crashing the title-game party rather than North Carolina, N.C. State, Miami, Virginia or Maryland?..
LikeLike
Could it get any worse for Illinois football?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1853298-illinois-student-section-attempts-card-stunt-but-there-arent-enough-students?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national
LikeLike
Loki,
As Frank and the other Illini can tell you, it can always get worse for IL football. Just when you think they must have bottomed out, they find a new trapdoor and fall even further. Then out of the blue they’ll win the B10 just to keep everyone on their toes.
LikeLike
More Illinois lulz. This time in basketball.
LikeLike
Somebody is going to make a meme of the Indian dude up front of his motionless expression shortly after the pick. Blond chick on the couch gave the double bird up pretty quickly. The sad part is the kids at least cared enough to watch it as a group. Imagine if it had been some all football school and you would have just one or two people in the crowd who cared what happened.
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 12 run with SoS rank mid season point +5 :
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
002 003 002 001 001 Florida State 42 / 68 / 54 / 62/ 58
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 012 012 010 Clemson 45 / 39 / 42 / 53 / 45
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 065 080 074 Maryland 94 / 83 / 85 / 90 / 74
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 069 065 068 Syracuse 39 / 38 / 53 / 56 / 44
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 064 060 057 Boston College 26 / 22 / 20 / 30 / 46
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 083 104 106 North Carolina State 117 / 87 / 80 / 60 / 49
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 079 090 087 Wake Forest 102 / 85 / 71 / 57 / 56
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 029 032 044 Miami (FL) 75 / 82 / 56 / 47 / 42
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 039 027 031 Virginia Tech 37 / 37 / 35 / 17 / 27
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 033 025 027 Georgia Tech 29 / 35 / 40 / 31 / 25
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 060 047 054 Pittsburgh 57 / 42 / 32 / 24 / 28
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 049 041 039 Duke 92 / 80 / 84 / 82 / 69
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 052 048 048 North Carolina 4 / 18 / 26 / 32 / 33
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 089 099 097 Virginia 35 / 31 / 23 / 15 / 17
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 005 007 008 Ohio State 76 / 69 / 81 / 81 / 72
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 006 006 005 Wisconsin 83 / 90 / 59 / 44 / 52
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 048 066 067 Penn State 63 / 36 / 49 / 46 / 61
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 054 058 062 Indiana 27 / 33 / 36 / 52 / 37
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 077 077 077 Illinois 40 / 34 / 27 / 29 / 18
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 146 168 169 Purdue 21 / 20 / 11 / 23 / 19 Best SoS in B1G according to Sagarin
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 015 020 019 Michigan State 104 / 92 / 86 / 91 / 78
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 038 054 049 Michigan 85 / 84 / 66 / 68 / 59
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 044 050 052 Nebraska 119 / 110 / 101 / 98 / 83
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 042 040 041 Iowa 47 / 43 / 34 / 49 / 48
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 053 059 066 Northwestern 81 / 59 / 39 / 37 / 43
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 057 056 056 Minnesota 103 / 89 / 75 / 77 / 79
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 004 003 003 Baylor 100 / 96 / 93 / 96 / 85
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 021 035 030 Oklahoma 56 / 44 / 48 / 58 / 62
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 030 044 045 Texas Tech 87 / 79 / 67 / 78 / 55
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 013 017 013 Oklahoma State 54 / 52 / 38 / 59 / 51
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 023 031 035 Texas 18 / 13 / 24 / 33 / 30
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 045 068 061 Texas Christian 8 / 10 / 17 / 34 / 29
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 028 022 023 Kansas State 12 / 19 / 29 / 27 / 34
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 080 098 101 Iowa State 15 / 7 / 5 / 18 / 11
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 059 071 076 West Virginia 14 / 8 / 8 / 19 / 23
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 106 130 112 Kansas 36 / 24 / 18 / 25 / 31
.
PAC – North = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 003 004 004 Oregon 68 / 54 / 62 / 39 / 35
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 018 010 012 Washington 3 / 16 / 14 / 28 / 13
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 010 005 007 Stanford 11 / 9 / 12 / 2 / 2 Top 10 SoS
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 040 034 032 Oregon State 74 / 60 / 52 / 43 / 26
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 051 045 034 Washington State 16 / 15 / 7 / 6 / 3 Top 10 SoS
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 108 114 118 California 10 / 3 / 6 / 5 / 8 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 020 014 014 UCLA 50 / 28 / 41 / 26 / 15
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 008 009 006 Arizona State 13 / 12 / 10 / 7 / 6 Top 10 SoS
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9
035 039 037 029 026 Utah 5 / 4 / 4 / 1 / 1 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 032 024 028 Arizona 55 / 55 / 60 / 38 / 39
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 025 021 018 Southern Cal 22 / 23 / 19 / 21 / 12
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 086 085 081 Colorado 31 / 26 / 13 / 4 / 10 Top 10 SoS
.
SEC – East = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 007 008 009 Missouri 30 / 29 / 30 / 36 / 40
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 022 036 036 Florida 7 / 14 / 9 / 13 / 9 Top 10 SoS
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 017 023 020 Georgia 2 / 1 / 1 / 8 / 5 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 014 016 017 South Carolina 20 / 11 / 16 / 16 / 21
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 047 063 064 Tennessee 25 / 5 / 2 / 3 / 4 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 043 037 037 Vanderbilt 46 / 25 / 22 / 14 / 32
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 082 093 099 Kentucky 6 / 6 / 25 / 20 / 14
SEC – West = 1 of 10 Top 10 SoS
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 001 002 002 Alabama 43 / 41 / 47 / 42 / 41
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 009 011 011 Louisiana State 9 / 30 / 28 / 22 / 22
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 011 015 016 Texas A&M 28 / 32 / 46 / 51 / 47
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 019 013 015 Auburn 33 / 51 / 50 / 41 / 38
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 026 028 025 Mississippi 1 / 2 / 3 / 9 / 20
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 055 055 051 Mississippi State 34 / 58 / 33 / 12 / 7 Top 10 SoS
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 074 079 084 Arkansas 17 / 17 / 15 / 11 / 16
LikeLike
ESpin protecting its investment in the SEC by manipulating the rankings.
http://m.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern-manifesto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs
I would add that the magnificence of the SEC in winning NCs is really the magnificence of Nick Saban.
LikeLike
The SEC has the best coaches more than they have an advantage anywhere else. Your comment made me to think of this stat:
Last 10 MNCs (feel free to correct if I am remembering the coaches wrong-I’m doing this by memory):
Nick Saban 4
Urban Meyer 2
(and those two might be meeting this year)
Les Miles 1 (with a lot of Nick’s recruits)
Pete Carrol 1
Gene Chizik 1
Mack Brown 1 (with Gene Chizik as defensive coordinator)
3 coaches have a strong connection to 9 of those 10 championships.
LikeLike
So the holy trinity of coaching is Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, and Gene Chizik? One of those three has a .500 record.
LikeLike
I would look lees at the coaches and more at the geography. Looks like it is the states of Alabama and Louisiana are producing MNC teams. Deducting Alabama, Auburn, and LSU moves the SEC win column to just the 2 in Florida.
LikeLike
Gene was always a good defensive coach. In 2010 he had Cam Newton to carry the offense.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The SEC has the best coaches more than they have an advantage anywhere else.”
I think they have a talent edge, too, especially at DL. But let’s look at the previous recruiting class for another issue (depth):
2013 24/7 Composite rankings:
1 Alabama 27
3 Florida 28
6 LSU 27
8 Ole Miss 29
9 Texas A&M 32
11 Georgia 34
13 Auburn 24
20 South Carolina 24
23 Arkansas 34
24 Tennessee 23
25 Mississippi State 22
2 Ohio State 25
4 Michigan 27
5 Notre Dame 25
7 UCLA 27
10 Florida State 22
12 USC 12
14 Miami 20
15 Clemson 23
16 Oklahoma 24
17 Texas 15
18 Washington 24
19 Oregon 19
21 Virginia Tech 20
22 Nebraska 32
11 SEC schools took 304 recruits for an average of 27.6 each (max is 25, but you can count back, etc).
14 other schools took 315 recruits for an average of 22.5 each. But USC is a special case due to sanctions and UT obviously had an unusually small class, so let’s eliminate them. 12 other schools took 288 recruits for an average of 24 each.
As long as this sort of disparity exists, the SEC will always have higher quality depth because they can weed out flops. Add better coaching to better talent and you generally get a better team.
LikeLike
I don’t think its any coincidence when you look at the numbers that the west, which was in the shadow of the east in the first part of the SEC’s two division history, has dominated in the last 6 or 7 years. Florida and Georgia typically (not last year for UGA) don’t over-sign. They average about 5 less recruits a year than the western teams were getting. As I recall all the western schools averaged over 25 recruits a year.
LikeLike
AP Poll out:
Baylor jumps Ohio St. Duke joins the party. Interestingly only 31 teams got votes and 2 (Cincinnati and Nebraska) must have only gotten the #25 slot from their local writer-1 point each.
1 Alabama (55) 10-0 1495
2 Florida State (5) 10-0 1445
3 Baylor 9-0 1351
4 Ohio State 10-0 1343
5 Oregon 9-1 1210
6 Auburn 10-1 1205
7 Clemson 9-1 1115
8 Missouri 9-1 1067
9 Texas A&M 8-2 956
10 Stanford 8-2 899
11 Oklahoma State 9-1 889
12 South Carolina 8-2 870
13 Michigan State 9-1 749
14 UCLA 8-2 710
15 Fresno State 9-0 572
16 Wisconsin 8-2 559
17 UCF 8-1 535
18 LSU 7-3 439
19 Arizona State 8-2 430
20 Northern Illinois 10-0 426
21 Louisville 9-1 412
22 Oklahoma 8-2 318
23 USC 8-3 187
24 Ole Miss 7-3 119
25 Duke 8-2 94
Others receiving votes: Minnesota 77, Notre Dame 11, Texas 10, Georgia 5, Cincinnati 1, Nebraska 1
LikeLike
Same old shit. OSU beats a bad team on the road by 25 and drops a ranking. Alabama beats a bad team on the road by 13 and retains an iron grip on #1. Baylor looked no better than OSU did.
LikeLike
Baylor played a better team.
LikeLike
Also, Baylor won by 43 points not 25.
LikeLike
63 minus 34 is 29, not 43.
OSU played a road game. Baylor at “home”.
The voters flipping on OSU was inevitable. They’ll have to be content with the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
MOV above 25 points is far more a reflection of many things before it means much (if anything) about strict linear increasing superiority.
LikeLike
Blah, I was trying to post a correction, but you beat me to it. Though I’ll say that Tech larger fanbase than Baylor in Dallas calling that home game for Baylor is a stretch.
And of course none of that changes the fact that it is much harder to beat Texas Tech by 29 in Dallas than it is to beat Illinois by 25 in Champaign.
LikeLike
frug,
I agree TT is a much better team, but there were some extenuating circumstances. It was ridiculously windy as always at IL which affected the passing game. OSU was also missing 2 of their 3 starting LBs, a position of weakness already. That forced the DBs to do more run support, opening up the passing game for IL.
There was also the let down factor. OSU jumped out to a 28-0 lead and the players relaxed. If not for that punt return, who knows if IL gets anything going at all?
LikeLike
^^ extreme homer?
duffman, you decide.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s the opposite: for most of the season, Ohio State has been ranked higher by the humans than the computers. Far from being penalized, Ohio State generally gets a bonus from the human polls, simply because of who they are.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Actually, it’s the opposite: for most of the season, Ohio State has been ranked higher by the humans than the computers. Far from being penalized, Ohio State generally gets a bonus from the human polls, simply because of who they are.”
It’s important to remember that humans and computers are analyzing different things. Computers look solely at what you accomplished while humans try to decide how good you are. Computers can only consider the data they are allowed to consider while humans are more holistic (and biased).
Your comment assumes the computers are correct and the humans are overrating OSU. It could also be the opposite or somewhere in between.
Don’t conflate objective with correct. They aren’t always the same thing.
LikeLike
I don’t think that most of the voters who moved Baylor ahead of OSU this week did so exclusively because of just the most recent game for each team.
I’m sure that everyone had OSU above Baylor to start the year and most of those that re-ranked the two this week did so due to the sum total of the season to date. Arguments can be made for each team at this point. And it doesn’t really matter unless Alabama or FSU loses.
LikeLike
Baylor has now beaten two good teams in a row decisively. Beating 7 chumps in a row didn’t convince anyone.
And part of it has to do with Stanford losing. Some had Stanford ahead of one but not the other.
LikeLike
I despise OSU and think Baylor looks to be the stronger team, but ESPN’s over the top campaigning for Baylor is disgusting. ‘Ohio State hangs on’ in a twenty five point win?
The team that is REALLY getting screwed, however, is Wisconsin. If someone told you that Alabama (ranked number one) had fifteen seconds to kick a 20 yard field goal against Michigan, but couldn’t because the refs refused to give them the ball, then ran off the field as time expired, seemingly dashing their championship hopes, there would have been an investigation and the coaches etc. would have refused to penalize Alabama dropping them to, perhaps, number two. As is, no such consideration is given to the ludicrously low ranked Wisconsin and in fact the team that benefited most from the incident may well take their spot in the BCS.
LikeLike
Should have added ‘Big Ten’ refs, since the refs in the ASU game were Pac12.
LikeLike
Now we have an example of extreme homerism. This is Clay Travis level.
Last week ESPN was talking about who could get in should Alabama or FSU stumble. Could 1 loss Stanford or Missouri jump Ohio St.? They never mentioned Baylor.
This week CBS Sports talked about the teams in the running for the BCS title game. Only showed the top 3-Alabama, FSU and Ohio St. Never mentioned Baylor.
LikeLike
You must be reading ‘ESPN-The Bizzaro Worldwide Leader in Sports’.
Both Schlabach and Gene Wojo said last week that Baylor should be number three.
LikeLike
I’m talking about on the air. They aren’t pumping a team when they don’t even mention them, especially when they should be in the conversation. They have been trying very hard to ignore Baylor.
Its bizzarro world to think ESPN is pushing Baylor over Ohio St. I’d bet Buffalo thinks Baylor is better, so Schlabach and Wojo thinking they are better is a reasonable opinion. If you were complaining about FSU or Alabama getting promoted, I would disagree that they don’t deserve it but agree with the concern. But complaining about them pumping Baylor is ridiculous. Its exactly the opposite.
LikeLike
It’s just really simple, Baylor passes OSU if they win out due to OkSt’s higher ranking than MSU. Is it fair? I’m not entirely sure. The Cowboys lost to WVa, who is certainly not as good as ND. But MSU’s loss to ND doesn’t help them at all due to the Irish loss to OU.
However, OkSt’s status could lose ground by the time the Bucks play MSU, but will it be enough to put OSU back above Baylor? OU still plays OkSt, and ND can still bolster its SOS and season with wins over BYU and Stanford. If OU and ND win out, then maybe a Baylor win over OkSt doesn’t look as strong.
I don’t know enough about how the computers and SOS works. Does it put more value into a team’s strength-ranking at the time of the game, or how these teams ultimately finish the regular season?
LikeLike
It really only matters if AL or FSU loses.
LikeLike
I read somewhere that some re-work the calculation at the end of the season. I had always assumed they constantly re-work it each week. I’m sure some weight the end of the season heavier than the start. There’s only one that is open (forget which one). A second, Sagarin, has been described in general. The rest are black boxes. Billingsley’s is ridiculous, whatever he does. I find it interesting that Colley(?), who is a young VT grad, most years tends to rate ACC teams a little higher than others. He must factor in whatever ACC teams happen to rate well on.
LikeLike
@fredem
Hard to imagine anything FSU could do other than lose that would knock them out of #2. Nothing Alabama could do would do that.
But history says that 2 to all 4 of these teams will lose by the end of the season.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I read somewhere that some re-work the calculation at the end of the season. I had always assumed they constantly re-work it each week. I’m sure some weight the end of the season heavier than the start.”
They’re all different in approach. Some care about when a game is played, some don’t. Since only the final rankings matter, I don’t suppose it matters what they do week to week before then.
“There’s only one that is open (forget which one). A second, Sagarin, has been described in general. The rest are black boxes. Billingsley’s is ridiculous, whatever he does. I find it interesting that Colley(?), who is a young VT grad, most years tends to rate ACC teams a little higher than others. He must factor in whatever ACC teams happen to rate well on.”
The fun thing is Colley allows you to add and remove games from the season and see what changes would result.
EX. Add WI beating ASU and remove ASU beating WI to see how important that was.
Original: 3. AU, 4. OSU, 5. Baylor, 10. ASU, 21. WI
New: 3. OSU, 4. AU, 5. Baylor, 10. WI, 20. ASU
That’s a pretty major impact from one play. How much differently would the humans vote if WI was undefeated when OSU won and they were 9-1 now? OSU’s resume would be significantly better, plus they’d be higher in at least 1 computer.
LikeLike
Before the field goal attempt, let me just say that Marc Trestman’s decision making in the last 3:00 minutes of this Bears’ game has been positively Zookian.
Punting on 4 and a short 1 and then not calling anytime timeouts. Ugh.
LikeLike
One year after announcing move to Big Ten, anticipation and uncertainty reign at Maryland
http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78218562/?related=true
LikeLike
Ohio St. holds off Baylor… but just barely.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
Also of interest is that NIU has passed Fresno St. in the computers and Baylor-Okie St. is officially a Top 10 matchup.
LikeLike
Florida State will be playing for the National Championship, Alabama is likely, but with two weeks to prepare Auburn still has a chance to upset them @ home. I hope Baylor wins out but I think they lose @ Stillwater to Oklahoma State, and even if they and Ohio State win out, Ohio State because of history, and the Conference Championship Game (probably against Michigan State), will be ranked ahead of them (this from a Penn State fan). For now, Northern Illinois deserves to be ranked ahead of Fresno State (assuming they win out). But Fresno State should end up ahead of NIU if they run the table (beating Boise again). I know the Mountain West Conference Championship would be @ Fresno, but beating Fresno twice (even at home), would be more impressive than beating Buffalo in the Championship Game @ Ford Field. I do think both Schools are better than UCF which is the luckiest School out there (as opposed to Northwestern (talk about heartbreakers two weeks in a row). One Game off the Grid is Clemson @ South Carolina. Assuming FSU plays for the National Championship, if Clemson wins they (not Duke) should get the automatic ACC Bowl bid. On the other side, if Alabama wins out, USC is not going to get the SEC bid (unless they win the Conference Championship), that should go to LSU.
Prediction: National Championship: Alabama/FSU
Orange: Clemson/Central Florida
Rose: Ohio State/Oregon
Fiesta: Northern Illinois/Ok St
Sugar: LSU/Wisconsin
LikeLike
What can I say other than NIU beat an Iowa team that is certainly better than Rutgers, who damn near beat Fresno at their place. Granted, Rutgers’ season has been filled with off field issues, but they have some God awful losses, blowouts. I don’t get these computers.
LikeLike
I think you are seriously underestimating UCF. They have a really good team. I actually think that they are borderline top 10 good.
LikeLike
A touchdown at 1:06 and a FG at 0:00 to beat Temple is a borderline top ten?
LikeLike
I would argue that a close win over Temple is better than a loss to Utah and no one really questions Stanford being a Top 10 team.
LikeLike
A win is always a win. But Utah is no slouch. They have the #1 schedule in the country. They’ve lost close games to ASU, UCLA and Oregon St. They lost by 11 at Arizona and 16 at USC in addition to the loss at Oregon last week. Their wins include BYU and Stanford.
LikeLike
I’m with ccrider….don’t think they’re underrated at all. lost to SC….3 point win at PSU not impressive. 7 pts over Memphis–diito. 5 points over Houston-likewise….then the lucky 3 point winover Temple. IMO, they’re closer to #20 than to #10.
LikeLike
If you think a close win at Temple is better than a close loss to Utah you’re nuts.
LikeLike
“If you think a close win at Temple is better than a close loss to Utah you’re nuts.”
I would guess that every coach at every school all would rather have a close win at Temple over a close loss to Utah.
I’m not saying that UCF is better than Stanford, they are not. But let’s not act like a loss to Utah is some badge of honor.
LikeLike
“I would guess that every coach at every school all would rather have a close win at Temple over a close loss to Utah.”
But how would those coaches evaluate those results? Would a very close win over Temple engender the confidence that only a single play going differently would absolutely keep/place you in the NCG conversation?
LikeLike
LSU?? They have 3 losses already and will have a 4th soon. They’re looking at the Chik-Fil-A or Gator, nowhere near the Sugar.
LikeLike
Maybe you meant Auburn, who beat LSU. And A&M.
LikeLike
LSU is the most overrated team in the country. They did hand Auburn their only loss, but have also lost to Georgia and Ole Miss (who until recently were unranked).
LikeLike
oh, you’re right, LSU did beat Auburn. But yeah, they’ll likely finish 8-4 and won’t be going to the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
“LSU is the most overrated team in the country. They did hand Auburn their only loss, but have also lost to Georgia and Ole Miss (who until recently were unranked).”
I think that is a stretch. Their losses on the road to Georgia and Ole Miss were in the final seconds. Not like they were blown out.
If LSU gets placed in the Cotton Bowl this year, I like their chances against any Big 12 team they get matched up with.
LikeLike
Look at the rest of the 3 loss teams and the 2 loss teams they are rated ahead of. LSU doesn’t have the record to compare to any of those. Absolutely they are over-rated. Simply because the pollsters thought they would be good at the beginning of the year. They beat a TCU team by 10 everyone thought would be good (and was the favorite by many to win the Big 12). That reinforced their opinions.
LikeLike
LSU:
AP 18
Coaches 19
Sagarin predictor 16
Massey compilation 18
LikeLike
Also, FWIW, USC is still in 2nd place in the East, not 1st.
LikeLike
Lets see if Missouri survives A&M & Ole Miss? I think NOT! I still think LSU gets the Sugar Bowl bid, so that tickets can be sold for the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
It would seem that the loser of Alabama-Auburn is most likely getting the SEC’s second BCS bowl bid as a consolation prize. They’ll either have 1 (Bama) or 2 (Auburn) losses and won’t be in the SEC Championship Game (where BCS bowls generally don’t like taking the loser).
LikeLike
SEC west still has games to determine the final SEC pecking order
Alabama (10-0) = FCS + Iron Bowl
Auburn (10-1) = Iron Bowl
Texas A&M (8-2) = LSU + Missouri
Mississippi (7-3) = Missouri + Egg Bowl
LSU (7-3) = Texas A&M + Arkansas
In the east South Carolina has no more SEC games to play and Missouri is listed above
LikeLike
“It would seem that the loser of Alabama-Auburn is most likely getting the SEC’s second BCS bowl bid as a consolation prize. They’ll either have 1 (Bama) or 2 (Auburn) losses and won’t be in the SEC Championship Game (where BCS bowls generally don’t like taking the loser).”
Agreed, it really looks like Auburn just needs to avoid a huge blowout loss to Alabama and they will receive the SEC’s at large bid. Unless Alabama loses to the SEC East representative in Atlanta, then I think a one loss Alabama (even if it was a championship game loss) is easily getting the at-large bid.
LikeLike
A&M beats out Auburn if they win out and Alabama wins the SEC. They will have the same record, less recent losses and the reigning Heisman trophy winner. They will also be fresh off knocking Missouri out of the SEC ccg.
LikeLike
A&M will also be 15 years removed from their last BCS appearance, so fans will travel in droves.
LikeLike
Frank you’re making the mistake of thinking like a fan, not a bowl exec.
LikeLike
Bullet, maybe. It Auburn plays Alabama relatively close, I think they are in. Now, if A&M absolultely rolls in the last two games and Manziel puts up huge numbers it will be a tough choice. Even with a loss to Alabama, Auburn will likely be ranked higher than A&M and will have a head to head victory over A&M in College Station on their resume.
LikeLike
I’m with Bullet. I think if A&M wins out, there is no way that the Sugar Bowl passes up on them.
LikeLike
david brown, according to the computers, Mizzou has about a 40% chance of winning out and making it to Atlanta. That’s less than 50% but a whole lot more than 0%.
As for LSU, they have 3 losses now and will likely get a 4th on Saturday. But even if they don’t, with three losses it would seem that they have several teams ahead of them for the Sugar Bowl, unless they resort to some sort of corrupt backroom bargains to jump over several more deserving teams.
LikeLike
My guess on the SEC bowls.
If Missouri beats A&M and finishes 11-2:
BCS Title Game: Alabama vs Florida State
Sugar: Auburn vs Central Florida
Capital One: South Carolina vs Michigan State (unless SC loses to Clemson, then they drop a spot or two)
Outback: Missouri vs. Nebraska (unless SC loses to Clemson, then they move up to Capital One)
Cotton: Texas A&M vs Oklahoma State
Chik-Fil-A: LSU vs Duke (this is assuming LSU is 8-4)
Gator: Ole Miss vs Michigan
Music City: Georgia vs ?
Belk: Tennessee vs ?
Liberty: Vanderbilt vs ?
If A&M beats Missouri and Missouri finishes 10-2:
BCS Title Game: Alabama vs Florida State
Sugar: Texas A&M vs Central Florida
Capital One: Auburn vs Michigan State (unless SC loses to Clemson, then they drop a spot or two)
Outback: South Carolina vs. Nebraska (unless SC loses to Clemson, then they move up to Capital One)
Cotton: Missouri vs Oklahoma State (the Cotton has said that they consider Missouri a West team geographically and are interested if Missouri is available, so I don’t think Missouri drops below Cotton if they have 10 wins)
Chik-Fil-A: LSU vs Duke (this is assuming LSU is 8-4)
Gator: Ole Miss vs Michigan
Music City: Georgia vs ?
Belk: Tennessee vs ?
Liberty: Vanderbilt vs ?
If Missouri finishes 9-3 they probably drop down to the Gator Bowl.
The one thing I’m not bothering to factor in but maybe I should is sometimes bowls don’t want the same team two years in a row, so they may trade around a bit to account for that.
LikeLike
shoot, forgot to remove the parentheses on the second version for the Capital One and Outback. Anyway, you get the idea, SC moves up or down depending on how they do vs Clemson.
Also, if Missouri loses another game then as conference title game participants, SC contractually can’t fall below Cotton, even if they’re 9-4, which they may well be by then if it happens.
LikeLike
bullet, I probably don’t need to remind you that Gary Pinkel has a 4-2 record against A&M, and that A&M rarely ever wins in Columbia.
LikeLike
All of these discussions are hypotheticals. You take all this personally. A&M winning out is about as likely as Missouri. Neither is probable. A&M has LSU and Missouri, two big challenges. Same for Missouri-Ole Miss and A&M, plus a ccg if they get by them. Even if a team has a 60% chance of winning each game, that’s only a 36% chance of winning both.
As someone else said, there’s a lot left to determine SEC pecking order for bowls.
LikeLike
bullet, exact quote from you “They will also be fresh off knocking Missouri out of the SEC ccg.” You did not use the word “hypothetically” or “may” or “might”, you chose to use the word “will”. I was just pointing out that if history is any indication your declarative statement will not happen.
LikeLike
I guess you didn’t learn reading comprehension at Missouri or Michigan.
Note the first sentence-“if”
Now if A&M wins out, they will have been fresh off beating Missouri. That’s a fact. Not an opinion.
LikeLike
OK, you got me. I misunderstood the conversation.
Yes, I agree if A&M wins out they’d beat out Auburn for the Sugar Bowl.
I misunderstood you as saying it will happen, not that it might.
LikeLike
That’s what I get for reading through message boards with less than half of my attention while getting work done…
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (6 teams) after Week #12 : 6 of 125 = 4.80% of total :
Big 5 schools : 4 of 62 = 6.45% of population : 4 of 125 = 3.20% of total
B 12 = 01 of 10 => 10.00% : Baylor
B1G = 01 of 12 => 08.33% : Legends -> NONE \\\\//// Leaders -> Ohio State
ACC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> NONE
SEC = 01 of 14 => 07.14% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Alabama
PAC = 00 of 12 => 00.00% : North -> NONE \\\\//// South -> NONE
Non Big 5 schools : 2 of 63 = 3.17% of population : 2 of 125 = 1.60% of total
MWC = 01 of 12 => 8.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 01 of 13 => 7.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 00 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
IND = 00 of 06 => 0.00% : NONE
SunB = 00 of 08 => 0.00% : NONE
CUSA = 00 of 14 => 0.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 10 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : NONE
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 10 – 0 Ohio State
B 12 : 9 – 0 Baylor
SEC East : NONE :::: SEC West : 10 – 0 Alabama
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 10 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 9 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #13 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs IND : 10-0 Florida State vs 1-9 Idaho | Saturday 3:30 pm | ESPNU
B12 vs B12 : 9-0 Baylor @ 9-1 Oklahoma State | Saturday 8:00 pm | ABC
B1G vs B1G : 10-0 Ohio State vs 4-6 Indiana | Saturday 3:30 pm | ABC / ESPN2
MAC vs MAC : 10-0 Northern Illinois @ 7-3 Toledo | Wednesday 8:00pm | ESPN2
MWC vs MWC : 9-0 Fresno State vs 3-7 New Mexico | Saturday 4:00 pm | ESPNews
SEC vs FCS : 10-0 Alabama vs 8-3 Chattanooga | Saturday 2:00 pm | ESPN Game Plan
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #13 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #12 ********
NONE
.
…
.
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#7) ********
AAC : 6-0 Louisville
ACC : 6-0 Clemson / 6-1 Virginia Tech
B 12 : 6-0 Texas Tech
B1G : 6-0 Ohio State
MAC : 6-0 Northern Illinois / 6-1 Ball State
PAC : 6-0 Oregon
SEC : 6-0 Missouri / 6-0 Alabama / 6-1 Louisiana State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#8) ********
ACC : 6-0 Florida State / 6-0 Miami
B 12 : 6-0 Baylor / 6-1 Oklahoma
B1G : 6-1 Michigan State / 6-1 Michigan
MWC : 6-0 Fresno State
PAC : 6-1 Oregon State / 6-1 Stanford
SEC : 6-1 Auburn
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#9) ********
AAC : 6-1 Houston / 6-1 Central Florida
ACC : 6-2 Duke
B 12 : 6-1 Oklahoma State
B1G : 6-2 Minnesota
CUSA : 6-2 Rice / 6-2 Tulane
IND : 6-2 Brigham Young / 6-2 Notre Dame
MAC : 6-2 Buffalo / 6-2 Ohio
SEC : 6-2 South Carolina / 6-2 Texas A&M
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#10) ********
AAC : 6-2 Cincinnati
ACC : 6-3 Georgia Tech
B 12 : 6-2 Texas
B1G : 6-2 Nebraska / 6-2 Wisconsin
CUSA : 6-2 East Carolina / 6-3 North Texas
IND : 6-3 Old Dominion
MAC : 6-3 Bowling Green / 6-3 Toledo
MWC : 6-3 Boise State
PAC : 6-2 Arizona State / 6-2 Arizona / 6-2 UCLA / 6-3 Southern Cal
SunB : 6-2 LA – Lafayette / 6-3 Texas State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#11) ********
B1G : 6-4 Iowa
CUSA : 6-4 Middle Tennessee / 6-3 Marshall
MWC : 6-4 Utah State
PAC : 6-3 Washington
SEC : 6-3 Georgia / 6-3 Mississippi
SunB : 6-4 Western Kentucky
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#12) ********
ACC : 6-4 Boston College / 6-4 Maryland
B 12 : 6-4 Kansas State
B1G : 6-4 Penn State
IND : 6-4 Navy
MWC : 6-4 San Diego State
SEC : 6-4 Vanderbilt
SunB : 6-4 Arkansas State
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 12 according to Sagarin ************
(6) PAC / (4) SEC / (0) ACC / (0) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 Utah (PAC) 4-6, 1-6
Utah St (MWC) + Weber St (FCS) + Oregon State + @ Brigham Young (IND) + BYE
UCLA + Stanford + @ Arizona + @ Southern California + BYE + Arizona State + @ Oregon
02 Stanford (PAC) 8-2, 6-2
BYE + San Jose State (MWC) + @ Army (IND) Arizona State + @ Washington State
Washington + @ Utah + UCLA + @ Oregon State + BYE + Oregon + @ Southern Cal
03 Washington State (PAC) 5-5, 3-4
@ Auburn (SEC) + @ Southern Cal + Southern Utah (FCS) + Idaho (IND) + Stanford
@ California + Oregon State + @ Oregon + BYE + Arizona State + BYE + @ Arizona
04 Tennessee (SEC) 4-6, 1-5
Austin Peay (FCS) + W Kentucky (S B) + @ Oregon (PAC) + @ Florida + S Alabama (S B)
Georgia + BYE + South Carolina + @ Alabama + @ Missouri + Auburn + BYE
05 Georgia (SEC) 6-4, 4-3
@ Clemson (ACC) + South Carolina + BYE + North Texas (CUSA) + LSU + @ Tennessee
Missouri + @ Vanderbilt + BYE + Florida + Appalachian State (FCS) + @ Auburn
06 Arizona State (PAC) 8-2, 6-1
BYE + Sacramento St (FCS) + Wisconsin (B1G) + @ Stanford + USC + Notre Dame (IND)
Colorado + Washington + BYE + @ Washington State + @ Utah + Oregon State
07 Mississippi State (SEC) 4-6, 1-5
Oklahoma State (TX) (B12) + Alcorn State (FCS) + @ Auburn + Troy (S B) + BYE + LSU
BGSU (MAC) + BYE + Kentucky + @ South Carolina + @ Texas A&M + Alabama
08 California (PAC) 1-10, 0-8
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland State (FCS) + Ohio State (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon
Washington St + @ UCLA + Oregon St + @ Washington + Arizona + USC + @ Colorado
09 Florida (SEC) 4-6, 3-5
Toledo (MAC) + @ Miami (ACC) + BYE + Tennessee + @ Kentucky + Arkansas + @ LSU
@ Missouri + BYE + Georgia + Vanderbilt + @ South Carolina
10 Colorado (PAC) 4-6, 1-6
Colorado St (MWC) + Central Arkansas (FCS) + Fresno St (MWC) + BYE + @ Oregon State
Oregon + @ Arizona State + BYE + Arizona + @ UCLA + @ Washington + California
LikeLike
@ Brian
After tracking the Top 10 SoS via Sagarin all these weeks, the SEC does get hit late in the season when they play the FCS schools. Mississippi – who had been in the Top 1 – 3 all season dropped out of the Top 10 entirely this week after playing Troy in the Sun Belt. While the SB is not the FCS it may be the worst FBS conference this season.
LikeLike
Actually the Sun Belt may be the best of the G5 this year. Typically they are worst, but their ooc winning % vs. FBS is around 44%, just behind the AAC.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the computers this week. Could Baylor jump to #1 in the computers? No idea how far ahead of OSU and Baylor Alabama and FSU are, but OSU will make up some ground and Baylor will make up a huge amount (assuming all 4 win-pretty certain for FSU and AL, very likely for OSU although IU can put up points).
LikeLike
Massey compilation has AAC solidly in front, with the other four bunched together. SB second to last. (Scroll to the bottom)
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
LikeLike
Results of week #12
AP – Texas, Miami, and Georgia dropped out
AP – Southern Cal, Mississippi, and Duke moved in
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 Auburn, #8 Missouri, #9 TAMU, #12 USC, #18 LSU, #24 Ole Miss
(5) PAC : #5 Oregon, #10 Stanford, #14 UCLA, #19 Arizona State, #23 Southern Cal
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #7 Clemson, #25 Duke
(3) B12 : #3 Baylor, #11 Oklahoma State, #22 Oklahoma
(3) B1G : #4 Ohio State, #13 Michigan State, #16 Wisconsin
(2) AAC : #17 Central Florida, #21 Louisville
(1) MWC : #15 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
Minnesota (77) / Notre Dame (11) / Texas (10) / Georgia (5) / Nebraska (1) / Cincinnati (1)
.
…
.
USA – Miami and Texas dropped out
USA – Duke and Southern Cal moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Auburn, #8 Missouri, #10 TAMU, #11 South Carolina, #19 LSU
(5) PAC : #5 Oregon, #12 Stanford, #14 UCLA, #22 Arizona State, #25 Southern Cal
(4) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #13 Michigan State, #17 Wisconsin, #23 Minnesota
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #6 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B12 : #4 Baylor, #9 Oklahoma State, #18 Oklahoma
(2) AAC : #15 Louisville, #20 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #21 Northern Illinois
Mississippi (35) / Cincinnati (23) / Texas (7) / LA Lafayette (6) / Miami (5) / other < 5
.
…
.
Harris – Miami, Texas, and Georgia dropped out
Harris – Southern Cal, Duke, and Minnesota moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #7 Auburn, #8 Missouri, #10 TAMU, #12 USC, #17 LSU
(5) PAC : #5 Oregon, #11 Stanford, #15 UCLA, #22 Arizona State, #23 Southern Cal
(4) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #13 Michigan State, #19 Wisconsin, #25 Minnesota
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #6 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B12 : #4 Baylor, #9 Oklahoma State, #21 Oklahoma
(2) AAC : #16 Louisville, #20 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #14 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
Mississippi (110) / Georgia (37) / Cincinnati (14) / Texas (14) / Miami (8) / other < 7 votes
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 05
(7) SEC : #1 Alabama, #6 Auburn, #8 Missouri, #11 USC, #12 TAMU, #22 LSU, #24 Ole Miss
(5) PAC : #5 Oregon, #9 Stanford, #14 UCLA, #17 Arizona State, #23 Southern Cal
(4) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #13 Michigan State, #19 Wisconsin, #25 Minnesota
(3) B12 : #4 Baylor, #10 Oklahoma State, #20 Oklahoma
(2) ACC : #2 Florida State, #7 Clemson
(2) AAC : #18 Central Florida, #21 Louisville
(1) MWC : #15 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #16 Northern Illinois
Dropped out : #23 Miami, #24 Texas, and #25 Georgia
Moved in : #23 Southern Cal, #24 Mississippi, and #25 Minnesota
.
…
.
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 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = TWO :: U = FLORIDA STATE
ACC (5-5) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : 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 (5-5) : 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 = NONE
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 = 4-4 : NB5 = 1-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FIVE :: U = ALABAMA
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (4-4) :::::::: FCS (0-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (1-0)
Everybody scheduled pretty well except for the SEC. It was sleepy time down south week for the SEC with 5 teams playing the BYE and 1 team playing the Sun Belt
.
Observations :
Buckeyes and Sparty still heading to a B1G CCG showdown – the good
Boilers are having a rough season with little hope in sight – the bad
Michigan won but it was not a pretty win – the ugly
LikeLike
Interesting in that the polls are putting 3 ACC teams in the Top 25 but the BCS is not. 1 less ACC team means 1 more B1G team – in this case Minnesota. Go Gophers!
LikeLike
acc is the most over-rated over-hyped conference in the BCS and it is still the #5 rated power conference. They had to raid the Big East because the Big East was always embarrassing them.
LikeLike
Who’s overrating the ACC? Its reputation for this year is its best in at least a decade, and even at that, it’s regarded as Florida State, Clemson, and a bunch of nobodies. Even Miami was dismissed (justifiably, as it turned out) as basically a fraudulent 7-0 team when it was in the top ten. Nobody even remotely puts the ACC anywhere near the SEC or Pac-12.
How and by whom is the ACC overrated?
LikeLike
I’m pretty curious to see how Clemson does against South Carolina. That will be telling in my opinion. I really don’t know which way it’ll go.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“How and by whom is the ACC overrated?”
By the people saying the ACC is clearly better than the B12 and B10. Most have backed off on that talk as Miami as fallen apart, but they keep the narrative by badmouthing the others still.
ACC: 1. FSU, 2. Clemson, 3. Duke, 4-14. Meh
B12: 1. Baylor, 2. OkSU, 3. OU, 4-10. Meh
B10: 1. OSU, 2a. MSU, 2b. WI, 4. MN, 5-12. Meh
As I showed elsewhere, the polls have really punished WI for the ASU loss which seems a tad unfair.
LikeLike
BCS MNC hopefuls by conferences :
AAC – Can not see either in the BCS MNC
Louisville (9-1) lost to Central Florida
Central Florida (9-1) lost to South Carolina
ACC – Florida State is a favorite to make it, Clemson looks near impossible
Florida State (10-0)
Clemson (9-1) lost to Florida State 14-51
B12 – Winner this weekend eliminates the other, and winner is still not favorite for BCS MNC
Baylor (9-0) plays Oklahoma State this weekend
Oklahoma State (9-1) plays Baylor this weekend
B1G – If both win to the B1G CCG, only winner has a chance
Ohio State (10-0)
Michigan State (9-1) lost 13 – 17 to Notre Dame
CUSA – no hope
IND = no hope
MAC – When best win is 30-27 to 6-4 Iowa, outlook not good
Northern Illinois (10-0)
MWC – When best win is 1 point in OT to 5-4 Rutgers, outlook not good
Fresno State (9-0)
PAC – Ducks are pretty much the only option with Stanford picking up second loss
Oregon (9-1)
SEC – Winner of SEC CCG favorite especially if they won the Iron Bowl to get there
Alabama (10-0)
Auburn (10-1)
Missouri (9-1)
Sun Belt – no hope
.
…
.
Even if the season ended this week you really could get it done with just a 4 team playoff where about 5 options are left.
ACC = Florida State
B12 = Baylor vs Oklahoma State winner
B1G = B1G CCG winner
PAC = Oregon
SEC = SEC CCG winner
LikeLike
I don’t see how Auburn would be considered to be in a more favorable position than Missouri. Why would it matter if Auburn beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl vs Missouri beating them in Atlanta? Same difference. And Auburn’s SOS wouldn’t be any different than Missouri’s. Both would have played Alabama, Texas A&M, Georgia, Ole Miss, Tennessee. Difference is Missouri played South Carolina vs Auburn playing LSU (advantage Missouri with the better loss), Auburn played Arkansas vs Missouri playing Florida (advantage Missouri), Auburn played Mississippi State vs Missouri playing Vanderbilt (advantage Missouri). In the noncom, Auburn played Washington State and Missouri played Indiana, which is a wash.
Again, duffman, you’re talking out of your ass to bash Missouri with no logic behind it. It’s what you do.
LikeLike
This may difficult for you to grasp but the Iron Bowl is up there with Ohio State vs Michigan, Oklahoma vs Texas, and Notre Dame vs Southern Cal type games. These draw big audiences, are played in the regular season, and have long histories. Missouri vs Texas A&M or Missouri vs Ole Miss are not anywhere near that. It is just a guess, but more folks will tune into watch the Iron Bowl this year than will tune in to watch Missouri vs Texas A&M. Just as Auburn beating Georgia dominated the buzz this past saturday, so will Auburn beating Alabama dominate the media the weekend of the Iron Bowl. It is just a bigger story that Missouri beating Texas A&M.
Why would it matter if Auburn beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl vs Missouri beating them in Atlanta? Same difference.
Think about this comment you just made? First of all, Auburn WILL play Alabama while Missouri has no 100% probability of playing Alabama. In fact, if Auburn wins it will insure that Missouri DOES NOT play Alabama. As Alabama is currently undefeated and the two time defending MNC, Auburn – who has a recent MNC of their own – it will be a huge boost to Auburn. Even if Missouri beats both Texas A&M and Mississippi, neither are currently in a position to play for a BCS MNC. Therefore, it is a lesser game.
Again, duffman, you’re talking out of your ass to bash Missouri with no logic behind it. It’s what you do.
There is nothing in my post bashing Missouri. If there is, please point it out. Yet again you take a post made by me and are either such a homer to be so blind or you are intentionally trolling. Either way Frank has already warned you to knock it off yet you have some weird obsession to think everybody is out to get Missouri or you just fail to accept when you attack something that has no content to attack. Grow up and quit harassing every post I make with some Missouri based conspiracy.
LikeLike
You said that Alabama, Mizzou, and Auburn could play for the national title but “especially the iron bowl winner”, meaning somehow a 12-1 Mizzou is less likely to play for the national title than an 11-1 Auburn. This is a needless and illogical way for you to diminish Mizzou’s national title hopes. Your justification seems to be a lot of people would see Auburn beat Alabama on tv in the Iron Bowl. Well, newsflash, duff, the SEC title game gets a lot of TV viewers too. If Mizzou beat Alabama in Atlanta it would be no less helpful than Auburn doing it in the Iron Bowl. Therefore your diminishing of Missouri makes no logical sense.
LikeLike
direct quote: “Winner of SEC CCG favorite especially if they won the Iron Bowl to get there”
how am I supposed to read that, duff? Really seems to me like you’re saying Mizzou winning out by beating Alabama in Atlanta is somehow less good than Auburn winning out by beating Alabama in the Iron Bowl. I don’t see any logic to that at all.
LikeLike
Read it as winning a national top interest game, whether or not both teams are good, is going to boost the winner. This year both contestants are in the running. The only games that could do as much would be SC/ND, OSU/UM, etc if both were in the running. Is it fair? That wasn’t the question. He was just stating the likely impacts. Frankly, I’d love to have upsets all over the last weeks just to screw up the attitude that you can get an invitational to be accepted as a championship.
LikeLike
You said that Alabama, Mizzou, and Auburn could play for the national title but “especially the iron bowl winner”, meaning somehow a 12-1 Mizzou is less likely to play for the national title than an 11-1 Auburn
Andy it is simple math:
Today Missouri is 9-1 with 2 games they could loses against teams with no hopes for a BCS MNC game. Alabama is essentially 11-0 heading into the Iron Bowl and Auburn is 10-1.
11-0 > 10-1 > 9-1
Add in the fact the Iron Bowl is such a high value game and it just compounds the voter power. This is not a jab at Mizzou as much as a dose of reality. Lets say Missouri wins out to go into the SEC CCG 11-1 and faces an 11-1 Auburn that just knocked off Alabama in the Iron Bowl. That means Missouri does not play Alabama at all in the SEC CCG, so the season ends this way :
Florida State is 13-0 after the ACC CCG
Ohio State is 13-0 after the B1G CCG
Baylor is 12-0 in the B12
Missouri is 12-1 after winning the SEC CCG
Oregon is 12-1 after winning the PAC CCG
Alabama is 11-1 after loss to Auburn and going for the triple (last done by Gopher’s)
You have 6 teams and 2 slots, tell me how you think it will all fall out?
LikeLike
duff, that makes no sense. you’re talking about hypothetically these three teams winning out. If Missouri won out they’d be 12-1, not 9-1.
A 12-1 Missouri is basically identical to a 12-1 Auburn. It makes no difference if a team beats Alabama in the Iron Bowl or the SEC title game. Either way it’s a win over Alabama in front of a big audience.
Now, as it stands now, of course at 9-1 Mizzou has a ways to go but you said “Winner of SEC CCG” and the only way for any of them to do that is to win out.
LikeLike
But they wouldn’t be favored to be in the NCG from that final list. That’s all he’s saying. He’s not saying its right or fair, just how it is.
LikeLike
I don’t see any logical reason why Auburn would be more favored at 12-1 than Missouri would be.
LikeLike
Because of where they are currently ranked and where an Iron Bowl win would put them. A CCG win by Mo would an “arguably” be the same, but they aren’t tied with Auburn in the standings now, and need to jump others. And a 12-1 Aub would have a CCG win AND an Iron bowl win.
This is an example of why this and the comming fake playoff are simply popularity/beauty contests covered in a competition veneer.
LikeLike
OK, let’s see…
Auburn is at 6
Missouri is at 8
Clemson is at 7
Clemson is no threat to a 12-1 Missouri or a 12-1 Auburn.
Auburn would by definition be of no threat to a 12-1 Missouri.
Also, Alabama at 1 would be effectively no threat to either.
So at 12-1 both Missouri and Auburn would at worst both be behind FSU, OSU, Baylor, and Oregon.
Now, I don’t think there’s much doubt that a team that beats Alabama will jump Oregon, so that puts them both at worst case 4th.
So then you’re talking about whether Auburn, having been ranked slightly higher in week 12 and having beaten Alabama in the Iron Bowl instead of in Atlanta, will be in materially better shape when it comes to potentially needing to jump Baylor or Ohio State.
I just don’t see it.
The main two factors will be: 1) they won the SEC, and 2) they beat Alabama. Both schools would have this.
As far as computers, Missouri’s computer rating should actually be a bit tougher by then. Right now Auburn’s SOS is slightly better at 38 vs 40 for Missouri, but Missouri would play 3 ranked teams between now and then, vs only 2 for Auburn. As far as the votes, Missouri isn’t even all that far behind now and it would get closer even this week if Mizzou takes care of Ole Miss while Auburn has a bye.
I mean, it’s probably all moot anyway because it’s pretty unlikely either team will go 12-1, but to act like Auburn has any kind of significant advantage is illogical.
LikeLike
The advantage Ala had toget in over Okla St. Brand and visibility.
LikeLike
So from purely a branding standpoint, eh?
I suppose.
But other than that I don’t see it.
LikeLike
Brand AND visibility, the kind an Iron Bowl provides. If Auburn goes 12-1 they have two premiere wins (SEC CCG being the second). Mo gets to 12-1 with good/great wins (plus the CCG), but not with the premium value of the reg season nationally followed Ala. rivalry game.
LikeLike
My gosh, who freaking cares? The chances of any SEC team not named Alabama going to the NCG are slim to none, anyway. Any one-loss team would need Alabama and two out of FSU, Ohio State, and Baylor to all lose. So the whole point is moot anyway.
Why is ANYONE so caught up in petty minutiae about Missouri vs. Auburn’s worthiness of a national title game they won’t get into this year?
LikeLike
Well if past history tells us anything, its that its likely at least 2 out of the 4 major unbeaten fall in the last few weeks of the season. Maybe all 4.
LikeLike
The Auburn/Alabama game ought to be close. Missouri has a slugger’s chance against Alabama. I think S. Carolina would get killed. They’re an Alabama style team, just not as good on either side of the ball.
Florida/FSU is a rivalry game. I wouldn’t discount Florida’s chances. They do have a very good defense. CCG could be an upset.
Baylor could lose to any of the last 3 teams they face. Oklahoma St. will be a big challenge.
Ohio St. could lose in a rivalry game to Michigan or in the CCG against Michigan St. (most likely opponent). They might even get outscored by Indiana and lose one of those 51-48 games.
I wouldn’t pick against any of those 4 in any single game, but there are lots of chances for upsets.
LikeLike
ccrider, that’s weak as hell.
Mizzou would theoretically have a big win over Alabama in the SEC title game. That would be just as good as an Iron Bowl victory. No difference.
Mizzou also has two night games against top 25 (one top 10) teams on ESPN right before that.
It wouldn’t be an issue.
But it’s moot. Bama’s probably going to win the SEC.
LikeLike
Look Andy, I’m agreeing about what it should be. But it’s not. Aub. Has the opportunity to make two splashes bigger than Mo. Beating Ala. in the CCG might be worth a bit more than beating someone else (plus beating someone else to get in) but not as much as winning the Iron bowl AND the SEC CCG. It may not be fair but Aub has a better shot at jumping up and into the NCG with the potential of two CCG equivalent wins. It’s not likely, and the only reason I pursue this is I can’t believe you don’t understand I agree with you in that Mo winning SHOULD be worth the same, but it won’t be. I support conf champs only for the invitational playoff to come precisely because of this. Win on the field in order to advance. Take the politics, eye test, etc. out of it.
LikeLike
Folks, folks, folks. It really doesn’t matter. We are debating the worthiness of two teams which cannot both win out. Mathematically at least one of them will have to be eliminated from all MNC game talk regardless of upsets. Furthermore, I’d say there is a better chance than not that neither Auburn or Missouri will even make the SEC title game.
LikeLike
If an SEC team is in the BCS NCG, the Sugar Bowl will take the highest ranked team. None of the teams currently considered would be considered a bad draw in New Orleans. If South Carolina, A&M, Auburn and Mizzou all finish with two losses, A&M would likely be the highest ranked team. All these schools would sell their allotment of tickets. A&M and Auburn would likely drive up prices on the secondary ticket market and buy more hotel rooms.
From what I’m hearing down here, if LSU wins out the Tigers will go to the Cotton Bowl. If LSU drops another game, its the Gator Bowl.
LikeLike
I think you meant for this to be a reply to my post above, but I agree that this is reasonable.
I think a 10-2 A&M team makes the Sugar and a 9-3 LSU team would make the Cotton. If either team loses (and at least one and maybe both of them will) then they’d drop.
LikeLike
They’re talking about Georgia and the Gator.
LikeLike
ok, I lost the thread. I thought it was related to the bowl selection thread above.
LikeLike
Court rejects Maryland’s bid to dismiss the ACC lawsuit. I think this decision will lead both parties to sit down and negotiate an exit fee. Maryland won’t Pay $52 million but they are going to pay more than they want to. The ACC has a GOR now so the exit fee is not nearly as important for them to enforce.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nc-appeals-court-allows-accs-lawsuit-force-52m-fee-over-marylands-departure-continue
LikeLike
Since I am not a lawyer I am curious if this now re-engages the Maryland court. Seems to me this will have to be eventually settled by Federal courts given state sovereignty issues.
LikeLike
I believe the ACC bylaws/constitution state that any disputes are to be heard in NC state courts. Such forum selection clauses control, regardless of the nature of the entity, as they are considered contractual agreements. Courts will enforce the clauses as written.
LikeLike
@Frank
Saw your request on the side here for topics for the next post. I’m not on twitter so I thought I’d respond here. What I’ve been pondering lately is the gap in revenue/budget between the haves and have-nots in the highest level of college sports. We hear about the large athletic budgets of upwards of $100,000,000 at places like Texas, Ohio State, and others. But I see little about the revenue/budget of the have-nots. Where are Eastern Michigan, NMSU, Idaho, etc? We all talk about the gap growing. It certainly seems like it is. But what was the spread back in the mid-nineties or so? Has the relative spread actually grown or does it just seem like it because the absolute numbers have gotten so huge?
Just a thought…
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – Good question – I’d be glad try to tackle that one.
For anyone else, please let me know if there are any other questions that you’d like me to address in the next mailbag.
LikeLike
Would looking back a few more decades be possible? The introduction of unlimited substitutions would make a reasonable demarcation point.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“For anyone else, please let me know if there are any other questions that you’d like me to address in the next mailbag”
Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
But seriously…
I don’t think much has changed for a while. No new info means no new questions or analysis.
How about a new version of the Expansion Index for the B10, looking at pairs of schools to get to 16, 18 or even 20?
LikeLike
If Frank went that route adding a timeline of TV deals, values, upgrade points would be good. Might do on similar to the one Dosh did back in 2010? As TV contracts drive the bus this would be the logical place to start.
LikeLike
As a corollary, the change beyond just TV would be interesting as well. At the major schools ticket prices/contributions have shot up. For example in the SWC in the mid-90s at Texas, there was no contribution to get new season tickets, season tickets guaranteed OU tickets and prices were $17 a ticket.
Now a contribution is required for new season tickets, OU tickets are by lottery and prices are variable and tiered, up to $110 for OU. At Georgia tickets can be had for $40 but there is a substantial donation to purchase or renew season tickets which has been steadily rising.
Net result is a big increase in non-media revenue at the major schools. It would be interesting to see how the others have fared.
LikeLike
some of that info has been looked at by Winthrop
http://winthropintelligence.com/
LikeLike
I glanced at this site and, flashy presentation aside, the analysis and methodology left me unimpressed. The author’s proprietary Realignment Rating Index seems incomplete and arbitrary (Sagarin rankings are not necessarily representative of anything).
Also, this paragraph left me wondering about the author’s grasp of the situation:
“It has been argued that the latest wave of conference realignment began in the summer of 2010 when the University of Utah and the University of Colorado officially accepted invitations to join the expanding Pac-10. What has happened since has been a veritable domino effect that has spanned the country from the mid-major conferences to the power conferences.” (http://winthropintelligence.com/2012/07/23/rri/)
Has anyone besides that author actually argued this? Who? When? With what evidence?
LikeLike
The B1G statement about revisiting expansion was inconsequential. It was those darn left coasters.
LikeLike
Expansion occurred because Delaney said he wanted to expand, they started looking into it. Schools like Pitt, Rutgers, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska started getting interested. Colorado had long held desires to join the Pac 12 so they used this as an excuse to make the leap. Nebraska moved next. Texas had been working behind the scenes on a major move but that fell through, then the Pac 12 grabbed Utah and called it a day, starting a scheduling partnership with the B1G. The next move came from A&M. They were really unhappy with UT a that point and wanted to go their own way, so they did. The SEC then needed a partner, and decided that Mizzou was their best option, so they started recruiting Mizzou. Mizzou hemmed and hawed for a few weeks/months but finally got everyone on the same page and moved. The Big 12 backfilled with a couple of mediocre schools and called it a day. At some point in there the ACC dealt a killing blow to the Big East by grabbing up some of the last of their decent schools. Then Notre Dame joined the ACC (sort of). Then the Pac 12 cancelled their scheduling partnership with the B1G. Then the B1G went into full search mode for more members, a lot of rumors flew around, and in the end the best the B1G could do was Maryland (not too bad) and Rutgers (meh). And here we are.
LikeLike
No you got it wrong.
Back in the early 90s, the big schools in the Southwestern Conference decided they couldn’t stand TCU anymore so left and merged with the Big 8. TCU took some of their buddies and went to the WAC. Well, the WAC didn’t really like frogs, especially horned ones, so the top half the conference created the Mountain West. TCU decided it wasn’t really western anyway, so they left the WAC and helped create Conference USA (they are American). The ACC looked at the Horned Frogs getting used to their new home and decided it would be fun to play a trick. They took a few Big East members, which left the Big East taking all the good teams around TCU. TCU then went to the Mountain West (after all, the east was mean). Then they remembered they weren’t really western, so went to the Big East and pinkie promised to make up and join them. That was actually just an attempt to lure everyone into a false sense of security though and that that sense of security left the Big 12 ready to be picked by the Big Ten and PAC-12. The Big 12 didn’t get the memo they were supposed to invite TCU though, so TCU fans sent nasty letters to Texas A&M (claiming to be from Longhorn fans) and the Aggies proudly left for the SEC taking Missouri with them. The Big 12 finally understood what was happening and got TCU inside (and under their control) before any more mischief.
LikeLike
that’s really funny. what a wild ride for the frogs.
LikeLike
TCU – killer of conferences.
LikeLike
NHL Winter Classic sold out at Big House. Wings vs Leafs.
Over 107,000 tickets sold for the New Years Day game in Ann Arbor. UofM is renting the stadium to the NHL for $3M. Good article.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20131119/NEWS/131119817/this-is-our-super-bowl-nhl-executives-say-of-upcoming-winter-classic
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2013/11/why-the-winning-streak-is-more-impressive-than-you-think
The math of OSU’s winning streak. Using the Vegas line to establish the odds of OSU winning each game, OSU had an 0.805% chance to be 22-0 under Meyer so far. Sure, there aren’t a lot of elite opponents on the list, but the math is still true.
LikeLike
That’s the hard part of undefeated teams I think goes unnoticed a lot. Even if you are the favorite in all the games, you aren’t likely to win them all. If you play 6 games where you figure you beat each 2/3 the time, the most likely result is 2 losses. If you play 12 teams and average loosing against them even just 10%, odds are you have a loss in that time.
LikeLike
ESPN reporting via twitter that Jameis Winston has been connected to the alleged victim via DNA.
SportsCenter @SportsCenter 8m
DEVELOPING: DNA report connects Florida St. QB Jameis Winston to accuser. This does not prove a crime was committed. (via @Mark_Schlabach)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10009077/dna-analysis-matches-jameis-winston-accuser
Now online, too.
It sounds like the cops didn’t do their best work on this case, too. A detective tried to talk the victim out of pressing the case. They didn’t interview Winston’s roommate who the victim says was a witness. They didn’t take DNA samples from anyone.
LikeLike
Is this a new thing? I don’t think I’ve heard of this before:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131120/north-carolina-greg-little-robert-quinn-marvin-austin.ap/?sct=obinsite
LikeLike
Can we talk a little college basketball??
Big Ten is 42-4 so far, with 9 teams still unbeaten. Not too shabby
I see the Big Ten right now, as follows:
1. MSU—Top 4 players as good as anyone’s top 4………but 5-9 leave a lot to be desired, imo. Wild card seems to be Harris.If he blow up, MSU has 2 of the top10 players in the US….but he hasn’t looked looked 100% healthy so far this year….
2. Michigan-May have more upside than MSU if McGary’s ok, despite loss to ISU.. Freshman Walton is the obvious key. Great bench with Albrecht, Horford, Morgan, Irvin
3. WISCONSIN–OK, you hate him, I hate him, but he gets more out out of his bigg, slow white guys
than anyone.
3. OSU–Top 16 type team that will be a tough out in the NCAA.
LikeLike
KenPom.com rankings:
3 OSU
6 MSU
17 Wisky
18 Michigan
19 Iowa
22 Minny
30 Indiana
36 Illinois
65 Purdue
72 Neb
87 NW
89 PSU
5 Kentucky
11 Florida
41 Tenn
43 Alabama
46 Missouri
50 LSU
71 Miss
75 Arkansas
78 Vandy
107 USC
109 MSU
110 A&M
120 GA
193 Auburn
LikeLike
why would kenpom mean anything in November? Check back in January or February.
LikeLike
5. INDIANA–Sure Crean sucks, but the Yogi and the freshmen class are very good, and Will is capable. And Perea doesn’t suck this year.
6. IOWA–Is Fran a good coach or not? Hard to tell.
7. ILLINOIS–Is Groce a good coach or not? Hard to tell.
8. PURDUE–Painter IS a good coach. They’ll be tough at home. Freshmen are capable Can the big guy stay away from the pizza?
9. NEBRASKA–They looked pretty darn good even before the bad boys came back. Tempted to put them at 7…
10. MINNESOTA–Honestly haven’t seem them. The JC point guard must be pretty good based
on his #s..
LikeLike
11. PSU– Not bad, not bad at all
12. NW–Worst team in the league still has 2 really nice players.
For Andy’s sake, I thought we could rate the SEC as well:
1. UK
2. Missouri
3-12. Nobody cares.
LikeLike
You left out Florida.
LikeLike
“Can we talk a little college basketball??”
Ugh. Must we? Basketball is a plague on the sports world. Except when it comes to March Madness.
Wake me in late February so I can start researching which teams to pick only to have them lose in the second round.
And remember: ALWAYS PICK AGAINST GEORGETOWN. Big moneymaker for me the last few years.
LikeLike
One of my Dad’s friends in Kentucky said you should always take the points and bet against UK. Point spreads are about the enthusiasm of people towards the team. UK fans are plentiful and enthusiastic. (Note, I’ve never checked to see if his approach worked).
LikeLike
We could, but the Uconn loss still stinging right now. When he was having trouble getting it in, just got this sense of dread it would not be a good last shot.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10011543/oregon-ducks-unhappy-prospect-rose-bowl-trip
“I don’t want to play in a Rose Bowl unless I’m playing for a national championship,” wide receiver Josh Huff told reporters Monday.
…
“It’s not a big deal at all,” Thomas told reporters. “We already won a Rose Bowl, so it feels like, ‘Whatever.'”
This is exactly why traditionalists hate the BCS and the playoff, which will just exacerbate the problem.
LikeLike
True.
On the other hand, the first quote is from Huff who was seen crying in the freaking THIRD QUARTER of the Stanford game. http://thebiglead.com/2013/11/07/josh-huff-of-oregon-was-crying-at-the-end-of-the-3rd-quarter-with-the-ducks-down-23-0/
Really?
These quotes also say something bad about the coaching at Oregon and the type of players they recruit/develop.
1st. You teach/coach your players not to say things like this. Maybe Huff is not teachable. But you also have Thomas. So, breakdown somewhere.
2nd. You manage your players’ expectations better than this. One loss and now the players have lost their enthusiasm? Crying on the sidelines? Now it is “whatever?” Really? That is both about coaching and about recruiting prima donnas and self-entitled princesses.
3rd. This spills over into the games. I have always thought that Oregon was a bit soft; no resiliency. It doesn’t happen often, but when Oregon comes up against a top-10 or top-20 defense that smacks them in the face, Oregon players get shell-shocked and start to panic. “OMG, I am not running up and down the field like I am supposed to!!! I’m gonna go cry now.”
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to finish with this thought.
Yes, we traditionalist can bemoan Oregon’s lack of enthusiasm. On the other hand, this will be good for the B1G team playing Oregon. Smack them hard enough in the trenches and they will fold.
LikeLike
Oh, and I see that Huff was crying with 11:40 minutes left in the 4th quarter down 20 to zero.
LikeLike
Seems like they were down 26-0 late in the 4th and showed the resiliency to nearly come back and win.
LikeLike
agreed. the comeback attempt surprised me.
LikeLike
Pretty prescient, considering what below-500-in-conference-play ‘Zona is doing to the Ducks today. Of course, that means that the B10 will get the Cardinal in the Rose Bowl instead, and those players are tough.
LikeLike
I guess they really didn’t want the Roses…
LikeLike
Ha! Pat Forde twitter:
Zona 42, Ducks 16. Phil Knight needs to build a better football facility. The imported marble, mahogany and Persian rugs not getting it done
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/11/three_ohio_schools_62_straight.html
Quirky stats:
Longest current winning streaks in NCAA football:
D-I – Ohio State (Columbus, OH), 22 games
D-II – Ohio Dominican (Columbus, OH), 15 games
D-III – Mount Union (Alliance, OH, 163 miles from Columbus, OH), 25 games
LikeLike
Love that. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
Does Miami U. in Oxford, Ohio have the longest losing streak?
LikeLike
Southern Mississippi has been matching Ohio State Loss for Win with both at 22 now. Miami Ohio is second at 14. Akron has the longest FBS conference losing streak.
LikeLike
There has been talk of Temple University building a football stadium on or near the campus. President Theobald mentioned that the discussions are serious.
http://temple-news.com/news/2013/11/20/theobald-football-stadium-serious-discussion/
Speaking in front of about 100 alumni at the Lowes Hotel during the second stop on his post-inaugural tour, Theobald said in response to a question about the prospects of a football stadium on Main Campus that the discussion surrounding it is part of Temple’s master plan, which the university is putting together through the Visualize Temple initiative. The university is expected to unveil its master plan next year.
“That plan will likely include, at some point, a football stadium,” Theobald said.
LikeLike
Bill Cosby Stadium?
LikeLike
With most rivalry games next week, a lot of games this week between teams at the bottom of the conferences. Duke’s game with Wake Forest will not be for worst in the ACC this year, and last week’s CA-CO game set the bottom of the PAC, but games to stay out of last place include:
B1G: Purdue-Illinois (with KS win last week IL now has longest active AQ conference losing streak)
B12: Kansas-Iowa State
SEC-W: Arkansas- Mississippi St. (SEC-E next week with KY-TN)
AAC: Temple-UConn
LikeLike
Duke Lacrosse Accuser Convicted of Murder.
http://www.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2013-11-22/duke-lacrosse-rape-accuser-convicted-second-degree-murder-news?eadid=SOC/Twi/SNMain
LikeLike
Interesting list of FAQs put out by James Madison on their thinking regarding athletics, and, in particular, FBS vs. FCS. Also a link to a study by the state of Virginia on the costs of athletic programs. FAQs discusses how comparing athletic budgets is often apples and oranges and schools charge items to different places.
http://www.jmusports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=14400&ATCLID=209320678
LikeLike
The answer as to whether they want to move up is, they’re starting a deliberate study so they will be ready if an offer comes.
The tone seems to be, “if anyone but the Sun Belt offers, the answer is yes. Sun Belt, we’d have to think about.”
LikeLike
App State had a similar process. Knowing that ACC/SEC/Big East was never at all possible, the hopes were for (1) C-USA, (2) MAC, and (3) Sun Belt. Some, myself included, originally argued for just staying FCS because the SB was so unattractive.
Then C-USA was weakened enormously, but App still couldn’t get in. I don’t know if we were ever even on the MAC’s radar. Meanwhile, App State’s FCS conference started losing teams, too, so the idea of staying FCS became less and less appealing.
I think JMU may wind up in the MAC since they have 13 and may like a 14th member, but C-USA already has 14.
I’m not nearly as excited about App going to the Sun Belt/FBS as I thought I would be. A home schedule of Louisiana Lafayette, Arkansas State, Georgia State, blah blah blah is barely more exciting than the SoCon schools we at least had a 35+year history with and were within less than a half-day drive. But I guess the FCS is even more of a money-loser than being in the Sun Belt.
Anyway, it’s a very different perspective for schools in the G5 leagues, particularly those in the MAC, SB, & C-USA than it is for those in the power 5 leagues.
LikeLike
JMU would have something to offer a G5 league — access, albeit peripheral, to the Northern Virginia/D.C. market. Harrisonburg is about 100 miles from Washington, and JMU continues to grow as an institution. I sense officials are examining how Old Dominion fares in C-USA before making a decision one way or the other.
Meanwhile, another Virginia school would (figuratively) kill to wind up in the Sun Belt…Liberty, which still dreams of becoming the Brigham Young for conservative evangelicals.
LikeLike
wow, what happened to Purdue?
LikeLike
If there is a Tea Party wing among Big Ten presidents, they must be livid at “taker” Purdue. How can Louisville and Cincinnati have legit, big time coaches while Purdue goes cheap? I don’t see any light in West Lafayette anytime soon.
LikeLike
They pushed out their most successful football coach since 1970 (probably the second most successful all-time) in Joe Tiller and PU football has been trending towards dumpster-fire status ever since.
LikeLike
Impatient, entitled, unrealistic fans/programs get what they deserve. How did booting a 14-2 coach work out for the Chargers?
LikeLike
Andy,
That is a great question. Let me give you my two cents…
I am an alum from the class of 91, school of mechanical engineering, so I have been living in football misery for quite some time now. Tiller provided a reprieve, but you always knew there was a cap…
I loved the academic rigor of the engineering program. You had to earn your degree, at least I did. Quite a few people at the school take great pride in this fact and the reputation of the science/technical programs. By nature, most of these folks are somewhat conservative, not just in terms of lifestyle choices, but in how they express themselves.
In my opinion, this attitude blunts the degree of enthusiasm the campus displays for anything of note. You will never see many Purdue fans in face/body paint at games. You don’t see the entire campus or community embrace the teams (very few sellouts for football, basketball has better success but it’s a small arena). As an example, while I was there, we had a pretty good basketball team, but the crazy, passionate fan was non existent. It’s like controlled support is preferred to mad, crazy enthusiasm. Now the latter could get you in trouble at times, but it also brings atmosphere, fans, interest and a following. Things Purdue sorely needs. Let’s be honest, within the state, we are third at best…
Add to the mix, the current athletic department administration is very fiscally conservative, to the point of being ridiculously cheap. Matt Painter seriously considered leaving because he could not pay his assistant coaches what he needed to keep them. I can appreciate anyone that knows the value of how to spend the next dollar, but this is a major D1 institution, not a Co-Rec program. At times, it is not clear if this is understood by those running the athletic department.
While some places in Indiana are welcoming (Bloomington and South Bend come to mind), Indiana is not a friendly place for minorities. I’m from Chicago and we (my friends and I) had to deal with a few situations while I was in school, involving some tense moments and some pretty good fights too. We had to send a message about a specific type of racial intolerance that raises its head every four to five years. While I would not trade my education, degree or relationships formed at Purdue for anything, I can’t say that I would recommend the school to qualified minority candidates either. Now if I feel like that, imagine trying to recruit a top tier athlete, that is probably a minority, against that history and inertia. Not to mention the fact that West Lafayette is not the social hot bed of the Midwest and the winters suck….
As an example, Joy Holmes Harris was an All-American basketball player at Purdue. Do you know who her son is? He would be Gary Harris, who is starting and starring at Michigan State. Even if you didn’t think he was going to develop into a top tier D1 prospect, how do you not recruit the son of one of your best basketball players? Yeah, but she’s a female basketball player you say? Ummm, okay, let’s take Glen Robinson, you know the first pick in the ’95 NBA draft. His son is starring and starting for Michigan. How do you not even bother to recruit him? And you have access to both of those notable alumni??????? If only for appearances, you have to reach out to those kids. I feel like DRose’s knees right now… And, I feel for DRose too…
You combine all of these factors, and Purdue is a tough, tough sell. Local recruits would be more open I’m sure, but top national ones would not consider the school at all. I don’t know how the football program and basketball program can seriously and continuously compete. I’m pulling for coach Hazell, I just don’t know if he is dynamic enough to pull all of the different factors together so that pictures like the one above become less frequent. You need alumni, current students and the community pulling for the program. I’m not sure that person exists, but I could be wrong. Until then, the above will continue into the foreseeable future.
Long answer to your question Andy, but I needed to provide some perspective in my answer.
Anthony
LikeLike
Thanks Anthony. All those thoughts are appreciated.
Since you brought up race (and sorry about the racism you suffered), do you think Hazell being Black will help or hurt? Help maybe with recruiting, but hurt maybe with local whites? I always assumed West Lafayette was a typical college town and thus more racially inclusive. Sad to hear otherwise.
as for BBall: Blame regarding your two recruiting examples fall at Painter’s feet. Has anybody asked him why he didn’t even bother to recruit those two legacy kids? I agree that is crazy to not even recruit them.
Any thoughts on the Xs and Ox of the football team. Hope won, what 6? games last year. This drop off is dramatic. Hazell was on Tressel’s staff and had success at Kent State. I always want Tress’s guys to do well. But, wow, I thought Hazell might do better than this (even in his first year). I watched the Notre Dame game and Purdue looked competent. Then the rest of the season has been terrible (to say it politely). Did Hazell lose a lot of players? Are the position coaches bad?
In my view, it always comes down to coaching. And, IMO, “coaching” is like four-five things: recruiting, booster relations, developing HS players into college players and game day. Some coaches only succeed with 5* already-good players. Think Charlie Weis. Other coaches are really good at taking a 2* and getting 3*-4* play from them 2-3 years later. Think Peterson @ Boise and now Kill and his staff @ Minnesota.
Purdue has built-in disadvantages. So does Nebraska, Minnesota and Boise. Purdue just needs the right coach that “fits” Purdue’s disadvantages (if that makes sense). I hope Hazell is the right fit. This was not an encouraging year, however.
Now to another important question: WTH is wrong with Illinois?
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Coach Hazell’s race will probably help and hurt him. From what I’ve been told, he excels in recruiting, talent evaluation and game day adjustments. I don’t know about his ability to develop players (that is a great list by the way). Where I think Coach Hazell will struggle is with booster relations. I just don’t know if they will be open to his vision, personality and style. Time will tell.
Painter has sidestepped the recruitment of those two kids by indicating his staff did not have the proper resources to identify Gary Harris as a D1 prospect and a disagreement of sorts with the camp of GR III. Either way, that is a huge mistake and loss for a program that can ill afford mistakes.
Hope did win 6 games last year, but his recruiting left a lot to be desired. Quite a few seniors left the team last year, so this was bound to be a bad year. Having said that, we have looked downright awful this year. The coaching staff decided to play a lot of young guys (freshmen and sophomores), so that is one reason for the poor play. At this point, it’s hard to say whether it’s X’s and O’s or poor execution, or both. I was never a fan of Tressel’s play calling, I thought it was way to conservative, given the level of talent he had on his roster. I’m hoping Hazell is a coach along the lines of Kill at Minnesota and Petersen at Boise. For Purdue to become good, he will have to develop guys and get max effort from them.
As to your question about U of I, let me put some thoughts together on that. I can definitely pinpoint the time and reason for the basketball struggles. Football is a different story altogether. I would love to hear Frank’s take on this as well.
Good question BuckeyeBeau…
Anthony
LikeLike
Looking at the track record, most black head coaches are hired by programs in the middle or lower tier of their conferences (e.g., Mississippi State, Wake Forest, Kansas, Virginia); Tyrone Willingham was a notable (and obvious) exception.
LikeLike
Thanks for your answer, Anthony. That does clear it up somewhat.
LikeLike
Interesting link on injuries by school that I saw on another board. Lists each school with each injury/dismissal.
http://www.statfox.com/cfb/injuries.asp
Someone totaled the Big 12 and pointed out that it tied pretty closely with how well the school had done vs. preseason expectations.
KSU-1, Tech-5, Baylor-6, Okie St. & Kansas-7, TCU-11, Iowa St.-12, UT-13, OU-14, WVU-15.
LikeLike
Frank,
Don’t do anything drastic. The Bulls don’t really need Rose, right?
LikeLike
Remember, alcohol kills brain cells, so don’t give it to your kids. They still have a bright future ahead of them.
LikeLike
Too bad Frank is Sox fan; Cubs fans got used to this stuff during the Wood/Pryor days.
LikeLike
Prior
LikeLike
Randy Edsall gained few friends in College Park today. With the game tied at 26 and :02 left, BC’s kicker attempted a 52-yard FG and was wide left. Going to OT, right? Nope — Edsall had called time out just before the kick, BC gets a reprieve, and this time converts. 29-26 Eagles. Weird finish, weird game (Maryland had blocked a PAT and returned it for a two-point conversion of its own). That win at VT may have saved his job (although the Terps still have to play at horrid NCSU).
LikeLike
I’ll be at that game (Maryland @ NC State).
I’m predicting the Terps will go out of the ACC as winners and some very frustrated in-laws in the seats next to me next Saturday.
LikeLike
It worked for Navy right before half last night. Make wiped out, followed by a miss.
LikeLike
Defend the Heisman!…16-41?
LSU is Manziel kryptonite.
LikeLike
GA Southern 26 – UF 20
S – E – C! S – E – C! S – E – C!
And Aaron Murray just hurt his knee against UK.
LikeLike
Shame. They suspect torn ACL. Coach Richt said he hurt it on a long run apparently when he changed directions. Wasn’t obvious then. But later he was holding it a couple of times after plays. He continued to play. Finally went down on a later series just before halftime, right after a receiver tipped his pass up into an interception. He was putting almost no weight on either leg while a couple of trainers helped him into the locker room and they took him straight to the hospital for an MRI.
Murray holds virtually all the SEC passing records. Was working on Tebow’s TD record (running and passing). Probably won’t get that now.
Another “fluke” injury this year was UT running back Jonathan Gray. Gray tore an Achilles just running on it in a normal run with no one around him. You could see his calf pop.
Makes me wonder if flexibility is being neglected while strength is emphasized.
LikeLike
Not saying anything about anyone specific, but muscle increasing drugs do nothing to strengthen the bones, tendons and ligaments they drive. Oner time it may fatigue them to failure.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Shame. They suspect torn ACL.”
Yeah, he’s a good kid and a great college QB.
Sad stat – every SEC East team has now lost their starting QB for at least 1 game this year
LikeLike
I wonder when the last time was that Florida lost to a team that didn’t complete forward pass in a game. Georgia Southern only threw 3 passes and didn’t complete any.
LikeLike
Johnny Football’s career SEC stats v. LSU and v. Everybody Else.
Total YPG: LSU – 291; Everybody Else – 411
Comp Pct: LSU – 46%; Everybody Else – 75%
TD/Int Ratio: LSU 1-5; Everybody Else – 31-12
Total QBR: LSU – 21; Everybody Else – 86.
LikeLike
They finally justified their ranking this year. Winning in Baton Rouge is not a big surprise. Shutting Manziel down like that was.
LikeLike
Sparty locks in the B1G CCG!
Congrats to Sparty
LikeLike
Sparty locks down the B1G CCG spot, congrats to Sparty.
LikeLike
That was weird, it looked like it did not go through the first time and then showed up on my screen after the second post.
LikeLike
Be interesting to see if the Wisconsin leap coincides with ASU’s. There is no way Fresno State, who plays absolutely no one, should rank higher than Wisconsin. Justice would be #14.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Be interesting to see if the Wisconsin leap coincides with ASU’s. There is no way Fresno State, who plays absolutely no one, should rank higher than Wisconsin. Justice would be #14.”
There will be lots of shuffling this week.
Losses – #4, 5, 12, 14, 24, 25 (#12 lost to #22, #14 lost to #17, #24 lost to #8, #25 lost to #19)
#3 OSU, #13 MSU and #19 WI should all benefit at least a little bit.
WI could jump UCF. UCLA and TAMU might drop behind them but LSU might catch them. NIU and Fresno might be too far ahead to catch this week. MSU should move up 1 spot but that’s about it for this week. OSU better solidify #3 for now.
LikeLike
Outside of Ohio State and Arizona State, both of whom Wisconsin lost to, Wisconsin’s schedule isn’t really much better than Fresno State’s.
LikeLike
Although to be fair, Wisconsin has looked far more impressive against their schedule than Fresno has against their’s.
LikeLike
Uh, by Sagarin, 6 of the 9 teams that Wisconsin beat are better than the 2nd best team that Fresno beat (SDSU; only Boise is better). So the 2 schedules aren’t really comparable.
LikeLike
Anchor Down! Vandy on a 2-game winning streak against the Vols for the first time since 1925.
And oSu knocks Baylor down a peg. I see Auburn and Mizzou fighting over the #4 spot, with Mizzou inching ahead.
LikeLike
The third straight year a Big 12 non-brand name gets KO’d from the national title race in late November:
2011: Oklahoma State at Iowa State
2012: Kansas State at Baylor
2013: Baylor at Oklahoma State
LikeLike
There’s something of a pattern there. Maybe next year its Iowa St. losing to KSU?
LikeLike
ESPN showed a stat with the biggest losses for a BCS top 4 team during the season – the 4 worst were all B12 teams (so was 1 of the 2 bowls games in the top 6).
This blog link is close enough:
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/78869/chelf-cowboys-defense-dominate-baylor
2008 #2 TT by 44 to #5 OU
2013 #4 Baylor by 32 to #10 OkSU
2012 #1 KSU by 28 to Baylor
2003 #1 OU by 28 to #15 KSU
LikeLike
Texas has one in the pre-BCS era. They were #1 in 1981 and lost 42-11 in Fayettville. At the time that was the worst loss by a #1 team (may still be). Still managed to end the season #2.
LikeLike
Transic,
“I see Auburn and Mizzou fighting over the #4 spot, with Mizzou inching ahead.”
The experts say:
1. AL
2. FSU
3. OSU
4. AU
5. Clemson
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs
Here are Jerry Palm’s predictions (before today’s polls came out).
1. AL 0.991
2. FSU 0.966
3. OSU 0.900
4. Clemson 0.834
5. AU 0.831
Brad Edwards said AU would be in front of Clemson. Based on the Coaches Poll, I think he’s right. Palm overestimated Clemson’s total quite a bit.
LikeLike
Well with Alabama and potentially South Carolina/Missouri ahead on the schedule, Auburn will definitely be ahead if it comes down to a battle for the #2 slot between 1 loss teams. And FSU would have to lose two for Clemson to finish ahead of them.
LikeLike
Yes, clearly Saturday will settle which should be higher. The question was solely about this week’s rankings.
LikeLike
SEC should be much clearer by next sunday
Texas A&M @ Missouri will settle the east
Alabama @ Auburn will settle the west
LikeLike
Updated Sagarin after week 13 run with SoS rank mid season point +6 :
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
002 003 002 001 001 001 Florida State 42 / 68 / 54 / 62 / 58 / 76
016 011 017 014 014 012 006 009 Clemson – 27 / 117 / 109 / 37 / 74 / 61 / 56
013 014 012 012 010 013 Clemson 45 / 39 / 42 / 53 / 45 / 57
063 062 053 049 032 020 033 046 Maryland – 147 / 193 / 164 / 146 / 142 / 90 / 101
061 063 065 080 074 072 Maryland 94 / 83 / 85 / 90 / 74 / 73
067 064 068 064 062 060 073 059 Syracuse – 42 / 18 / 42 / 103 / 77 / 42 / 45
077 077 069 065 068 068 Syracuse 39 / 38 / 53 / 56 / 44 / 46
091 090 083 090 086 076 072 064 Boston College – 127 / 156 / 114 / 84 / 38 / 70 / 22
058 074 064 060 057 056 Boston College 26 / 22 / 20 / 30 / 46 / 47
050 042 054 060 064 069 078 089 N Carolina State – 106 / 147 / 173 / 121 / 162 / 134 / 112
090 087 083 104 106 100 North Carolina State 117 / 87 / 80 / 60 / 49 / 48
070 093 094 101 093 104 091 093 Wake Forest – 205 / 185 / 153 / 152 / 109 / 104 / 102
078 075 079 090 087 090 Wake Forest 102 / 85 / 71 / 57 / 56 / 51
ACC – Costal
028 030 023 020 021 022 017 020 Miami (FL) – 144 / 99 / 79 / 190 / 161 / 95 / 96
020 028 029 032 044 042 Miami (FL) 75 / 82 / 56 / 47 / 42 / 52
029 025 027 031 038 024 025 026 Virginia Tech – 1 / 63 / 43 / 58 / 9 / 20 / 38
026 036 039 027 031 031 Virginia Tech 37 / 37 / 35 / 17 / 27 / 31
046 048 032 024 024 034 035 040 Georgia Tech – 169 / 215 / 140 / 82 / 76 / 41 / 19
033 033 033 025 027 028 Georgia Tech 29 / 35 / 40 / 31 / 25 / 40
056 058 057 063 059 063 061 055 Pittsburgh – 43 / 21 / 85 / 38 / 60 / 69 / 23
056 058 060 047 054 054 Pittsburgh 57 / 42 / 32 / 24 / 28 / 28
086 095 071 071 072 079 080 071 Duke – 199 / 195 / 124 / 85 / 113 / 113 / 104
057 050 049 041 039 040 Duke 92 / 80 / 84 / 82 / 69 / 69
043 040 046 048 047 075 074 073 North Carolina – 5 / 46 / 41 / 3 / 12 / 5 / 8
067 056 052 048 048 045 North Carolina 4 / 18 / 26 / 32 / 33 / 44
068 061 064 062 067 078 090 082 Virginia – 70 / 19 / 6 / 55 / 22 / 27 / 17
094 086 089 099 097 097 Virginia 35 / 31 / 23 / 15 / 17 / 15
.
B1G – Leaders
009 013 014 015 015 013 015 011 Ohio State – 128 / 157 / 123 / 165 / 119 / 84 / 87
010 005 005 007 008 006 Ohio State 76 / 69 / 81 / 81 / 72 / 67
017 021 020 016 018 015 018 013 Wisconsin – 160 / 217 / 200 / 182 / 135 / 133 / 99
008 011 006 006 005 004 Wisconsin 83 / 90 / 59 / 44 / 52 / 45
033 033 038 035 031 031 048 042 Penn State – 74 / 142 / 83 / 116 / 108 / 77 / 48
046 048 048 066 067 063 Penn State 63 / 36 / 49 / 46 / 61 / 56
071 068 069 055 056 064 050 047 Indiana – 143 / 134 / 117 / 72 / 79 / 63 / 37
048 049 054 058 062 058 Indiana 27 / 33 / 36 / 52 / 37 / 19
099 103 072 059 063 054 064 061 Illinois – 142 / 113 / 57 / 53 / 103 / 72 / 58
066 079 077 077 077 073 Illinois 40 / 34 / 27 / 29 / 18 / 21
074 074 101 093 097 119 114 133 Purdue – 23 / 91 / 46 / 12 / 21 / 19 / 26
136 134 146 168 169 157 Purdue 21 / 20 / 11 / 23 / 19 / 16 Best B1G SoS via Sagarin
B1G – Legends
030 035 044 045 046 041 024 023 Michigan State – 124 / 164 / 182 / 161 / 168 / 106 / 78
025 019 015 020 019 015 Michigan State 104 / 92 / 86 / 91 / 78 / 63
019 019 012 027 034 040 030 034 Michigan – 129 / 81 / 145 / 110 / 133 / 122 / 97
036 035 038 054 049 046 Michigan 85 / 84 / 66 / 68 / 59 / 49
021 029 029 040 029 047 042 035 Nebraska – 116 / 152 / 99 / 98 / 121 / 108 / 107
041 046 044 050 052 048 Nebraska 119 / 110 / 101 / 98 / 83 / 64
054 054 060 061 055 036 045 044 Iowa – 80 / 137 / 103 / 139 / 85 / 71 / 72
044 042 042 040 041 035 Iowa 47 / 43 / 34 / 49 / 48 / 42
041 036 035 036 041 039 043 049 Northwestern – 44 / 71 / 107 / 129 / 123 / 96 / 62
059 057 053 059 066 067 Northwestern 81 / 59 / 39 / 37 / 43 / 34
066 066 065 065 061 072 083 077 Minnesota – 141 / 169 / 196 / 184 / 156 / 132 / 127
071 059 057 056 056 055 Minnesota 103 / 89 / 75 / 77 / 79 / 60
.
Big 12
026 023 010 010 007 003 004 005 Baylor – 133 / 167 / 165 / 178 / 172 / 149 / 105
004 004 004 003 003 005 Baylor 100 / 96 / 93 / 96 / 85 / 65
008 008 008 007 011 004 007 018 Oklahoma – 112 / 108 / 113 / 118 / 89 / 65 / 40
015 015 021 035 030 023 Oklahoma 56 / 44 / 48 / 58 / 62 / 50
037 032 033 022 022 019 016 021 Texas Tech – 53 / 128 / 74 / 119 / 100 / 93 / 94
022 025 030 044 045 044 Texas Tech 87 / 79 / 67 / 78 / 55 / 53
004 002 006 005 003 021 023 022 Oklahoma State – 46 / 78 / 126 / 101 / 63 / 64 / 65
021 016 013 017 013 010 Oklahoma State 54 / 52 / 38 / 59 / 51 / 41
013 016 024 043 037 044 044 029 Texas – 158 / 94 / 45 / 41 / 35 / 23 / 10
031 022 023 031 035 036 Texas 18 / 13 / 24 / 33 / 30 / 32
014 015 022 025 026 030 022 030 Texas Christian – 17 / 74 / 12 / 5 / 28 / 1 / 21
037 043 045 068 061 057 Texas Christian 8 / 10 / 17 / 34 / 29 / 29
024 028 034 034 044 045 039 039 Kansas State – 82 / 100 / 132 / 83 / 64 / 28 / 14
039 032 028 022 023 027 Kansas State 12 / 19 / 29 / 27 / 34 / 33
057 063 063 075 074 065 065 060 Iowa State – 108 / 105 / 105 / 68 / 42 / 39 / 24
072 076 080 098 101 081 Iowa State 15 / 7 / 5 / 18 / 11 / 20
042 052 052 053 071 057 062 063 West Virginia – 149 / 53 / 154 / 69 / 13 / 6 / 11
064 069 059 071 076 075 West Virginia 14 / 8 / 8 / 19 / 23 / 26
082 070 081 087 096 099 110 105 Kansas – 212 / 136 / 136 / 170 / 175 / 110 / 52
101 104 106 130 112 123 Kansas 36 / 24 / 18 / 25 / 31 / 36
.
PAC – North = 3 of 10 Top 10 SoS
002 007 002 002 002 002 001 001 Oregon – 188 / 136 / 76 / 76 / 104 / 94 / 67
003 002 003 004 004 003 Oregon 68 / 54 / 62 / 39 / 35 / 25
040 026 021 018 017 010 011 012 Washington – 55 / 40 / 35 / 73 / 40 / 14 / 7
016 018 018 010 012 011 Washington 3 / 16 / 14 / 28 / 13 / 11
007 003 003 011 009 006 008 014 Stanford – 93 / 93 / 111 / 77 / 41 / 13 / 13
007 007 010 005 007 009 Stanford 11 / 9 / 12 / 2 / 2 / 5 Top 10 SoS
025 037 042 041 048 050 049 037 Oregon State – 109 / 148 / 100 / 74 / 92 / 98 / 69
029 034 040 034 032 038 Oregon State 74 / 60 / 52 / 43 / 26 / 17
094 085 066 056 050 046 041 050 Washington State – 31 / 9 / 20 / 70 / 17 / 38 / 35
047 047 051 045 034 030 Washington State 16 / 15 / 7 / 6 / 3 / 4 Top 10 SoS
059 059 074 080 077 086 102 107 California – 68 / 124 / 60 / 57 / 7 / 10 / 4
111 112 108 114 118 117 California 10 / 3 / 6 / 5 / 8 / 3 Top 10 SoS
PAC – South = 4 of 10 Top 10 SoS
020 018 016 012 010 011 014 006 UCLA – 103 / 110 / 48 / 115 / 130 / 66 / 92
011 017 020 014 014 014 UCLA 50 / 28 / 41 / 26 / 15 / 6 Top 10 SoS
022 017 018 017 019 016 020 019 Arizona State – 201 / 116 / 116 / 13 / 10 / 7 / 18
009 010 008 009 006 007 Arizona State 13 / 12 / 10 / 7 / 6 / 2 Top 10 SoS
058 055 045 047 042 032 034 025 Utah – 83 / 138 / 88 / 52 / 39 / 15 / 9
035 039 037 029 026 026 Utah 5 / 4 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 1 Top 10 SoS
049 044 026 023 020 028 026 036 Arizona – 140 / 143 / 158 / 155 / 98 / 109 / 71
034 030 032 024 028 019 Arizona 55 / 55 / 60 / 38 / 39 / 24
023 024 037 028 027 038 040 038 Southern California – 84 / 96 / 97 / 66 / 30 / 30 / 29
038 031 025 021 018 017 Southern Cal 22 / 23 / 19 / 21 / 12 / 14
103 102 091 088 088 083 092 099 Colorado – 119 / 153 / 142 / 142 / 78 / 34 / 5
088 093 086 085 081 080 Colorado 31 / 26 / 13 / 4 / 10 / 8 Top 10 SoS
.
SEC – East = 2 of 10 Top 10 SoS
038 046 040 037 025 027 019 007 Missouri – 170 / 174 / 171 / 90 / 134 / 81 / 43
005 008 007 008 009 008 Missouri 30 / 29 / 30 / 36 / 40 / 39
012 012 015 013 013 018 013 015 Florida – 98 / 39 / 23 / 27 / 36 / 22 / 16
019 023 022 036 036 050 Florida 7 / 14 / 9 / 13 / 9 / 22
005 005 004 003 005 009 012 016 Georgia – 7 / 6 / 2 / 6 / 1 / 2 / 1
017 020 017 023 020 020 Georgia 2 / 1 / 1 / 8 / 5 / 10 Top 10 SoS
010 009 009 009 012 017 021 017 South Carolina – 72 / 16 / 21 / 8 / 5 / 17 / 20
014 012 014 016 017 018 South Carolina 20 / 11 / 16 / 16 / 21 / 35
039 053 028 039 045 058 047 045 Tennessee – 198 / 204 / 143 / 42 / 80 / 24 / 30
045 044 047 063 064 066 Tennessee 25 / 5 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 7 Top 10 SoS
034 034 043 038 040 042 056 048 Vanderbilt – 54 / 171 / 38 / 88 / 126 / 91 / 89
043 045 043 037 037 041 Vanderbilt 46 / 25 / 22 / 14 / 32 / 37
075 083 080 089 090 089 081 086 Kentucky – 96 / 160 / 121 / 117 / 46 / 8 / 3
086 083 082 093 099 103 Kentucky 6 / 6 / 25 / 20 / 14 / 12
SEC – West = 1 of 10 Top 10 SoS
001 001 001 001 001 001 002 002 Alabama – 34 / 22 / 1 / 10 / 6 / 33 / 36
001 001 001 002 002 002 Alabama 43 / 41 / 47 / 42 / 41 / 55
006 004 005 006 006 007 005 004 Louisiana State – 15 / 65 / 120 / 78 / 31 / 12
006 006 009 011 011 012 Louisiana State 9 / 30 / 28 / 22 / 22 / 18
003 006 007 004 008 008 009 010 Texas A&M – 95 / 119 / 64 / 92 / 50 / 51 / 36
012 009 011 015 016 021 Texas A&M 28 / 32 / 46 / 51 / 47 / 43
044 045 036 032 033 035 028 027 Auburn – 114 / 112 / 87 / 39 / 33 / 25 / 54
023 021 019 013 015 016 Auburn 33 / 51 / 50 / 41 / 38 / 38
027 020 031 021 023 025 032 031 Mississippi – 24 / 118 / 25 / 23 / 2 / 3 / 2
024 026 026 028 025 029 Mississippi 1 / 2 / 3 / 9 / 20 / 13
035 039 056 050 039 048 053 052 Mississippi State – 10 / 163 / 19 / 75 / 82 / 16 / 33
051 053 055 055 051 052 Mississippi State 34 / 58 / 33 / 12 / 7 / 9 Top 10 SoS
047 041 049 046 051 049 052 066 Arkansas – 105 / 150 / 163 / 130 / 86 / 45 / 27
070 071 074 079 084 092 Arkansas 17 / 17 / 15 / 11 / 16 / 27
LikeLike
If I’m reading this right, there were a few odd changes. Oregon moving up with a loss. Tennessee and Vanderbilt both dropping for playing each other. Ohio St.’s win over IU moving them ahead of Arizona St. who beat UCLA.
LikeLike
It is why I was tracking it over the entire season because there are some real odd things that pop out now and again. Like the B12 last year the PAC seems to be getting a nudge this year. I have noticed scheduling middle schools helps Sagarin schools more than playing really good and really bad teams. A week of so ago, BYU had a Top 10 SoS – even before they played Notre Dame – when the eye test certainly did not look like a Top 10 SoS.
If this is case then you could game the Sagarin system by playing lots of mid level teams over playing any top level teams. It seems weighting harder schools does not occur and better schedulers are not always rewarded.
LikeLike
What happened in College Park last night probably didn’t please Jim Delany…but no doubt he’ll appreciate this,, as the Mighty Sound of Maryland band looked to the future at halftime: https://twitter.com/danieljtgallen/status/404371102216228864/photo/1
LikeLike
The Ranks of the undefeated (5 teams) after Week #13 : 5 of 125 = 4.00% of total :
Big 5 schools : 3 of 62 = 4.84% of population : 3 of 125 = 2.40% of total
B1G = 1 of 12 => 8.33% : Legends -> NONE \\\\//// Leaders -> Ohio State
ACC = 1 of 14 => 7.14% : Atlantic -> Florida State \\\\//// Costal -> NONE
SEC = 1 of 14 => 7.14% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Alabama
B 12 = 0 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
PAC = 0 of 12 => 0.00% : North -> NONE \\\\//// South -> NONE
Non Big 5 schools : 2 of 63 = 3.17% of population : 2 of 125 = 1.60% of total
MWC = 1 of 12 => 8.33% : West -> Fresno State \\\\//// Mountain -> NONE
MAC = 1 of 13 => 7.69% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> Northern Illinois
AAC = 0 of 10 => 0.00% : NONE
IND = 0 of 06 => 0.00% : NONE
SunB = 0 of 08 => 0.00% : NONE
CUSA = 0 of 14 => 0.00% : East -> NONE \\\\//// West -> NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated schools ( schools that did not play are highlighted in bold ) ********
ACC Atlantic : 11 – 0 Florida State :::: ACC Costal : NONE
B1G Legends : NONE :::: B1G Leaders : 11 – 0 Ohio State
SEC East : NONE :::: SEC West : 11 – 0 Alabama
MAC East : NONE :::: MAC West : 11 – 0 Northern Illinois
MWC West : 10 – 0 Fresno State :::: MWC Mountain : NONE
.
…
.
******** Undefeated teams playing in week #14 (both undefeated in bold) ********
ACC vs SEC : 11-0 Florida State @ 4-7 Florida | Saturday 12:00 pm | ESPN
B1G vs B1G : 11-0 Ohio State @ 7-4 Michigan | Saturday 12:00 pm | ABC
MAC vs MAC : 11-0 Northern Illinois vs 1-10 Western Michigan | Tuesday 7:00pm | ESPN2
MWC vs MWC : 10-0 Fresno State @ 5-6 San Jose State | Friday 3:30 pm | CBS SN
SEC vs SEC : 11-0 Alabama @ 10-1 Auburn | Saturday 3:30 pm | CBS
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #13 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #12 ********
NONE
.
…
.
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#7) ********
AAC : 6-0 Louisville
ACC : 6-0 Clemson / 6-1 Virginia Tech
B 12 : 6-0 Texas Tech
B1G : 6-0 Ohio State
MAC : 6-0 Northern Illinois / 6-1 Ball State
PAC : 6-0 Oregon
SEC : 6-0 Missouri / 6-0 Alabama / 6-1 Louisiana State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#8) ********
ACC : 6-0 Florida State / 6-0 Miami
B 12 : 6-0 Baylor / 6-1 Oklahoma
B1G : 6-1 Michigan State / 6-1 Michigan
MWC : 6-0 Fresno State
PAC : 6-1 Oregon State / 6-1 Stanford
SEC : 6-1 Auburn
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#9) ********
AAC : 6-1 Houston / 6-1 Central Florida
ACC : 6-2 Duke
B 12 : 6-1 Oklahoma State
B1G : 6-2 Minnesota
CUSA : 6-2 Rice / 6-2 Tulane
IND : 6-2 Brigham Young / 6-2 Notre Dame
MAC : 6-2 Buffalo / 6-2 Ohio
SEC : 6-2 South Carolina / 6-2 Texas A&M
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#10) ********
AAC : 6-2 Cincinnati
ACC : 6-3 Georgia Tech
B 12 : 6-2 Texas
B1G : 6-2 Nebraska / 6-2 Wisconsin
CUSA : 6-2 East Carolina / 6-3 North Texas
IND : 6-3 Old Dominion
MAC : 6-3 Bowling Green / 6-3 Toledo
MWC : 6-3 Boise State
PAC : 6-2 Arizona State / 6-2 Arizona / 6-2 UCLA / 6-3 Southern Cal
SunB : 6-2 LA – Lafayette / 6-3 Texas State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#11) ********
B1G : 6-4 Iowa
CUSA : 6-4 Middle Tennessee / 6-3 Marshall
MWC : 6-4 Utah State
PAC : 6-3 Washington
SEC : 6-3 Georgia / 6-3 Mississippi
SunB : 6-4 Western Kentucky
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#12) ********
ACC : 6-4 Boston College / 6-4 Maryland
B 12 : 6-4 Kansas State
B1G : 6-4 Penn State
IND : 6-4 Navy
MWC : 6-4 San Diego State
SEC : 6-4 Vanderbilt
SunB : 6-4 Arkansas State
******** Teams who have (6) wins in week (#13) ********
ACC : 6-5 North Carolina / 6-5 Pittsburgh
CUSA : 6-5 UT – San Antonio
MWC : 6-5 UNLV / 6-6 Colorado State
PAC : 6-5 Washington State
.
…
.
************ Top 10 SoS for week 13 according to Sagarin ************
(7) PAC / (3) SEC / (0) ACC / (0) B12 / (0) B1G :::: (0) non Big 5 schools
01 Utah (PAC) 4-7, 1-7
Utah St (MWC) + Weber St (FCS) + Oregon St + @ BYU (IND) + BYE + UCLA + Stanford
@ Arizona + @ Southern California + BYE + Arizona St + @ Oregon @ Washington St
02 Arizona State (PAC) 9-2, 7-1
BYE + Sacramento St (FCS) + Wisconsin (B1G) + @ Stanford + USC + Notre Dame (IND)
Colorado + Washington + BYE + @ Washington State + @ Utah + Oregon State + @ UCLA
03 California (PAC) 1-11, 0-9
Northwestern (B1G) + Portland St (FCS) + Ohio St (B1G) + BYE + @ Oregon + Washington St
@ UCLA + Oregon St + @ Washington + Arizona + USC + @ Colorado + @ Stanford
04 Washington State (PAC) 6-5, 4-4
@ Auburn (SEC) + @ Southern Cal + Southern Utah (FCS) + Idaho (IND) + Stanford
@ California + Oregon St + @ Oregon + BYE + Arizona St + BYE + @ Arizona + Utah
05 Stanford (PAC) 9-2, 7-2
BYE + San Jose St (MWC) + @ Army (IND) Arizona St + @ Washington St + Washington
@ Utah + UCLA + @ Oregon St + BYE + Oregon + @ Southern Cal + @ Cal
06 UCLA (PAC) 8-3, 5-3
Nevada (MWC) + BYE + @ Nebraska + New Mexico St (IND) + BYE + @ Utah + Cal
@ Stanford + @ Oregon + Colorado + @ Arizona + Washington + Arizona St
07 Tennessee (SEC) 4-7, 1-6
Austin Peay (FCS) + W Kentucky (S B) + @ Oregon (PAC) + @ Florida + S Alabama (S B)
Georgia + BYE + South Carolina + @ Alabama + @ Missouri + Auburn + BYE + Vanderbilt
08 Colorado (PAC) 1-11, 0-9
Colorado St (MWC) + Central Arkansas (FCS) + Fresno St (MWC) + BYE + @ Oregon St
Oregon + @ Arizona St + BYE + Arizona + @ UCLA + @ Washington + California + USC
09 Mississippi State (SEC) 5-6, 2-5
Ok St (TX) (B12) + Alcorn St (FCS) + @ Auburn + Troy (S B) + BYE + LSU + BGSU (MAC)
BYE + Kentucky + @ South Carolina + @ Texas A&M + Alabama + @ Arkansas
10 Georgia (SEC) 7-4, 5-3
@ Clemson (ACC) + South Carolina + BYE + North Texas (CUSA) + LSU + @ Tennessee
Missouri + @ Vanderbilt + BYE + Florida + Appalachian St (FCS) + @ Auburn + Kentucky
LikeLike
******** Undefeated teams not playing in week #14 ********
NONE
******** Undefeated teams who lost in week #13 ********
Baylor
LikeLike
I have to admit to calling Oklahoma State over Baylor (although not by that margin). The game that really shocked me was Arizona smoking Oregon, which coupled with the ASU win @ UCLA puts the Sun Devils in the Drivers Seat to go to the Rose Bowl. If ASU beats Arizona @ home, the Conference Championship is @ Tempe versus Stanford. I think Fresno State was really hurt by Boise’s loss @ San Diego State. They will end up undefeated (no way Utah State will go into Fresno and win), but with a weak strength of Schedule, their odds decreased for a BCS Bowl bid. They really need Alabama and Ohio State to win out (I am assuming Florida State wins out). If that does not happen, and Michigan State (or Wisconsin) gets to the Rose Bowl, there will be one less spot for them.
Predictions:
National Championship: Alabama Against Florida State.
Rose: Ohio State against Arizona State (go Sparky).
Orange: Clemson (for Florida State) against Central Florida (guaranteed Sellout).
Fiesta: Oklahoma State.
Sugar: Missouri (for Alabama).
Note: Assuming Northern Illinois gets a bid (Fiesta or Sugar), Fresno should get a bid over a two loss B10 Team, or Baylor (assuming they beat Texas). But if Ohio State loses, they will be chosen over Fresno.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“The game that really shocked me was Arizona smoking Oregon,”
The team lost focus after losing to Stanford.
“which coupled with the ASU win @ UCLA puts the Sun Devils in the Drivers Seat to go to the Rose Bowl. If ASU beats Arizona @ home, the Conference Championship is @ Tempe versus Stanford.”
Stanford won by 14 at home. They’ll be favored to beat ASU.
“I think Fresno State was really hurt by Boise’s loss @ San Diego State.”
Not at all. They are well ahead of NIU and UCF, and easily top 16 in the BCS. That’s all they need to get an autobid.
“Predictions:
National Championship: Alabama Against Florida State.
Rose: Ohio State against Arizona State (go Sparky).
Orange: Clemson (for Florida State) against Central Florida (guaranteed Sellout).”
I’m torn on whether they take UCF or a bigger brand like WI. UCF fans may buy tickets but they won’t fill hotel rooms or otherwise provide tourist dollars.
“Fiesta: Oklahoma State.
Sugar: Missouri (for Alabama).”
AU is ranked higher for now, and both would have a loss to AL. I’ll take the division runner up over the CCG loser.
“Note: Assuming Northern Illinois gets a bid (Fiesta or Sugar), Fresno should get a bid over a two loss B10 Team, or Baylor (assuming they beat Texas). But if Ohio State loses, they will be chosen over Fresno.”
NIU only gets in if Fresno loses and NIU is both top 16 and ahead of UCF. Fresno also only gets in with an autobid.
My BCS guess:
NCG – AL vs FSU
Rose – OSU vs Stanford
Orange – Clemson vs WI
Sugar – AU vs UCF
Fiesta – OkSU vs Fresno
I’d prefer the B10 only get 1 team to help with the 1/1 bowls versus the SEC, but P12 #2 and B12 #2 may not be better choices. If the Orange does take UCF, that helps B12 #2.
LikeLike
NIU is ahead of Fresno in the BCS.
LikeLike
They weren’t when I wrote that, and I really didn’t expect a MAC team to pass a MWC team thanks to the computers.
LikeLike
Sagarin actually has USU higher than Fresno, so I wouldn’t say that there’s “no way” that Utah St. beats Fresno.
LikeLike
To get a BCS bid Fresno State or Northern Illinois needs to meet the BCS rules since all of the BCS bowls will avoid these BCS buster teams due to poor ticket sales and poor TV ratings. Neither will get a bid unless they finish in the top 12, or in the top 16 and ahead of Central Florida. The rules only provide 1 BCS buster slot even if multiple teams qualify. The Fiesta Bowl has the last choice this year, so they will take Fresno if both qualify since it is closer and N. IL was a disaster at the Orange Bowl last year even against FSU. The only hope N. IL has for a BCS bid is that Fresno does not qualify. It does not matter that Fresno’s signature win is a 52-51 overtime victory over a 5-5 Rutgers team that went for two and failed in the first overtime, nor that they did not play a single P5 conference team this year. The best of two very bad economic choices for the FIesta wins out. Either team is expected to get blown out by the B12 conference champion so why would the relative merits of two weak schedules be a factor in the FIesta’s choice? N. IL will still have the Pizza Bowl as a backup.
Wisconsin needs OSU to win out to have a shot at a BCS bid. WI best chance is if Clemson gets blown out by South Carolina, Baylor loses to Texas. and Central Florida finishes above Fresno and N. IL. That leaves a lot of 2 loss teams to fill the 3 slots left after the AQs and the SEC takes a second slot.
LikeLike
Wisconsin needs OSU to win the B10 but not got to the national title game, because if OSU goes to the national title game, I foresee the Rose picking MSU as the replacement instead of Bucky for the trillionth time in a row. If FSU makes the national title game, I see the Orange picking Clemson regardless. The key competition to Wisconsin for the Orange slot is Baylor.
Also, the Fiesta doesn’t get to choose Fresno if NIU is ranked higher than them in the season-end BCS poll (and they both qualify); the highest-ranked non-AQ champ gets that automatic bid.
LikeLike
Results of week #13
AP – Mississippi dropped out
AP – Notre Dame moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #4 Auburn, #5 Missouri, #10 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #19 TAMU
(5) PAC : #8 Stanford, #12 Oregon, #13 Arizona State, #22 UCLA, #23 Southern Cal
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #6 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #11 Michigan State, #14 Wisconsin
(3) B12 : #7 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #20 Oklahoma
(2) AAC : #17 Central Florida, #21 Louisville
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #18 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Georgia (15) / Cincinnati (10) / Texas (10) / Mississippi (7) / Arizona (6) / Nebraska (6)
.
…
.
USA – Minnesota dropped out
USA – Cincinnati moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #5 Auburn, #6 Missouri, #9 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #21 Texas A&M
(5) PAC : #10 Stanford, #12 Oregon, #18 Arizona State, #22 UCLA, #23 Southern Cal
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #4 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #11 Michigan State, #14 Wisconsin
(3) B12 : #7 Oklahoma State, #8 Baylor, #17 Oklahoma
(3) AAC : #16 Louisville, #19 Central Florida, #25 Cincinnati
(1) MWC : #13 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #20 Northern Illinois
Notre Dame (17) / Texas (12) / Minnesota (12) / E Carolina (11) / Georgia (8) / Nebraska (7)
.
…
.
Harris – Minnesota dropped out
Harris – Notre Dame moved in
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #5 Auburn, #6 Missouri, #10 South Carolina, #14 LSU, #21 TAMU
(5) PAC : #8 Stanford, #12 Oregon, #16 Arizona State, #22 UCLA, #23 Southern Cal
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #4 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #11 Michigan State, #15 Wisconsin
(3) B12 : #7 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #19 Oklahoma
(2) AAC : #18 Louisville, #20 Central Florida
(1) MWC : #13 Fresno State
(1) MAC : #17 Northern Illinois
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Cincinnati (47) / Georgia (37) / Minnesota (21) / Nebraska (16) / Ole Miss (15) / Texas (15)
.
…
.
BCS WEEK 06
(6) SEC : #1 Alabama, #4 Auburn, #5 Missouri, #10 South Carolina, #17 LSU, #21 TAMU
(5) PAC : #8 Stanford, #12 Arizona State, #13 Oregon, #22 UCLA, #23 Southern Cal
(3) ACC : #2 Florida State, #6 Clemson, #24 Duke
(3) B1G : #3 Ohio State, #11 Michigan State, #15 Wisconsin
(3) B12 : #7 Oklahoma State, #9 Baylor, #18 Oklahoma
(2) AAC : #19 Central Florida, #20 Louisville
(1) MAC : #14 Northern Illinois
(1) MWC : #16 Fresno State
(1) IND : #25 Notre Dame
Dropped out : #24 Mississippi and #25 Minnesota
Moved in : #24 Duke and #25 Notre Dame
.
…
.
B1G : B5 = 6-6 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = NONE :: U = OHIO STATE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (6-6) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (DNP)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
ACC : B5 = 6-5 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 2-0 : OFF = ONE :: U = FLORIDA STATE
ACC (4-4) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (DNP) :::::::: FCS (2-0)
AAC (DNP) : IND (2-0) : CUSA (0-1) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
B 12 : B5 = 3-3 : NB5 = 0-0 : FCS = 0-0 : OFF = FOUR :: U = NONE
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (3-3) : 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 = NONE
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 = 0-0 : FCS = 2-1 : OFF = ONE :: U = ALABAMA
ACC (DNP) : B1G (DNP) : B12 (DNP) : PAC (DNP) : SEC (5-5) :::::::: FCS (2-1)
AAC (DNP) : IND (DNP) : CUSA (DNP) : MAC (DNP) : MWC (DNP) : SunB (DNP)
Everybody scheduled pretty well except for the B12 – almost 50% of the conference took a Bye week – and the SEC – who had good games but also had 3 less than stellar games on the schedule – which showed the Louisville upset of Florida last year may not have been such an upset.
.
Observations :
Buckeyes and Sparty heading to a B1G CCG showdown – the good
Boilers are having a rough season with little hope in sight – the bad
Northwestern’s season of hope has not turned out as planned – the ugly
LikeLike
Some surprises in the BCS rankings:
NIU is #14 and ahead of Fresno. It doesn’t affect anything but the Fiesta Bowl, which would much rather get Fresno. The computers all love NIU (#7). NIU is #3 in Sagarin ahead of OSU.
4. AU, 5. MO, 6. Clemson – the computers hate Clemson (#14) more than the experts predicted
WI up to 15 and MSU at 11. The B10’s at-large odds keep increasing, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Beat me by thatmuch.
…
What’s really interesting about NIU’s computer rankings is that when they when Sagarin first placed them in the Top 4 (after one of his recalibrations) he was a significant outlier and everyone assumed that eventually his system would fall in line with the others as NIU played more games. Instead, their ranking remained steady in the Sagarin rankings and they steadily rose in the other 5.
LikeLike
NIU jumped from 21-10-12-14-3-16 in the computers to 10-9-8-6-3-8. Really odd. Toledo shouldn’t have helped them that much. Did they forget to include the Ball St. game in last week’s data set?
LikeLike
Sugar may be happy to have NIU instead of UCF or UL. Louisville was there last year.
LikeLike
NIU over UCF?
Doubtful.
LikeLike
“The B10′s at-large odds keep increasing, unfortunately.”
Huh? Why don’t you want that?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Huh? Why don’t you want that?”
One BCS bid means more favorable matchups in all of the other bowls. I’d love to see the B10 have a good overall bowl record and even win the series versus the SEC on 1/1. If MSU and WI are in the Cap 1 and Outback, the B10 has much better odds of winning them than if one of them goes into the BCS and is replaced by NE/other. It helps even more at the bottom where PSU is missing from the lineup.
LikeLike
New BCS
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013
Only major surprise is that NIU has jumped ahead of Fresno despite the Bulldog’s sizable in lead in both human polls thanks to a #7 ranking in the computers.
Other than that, there are three sets of Tigers ranked 4-6.
LikeLike
BCS MNC hopefuls by conferences :
AAC – Can not see either in the BCS MNC
Louisville (10-1) lost to Central Florida 35-38
Central Florida (9-1) lost to South Carolina 25-28
ACC – Florida State is a favorite to make it, Clemson looks near impossible
Florida State (11-0)
Clemson (10-1) lost to Florida State 14-51
B12 – Both are now probably long shots
Oklahoma State (10-1) lost to West Virginia 21-30
Baylor (9-1) lost to Oklahoma State 17-49
B1G – Both win to the B1G CCG, only winner has a chance
Ohio State (11-0)
Michigan State (10-1) lost to Notre Dame 13 – 17
CUSA – no hope
IND = no hope
MAC – When best win is 30-27 to 6-4 Iowa, outlook not good
Northern Illinois (11-0)
MWC – When best win is 1 point in OT to 5-4 Rutgers, outlook not good
Fresno State (10-0) – will only play 11 games not 12
PAC – Everybody has at least 2 losses, so slim to none is outlook
SEC – Winner of SEC CCG favorite especially if they won the Iron Bowl to get there
Alabama (11-0)
Auburn (10-1) lost to LSU 21-35
Missouri (10-1) lost to South Carolina 24-27
Sun Belt – no hope
.
…
.
Even if the season ended this week you really could get it done with just a 4 team playoff where about 4 options are left.
ACC = Florida State
B12 = Baylor or Oklahoma State
B1G = B1G CCG winner
SEC = SEC CCG winner
LikeLike
I can’t think of a scenario where Michigan St. gets there. Too many teams in front of them.
LikeLike
I can’t think of a scenario where Michigan St. gets there. Too many teams in front of them.
As I said before, looking at all possible options from the easiest (Florida State) to the hardest (Baylor) for a shot.
Florida State has Florida and Duke left to play. Florida is down and Duke is Duke, so losing to either this late in the game makes a single loss more like 2 losses in terms of MNC damage
Clemson has South Carolina and a loss at Columbia kills them off
The AAC 1 loss teams and PAC 2 loss teams are dead men walking
The B12 now has no undefeated teams and with no CCG they are probably drawing dead to any other 1 loss teams still on the table from the Big 5.
.
…
.
In theory it is really a ACC vs SEC BCS MNC game with the B1G taking the outside shot if one of these 2 falters. If this is the case you should have a 12-0 Ohio State playing a 11-1 Michigan State. The hidden element is the last game SoS as Ohio State is currently in the Top 5. That should greatly boost the SoS for Sparty in the final polls. On the other side, Florida State will get hurt for playing Florida (currently between 50-60) and Duke (has weakest SoS in the ACC) so a loss to either will do extra damage.
SEC = excellent shot for BCS MNC game
ACC = excellent shot for BCSMNC game
B1G = reasonable shot for B1G CCG winner
B12 = 1 loss Oklahoma State and 1 loss Baylor are probably out
PAC = Everybody has at least 2 losses so they are out
Michigan State has been creeping up in the polls the past few weeks and several in front of them have opportunities to fall this week.
#6 Clemson @ #10 South Carolina
#2 Florida State @ Florida
#1 Alabama @ #4 Auburn (one team will fall)
#21 Texas A&M @ #5 Missouri
#9 Baylor @ TCU
Minnesota @ #11 Michigan State
#3 Ohio State @ Michigan
#7 Oklahoma State is off and may be the real winner this week as a fall by any in front of them should move them up. Another option is another 1 loss team winning (like Michigan State) moves ahead of them. Scheduling a BYE this late in the season could be a double edged sword.
If Baylor, Clemson, and Missouri all lose the Spartans should be in the Top 5. 3 SEC teams have a shot right now, but only 1 can take a slot so the other 2 would fall out of the Top 5.
LikeLike
For MSU to get in, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Clemson all have to lose. That in addition to all but one of Alabama, FSU, Auburn and Missouri. FSU would have to lose twice. And it still might not be enough to get past Stanford.
So I guess for them, Alabama would win out, knocking out Auburn and Missouri, FSU loses to Florida and ACC ccg, Clemson loses to South Carolina, Oklahoma St. loses to OU, Baylor loses to TCU or Texas, MSU of course beating Ohio St.. And Stanford may need to lose to Arizona St. and MSU has to hope ASU doesn’t jump them. With all these losses, ASU gets close to MSU in the polls and is ahead in computers, so they need ASU to lose to Arizona as well.
So there is a scenario. Alabama wins out. Baylor can get a win over TCU or Texas but not both and Ohio St. can beat Michigan, but everyone else in the top 12 has to lose every remaining game. So the odds are about the same as Ball St. winning the national championship in football next year.
Oklahoma St. has a lot simpler road. FSU loses badly to Florida or in ccg or loses both. Alabama wins out. Ohio St. loses one of Michigan or Michigan St. That would probably be enough to jump them past Clemson.
All the 1 loss non-SEC teams really need Alabama to win the SEC because they won’t beat out a 1 loss Alabama. Really awful scenario is Auburn wins the SEC and FSU and Ohio St. lose. Then it may be an Auburn/Alabama rematch.
LikeLike
There are only 5 teams with any kind of hope of winning the national title at this point:
Alabama
Florida State
Ohio State
Auburn
Missouri
A one loss Alabama team would rank ahead of a 1 loss Oklahoma State, Clemson, or Michigan State. None of those teams have any shot.
It’s down to 5.
LikeLike
And after next Saturday it will likely be down to 4 or even as few as 3.
LikeLike
I agree that it would take a series of upsets along the lines of 2007 for it to happen, but a 1 loss Oklahoma St., Clemson or MSU could end up in the NCG if those teams win out and
1. FSU loses to Florida and in the ACC CCG (or maybe even if they just split those two)
2. Missouri loses to A&M
3. Clemson beats USCe
4. Ohio St. loses to Michigan St. in the B1G CCG
5. Auburn slaughters Alabama and then loses to USCe in the SEC CCG
or
5a. Alabama beats Auburn and then smashed by USCe in the SEC CCG
At that point you would have
– Alabama would be 12-1 or 11-1 coming off blow out loss to either 2 loss Auburn or USCe
– FSU would be 11-2 coming off two straight losses (note that given how bad UF is and the weakness of the ACC it is possible a 12-1 FSU could get beat out for a spot in the CCG by another team)
– tOSU would be 12-1 with one win over a ranked team (or 11-2 if they losses to Michigan)
– Missouri with 2 losses
– Auburn with 2 losses
A one loss Clemson, Okie St. or MSU would get a spot in the NCG before any two loss team and would have a pretty chance of going in place of a 1 loss ‘Bama, FSU or tOSU (and MSU would unquestionably be ranked higher than tOSU if they beat them in the CCG).
Obviously, this is fairly unlikely, but crazier stuff has happened (like 2007).
LikeLike
Actually, now that I think about it, OSU, Clemson and MSU don’t need all 3 of Alabama, FSU and tOSU to loss; they just need two of them to do so. In fact, ‘Bama winning out wouldn’t be that bad for the longshots since while it would lock down one slot in the NCG, it would take Auburn and Missouri out of contention.
Still not likely, but certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility.
LikeLike
ok, sure, so, like 1% chance for anyone outside of those 5.
And probably Alabama beats Auburn next week to bring it down to 4. Missouri and OSU could also lose next week too. If that happens I don’t see South Carolina beating Alabama. If they did then maybe Clemson or Okie State sneaks in but I doubt it.
LikeLike
I’d put it a little higher than 1%. Probably in the 15-20% range.
Even the simplest scenario for one Clemson, Okie St or MSU to steal a spot (FSU and tOSU both blowing their CCG and ‘Bama winning out) isn’t that hard to envision, to say nothing of more elaborate situations like those involving Alabama losing or losses to Michigan and Florida.
LikeLike
Who is FSU going to lose to? Florida is a train wreck at this point. Who will they play in the ACC title game? Duke? Georgia Tech? FSU will probably be three touchdown favorites. So maybe 10% there.
But then you’d also need OSU to lose. They’ve probably got a 70% chance vs Michigan and a 60% chance vs MSU, so we’re down to about 40% overall.
So about a 4% chance of both happening.
But even then Bama maybe takes 2nd for a rematch of the SEC title game. Given how strong they are in the computer polls there’s at least a 50% chance of that.
So we’re down to 2%.
Another factor is what if Missouri loses to A&M (maybe a 33% chance of happening) and then South Carolina beats Alabama (maybe 25% chance), so maybe an 8% chance there, coupled with that 40% chance of OSU losing, so down to about 3 or 4%.
So yeah, I guess more than 1%. More like maybe 6% chance for Okie State or Clemson.
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1863937-bcs-standings-alabama-fsu-osu-and-process-of-elimination
For what it’s worth, BCS Guru gives OSU, MSU, Clemson and Baylor a combined 4% or so chance of making the title game, though it is heavily dependent on FSU not being significantly hurt on the field or in the polls by a potential Winston suspension.
LikeLike
Florida is a rivalry game and this is their bowl game. CCGs have had upsets before. FSU losing is not inconceivable.
LikeLike
If anyone sees our Humble Moderator, be sure to give him a hug/buy him a drink:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/10034512/derrick-rose-chicago-bulls-season-knee-surgery
LikeLike
I could use a drink too…. This is just awful news…
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131125/florida-jeremy-foley-will-muschamp/
Pete Thamel says that Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley is putting his legacy on the line by sticking with Will Muschamp.
I’m the furthest thing from being a University of Florida. I delight in their losses. That said, if it is true that sticking with a coach puts Foley’s legacy in jeopardy, then it is never possible to have a secure legacy. The man didn’t hire Steve Spurrier, but he was his AD through most of his coaching tenure when Florida won SEC title after SEC title and its first national title. He was AD when Florida went to the Final Four in 1994 and 2000. He hired Billy Donovan, who coached UF to a national title in ’06 and ’07 and has proven to be one of the best coaches in the profession. He hired Urban Meyer, who won two national titles and arguably was even more successful than Spurrier. He turned Florida into one of the most profitable athletic departments in the country.
It’s just amazing to me. We are such a “what have you done for me lately” society that all previous accomplishments mean nothing compared to the immediate past. It would be one thing if the thing putting one’s legacy on the line was something unethical, but Foley isn’t covering up crimes or committing sexual harassment or anything like that. He’s sticking by a hire, which is merely one thing he may or may not prove to be right for doing so. If he’s wrong, his entire legacy is in jeopardy? Really?
I guess this means I better not make any mistakes of any kind, ever, if those rules apply to me.
LikeLike
You’re “Michael in Raleigh.” Were you “Michael in SEC country,” you might understand.
LikeLike
He was 11-2 last year and had far and away the most impressive list of regular season victories of any team last year. Florida beat A&M, LSU, South Carolina and FSU. Only regular season loss was UGA. This is only his 3rd year.
Its the same thing at Texas. A bunch of people are desperate to get Mack Brown out and say he never could coach. There’s an argument that he’s lost it, but to say he never had it is just totally idiotic. Texas is 2nd behind Ohio St. in the BCS era in poll ratings and wins (also the Mack Brown era at UT) and tied with UGA and Virginia Tech for the most times ranked. Mack is 10th all time on the win list with nearly half his career at Tulane and North Carolina. The latter is one of 4 P5 teams never to finish ranked in the BCS era. They were ranked 4 times (as high as #4) when Brown was there.
You would have thought Chizik would have gotten more than a 1 mediocre and 1 bad season before getting fired since he delivered an MNC at Auburn. But it was 1 MNC, 3 bowl wins, 3-9 and gone.
College fans are getting more like pro fans in their impatience. They’ve been reading the stuff about all the 2nd and 3rd year coaches to win championships. Mack Brown may be the only one since Bobby Bowden in the BCS years to win his first championship later than his 4th season.
LikeLike
I am really getting tired of impatience. Need someone new “to get to the next level”, “the game has passed him by”, we shouldn’t “settle for mediocrity”, etc. When did being a fan of the game devolve into being one feeling entitlement to whatever unreasonable expectation a fan base chooses, rather than hope for and appreciation of a win each week? The playoff invitational will only make it worse.
LikeLike
“…than hope for (and appreciation office it happens) a win each week?”
LikeLike
Damn predictive text…
office = “of it”…
LikeLike
But we have a different era than the 60s and 70s when the Big 10 was Michigan, Ohio St. and the 8 dwarfs
The period of OSU/Michigan Big Ten dominance didn’t really start until 1968 (and got into gear the following year when Michigan’s upset of the Buckeyes got Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” into motion with Texas/Arkansas). For much of the ’60s, the Big Ten was relatively balanced, with Rose Bowl reps during the decade from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana (yes, Indiana).
LikeLike
I am really getting tired of impatience. Need someone new “to get to the next level”, “the game has passed him by”, we shouldn’t “settle for mediocrity”, etc. When did being a fan of the game devolve into being one feeling entitlement to whatever unreasonable expectation a fan base chooses, rather than hope for and appreciation of a win each week?
The problem is, in a lot of cases that is true though. It’s pretty clear that the game really had passed by guys like Bowden. And given their structural advantages schools like Texas shouldn’t settle have to settle for anything less than competing for a BCS bid at least every other year. Anything less means they aren’t operating at maximum efficiency.
LikeLike
“And given their structural advantages schools like Texas shouldn’t settle have to settle for anything less than competing for a BCS bid at least every other year.”
Really? Every other year? Aren’t there at least a dozen schools that have no less an advantage? Which aren’t actually entitled to that level?
LikeLike
But we have a different era than the 60s and 70s when the Big 10 was Michigan, Ohio St. and the 8 drawves, the Big 8 was Nebraska, Oklahoma and the 6 drawves, Pac was USC, UCLA and 6 drawves, SWC was Texas, Arkansas and 6 drawves, the SEC was Alabama, Tennessee and a few short people and no one in the ACC but Clemson cared about football.
Now most of the conferences have 4 or 5 teams who can win the championship in any year. And the ACC has FSU fans in addition to Clemson fans who care about football.
A lot of schools have invested and its tougher to win consistently now. There are only so many Nick Sabans and Urban Meyers out there. There are two.
LikeLike
Here’s the record of the 12 kings and the 4 SEC near kings this year:
Alabama 11-0
FSU 11-0
Ohio St. 11-0
Auburn 10-1
Oklahoma 9-2
USC 9-3
LSU 8-3
Notre Dame 8-3
Miami 8-3
Nebraska 8-3
Texas 7-3
Michigan 7-4
Georgia 7-4
Penn St. 6-5
Florida 4-7
Tennessee 4-7
11 of the 16 have 3 losses or more. Only Alabama, FSU, Ohio St., Auburn and Texas have any shot at a conference title.
LikeLike
Really? Every other year?
Yes, Texas advantages are so overwhelming that if they aren’t competing for a BCS spot at least half the time they aren’t reaching their potential.
Aren’t there at least a dozen schools that have no less an advantage?
No. In the three biggest factors in recruiting (money, local talent and prestige/visibility) UT ranks first in two categories (money (which they lead by a country mile) and local talent) and are top 5 for or so in the third.
The next level of schools (USC, tOSU, UF, OU, ‘Bama maybe FSU and LSU) should expect to compete for a BCS bid 25%-35% of the time if they are reaching their maximum potential.
@bullet
From a competitive standpoint Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Tennessee and Miami are no longer at the same level UT, OU, tOSU, USC, ‘Bama, Florida, LSU and FSU (Auburn, Georgia and Clemson never were). The latter group of schools should expect to compete for a BCS spot between 25%-50% of the time. Getting into the BCS even a quarter of time the would be the best case scenario for the former group of schools.
LikeLike
Why are things so different from the 90s when Nebraska, Michigan, Tennessee, Miami and Notre Dame were more prominent than Texas, Oklahoma and USC? I think its just cyclical and coaching.
90s AP poll points
1 FSU
2 Florida
*3 Nebraska
*4 Tennessee
*5 Michigan
6 Penn St.
*7 Miami
8 Alabama
8 Ohio St.
*12 Notre Dame
24 Texas
28 USC
33 Oklahoma
LikeLike
You can only spend so much money. Texas is sending a minimum of $11 million a year back to the academic side. Any of the top 15-20 revenue schools can spend all they need on football. T. Boone and Phil can spend as much on their own.
LikeLike
@bullet
You can only spend so much money. Texas is sending a minimum of $11 million a year back to the academic side. Any of the top 15-20 revenue schools can spend all they need on football. T. Boone and Phil can spend as much on their own.
Actually, you can spend as much as you want to (or at least as much as the University will let you). There is probably some diminishing returns after a certain point, but facilities can always be upgraded, recruiting budgets can be increased, etc. And Texas FB program has more money than anyone by almost $20 million.
Why are things so different from the 90s when Nebraska, Michigan, Tennessee, Miami and Notre Dame were more prominent than Texas, Oklahoma and USC? I think its just cyclical and coaching.
UNL, ND and UT have always relied on recruiting nationally, which is much harder now that almost every game is televised (in the past if you wanted your family to be able to watch your games you were restricted to a handful of schools).
Michigan is the only state in the country whose population shrank during the last census period and Miami’s lackadaisical fanbase and facilities (which were subpar 20 years ago and even more out of date now) mean they will probably never come close to their previous performance.
LikeLike
…unreasonable expectations…
LikeLike
Also if you think that competing for a BCS slot every other year is unreasonable, keep in mind that Duke MBB (the basketball equivalent of UT FB) team has finished the season ranked in the top 10 21 of the 25 years including 15 of the last 16.
LikeLike
@Frank
Somebody really needs to tell Johnny Manziel and Miley that not everything they think of is a good idea. Do you get the feeling that the cat idea was dreamed up someplace in a smoke filled room with a towel under the door?
LikeLike
James Madison, discussed frequently here as a candidate for one of the G5 leagues, has dismissed its coach, nine years after leading the Dukes to a I-AA title…but JMU finished 6-6 this season and has made the playoffs only once in the past five years: http://www.dnronline.com/article/simmons_on_mickey
LikeLike
Appalachian St. fired Jerry Moore when they decided to move to FBS. Although James Madison is saying they are just studying it now.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Mini-Mailbag: Derrick Rose Postmortem and an 8-Team College Football Playoff | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Having lived in Colorado for 15 years, I can report that the support for Colorado State is close to nothing. Sure, it’s a decent sized state school with a decent number of alumni that live close by. But, the alumni enthusiasm is not very high. And that includes when the team was pretty darn good under Sonny Lubick. They never sell out. They have a hard time selling tix even to the CU game at Mile High. CSU will never be anything but a mid-major. There just isn’t any support in the community to sustain anything. Even if administration showed patience and gave a coach a loooong time for the sake of continuity, the Fort Collins community and the state at large just doesn’t care that much about CSU football. Look at the Lubick years. They were a very good program. But they didn’t get all that much support. The same thing can be said for Colorado for that matter. More fans. More support. But most people in the state only care about one football team and that is the Broncos. Under current conditions, no college in the state of Colorado will be able to build a program with any level of sustained success.
LikeLike
There is some talk of the U of Wyoming as an expansion candidate. I don;t know why, other than the Craig Bohls (former N. Dakota St. U. head FB coach) hire. some rumors hint he took the jobe because Wyoming was joining the Big 12. In their dreams! Your index doesn’t even list Wyoming as an expansion candidate; must have a lower index score than Rice I assume. These rumors shouldn’t even be acknowledged.
LikeLike
So you wrote an unprompted paragraph about these Wyoming “rumors” and concluded that they shouldn’t even be acknowledged.
Let me guess, you are a Wyoming fan and trying to start the rumors yourself?
LikeLike
@Arch:
You are WAYYYY too dismissive of the all-important Casper TV market. And Cheyenne is a HOTBED of football recruits. A true diamond in the rough.
If you frack just below the surface, the state’s landscape would be littered with footballs. All 600,000 residents of a state with only two escalators (you can look this up!) would rejoice in such a manner as to render Mardi Gras a mere child birthday party.
But seriously, the only CFB list that Wyoming is on is the list of “Schools Who Would Commit Murder To Join a Power Conference.”
LikeLike
I think the Big 12 needs to add Cincinnati & Memphis, since they dropped the ball with Louisville. The conference needs the Championship Game with the new CFB Playoff starting and the Big 12 could see themselves left out a lot more often than not.
Big 12 North:
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Memphis
West Virginia
Big 12 South:
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
It’s simple and makes traveling much easier for football and the basketball schedule would be really solid with great BB programs. Baseball should be solid as well.
LikeLike
Texas A&M, Missouri making Big 12 look good with their SEC performances
http://m.newsok.com/big-12-football-texas-am-missouri-making-big-12-look-good-with-their-sec-performances/article/3917929
LikeLike
Pingback: It’s Not Business, It’s Personal in Conference Realignment and Other Random Thoughts | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: It’s Not Business, It’s Personal in Conference Realignment and Other Random Thoughts - Sports - You + Dallas
My only minor disagreement here would be UNLV getting no points in the demographics/recruiting. Although Vegas is technically in Nevada, it is clearly a California-centric city. It’s practically on the border, all its neighboring large cities (i.e. where driving visitors come from) are in California, and it remains in the Pacific Time Zone despite being geographically much more in the Mountain Time Zone footprint.
Relatively small points, I know, and even if you gave them all 20 points for that category it wouldn’t put them in the discussion. But having lived in San Diego for seven years and made countless trips to Sin City, I can tell you Vegas might as well be the far eastern edge of the Diego/Angeles megalopolis.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Summer Mailbag: Power 5 Conference Autonomy, Conference Realignment, Playoffs and More | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Frank the Tank Summer Mailbag: Power 5 Conference Autonomy, Conference Realignment, Playoffs and More - Sports - You + Dallas
Its been nearly a year since I first read this and now looking back again with fresh eyes, I find a few areas I feel you missed or maybe didn’t include.
My choices for expansion would be USF and UCF
1. Rival games are worth more. USF has a history with WVU and some of the best selling games of the Big East were when these two played. Outside of that, USF and UCF have their rivalry which has started to draw a larger interest. So its my assertion you are mildly low on national appeal but not enough to fight over.
2. You downgraded both USF and UCF by not assigning them points for Geographic fit or need. My problem with this is that if you include both then they do fit geographically but more so they fill a huge need for WVU. West Virginia used to recruit Florida heavily and were very successful. They no longer play any games in this state and the number of recruits they sign from Florida has dropped dramatically.
You gave Memphis points in this category but by your own definition they do not earn it. Memphis does not directly connect ANY B12 school. My point is simple. The B12 will not add a single school. they will be adding in pairs and if any school added does touch another school that will be in the B12 then they should receive the points…(I’d say +5 in this category. )
3. tremendous upside or monopoly – Again here is where adding two changes the landscape. When you can add two schools in the top 10 size that are within 90 minutes of each other, you have the ability to dominate a local market. Combined USF and UCF have 110,000 students and are located roughly 80 miles away from each other. This is the #14 and #17 DMA sitting side by side with two monster sized schools in the most fertile recruiting hotbed In the nation (per capita). The chance to monopolize their current market would go through the roof since the B12 would give them legitimacy, financial equality and quality opponents that would drive recruits and fans to games. (Id max out their scores at 10)
4. Brand value – Id say 15 out of 30 is a bit low. USF isn’t known as a power team but they are known as a giant killer. With wins over Notre Dame, FSU, Miami, Auburn, Clemson, WVU, TCU, NC State, UNC….and on and on. They aren’t run of the mill, but they aren’t the top of the class. UConn got 20 points and I think that’s based off their 1 BCS game but I would say they have fewer “signature” wins then USF or UCF. At a minimum, Id bump both programs by 3 – 5 points.
5. lastly, you knocked USF because they were in the Big East and “we saw what they could or couldn’t do”. That’s not fully accurate. USF underperforming had more to do with the age of the program. Being in the FBS for a total of 14 makes USF one of the youngest programs in the nation. It doesn’t mean they have any less potential than UCF.
My final score for both moves them to 75-78 points, putting them behind Cinci but ahead of BYU. Market size, enrollment, recruiting grounds and potential to dominate the market puts the combination of USF and UCF ahead of any other two.
Id love to see you do an index based upon which TWO teams would be best to add. I just don’t see the B12 taking 1 eastern and 1 western school. Even if they are the “best teams” on paper, it doesn’t mean they make sense together.
(lastly, if the B12 were to expand by 4, Its my believe that a combination of Cinci, Memphis, USF and UCF would be the best.)
LikeLike
Pingback: Shake it Off: Random Thoughts about the College Football Playoffs, Big 12 Expansion and TV Contracts | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Frank- love the blog.
I think the Big 12 Expansion Index needs a serious revisit. The odds of the CFP skunking the Big 12 in favor of more ‘plentiful’ conferences with a title game is very real. This should make leadership rethink its passive stance.
Ok, on potential expansion. Here are some of my disorganized thoughts on schools that I think you undersold most … and oversold.
Undersold:
1) Colorado State: What a difference a year makes huh? A Top 25 program football program as I write this. A new stadium on the horizon (decision soon). Better yet, I think you undervalued both the academics and demographics of this university. CSU is one of the best ag schools in the country. In the Big 12, academically they would be a great match with the likes of ISU, KSU, OSU and etc. Demographics- it is Colorado. It is growing like crazy. Denver is a large TV market. Anyway, the gap between CU and CSU has closed or no longer exists. This is an excellent option for the Big 12 (if CSU builds a new stadium). Why dilly dally? MWC teams that went “big” already have a track record of success in the Big 12 and PAC 12- who is to say CSU would not be a contender like TCU or Utah in half a decade? We know that the Big 12 made a move on Air Force- and was rejected- so they value Colorado. CSU is the best option hands-down. It is the one school that would make the college presidents all happy.
2) New Mexico: You can make many of the same arguments here that you could make for CSU … its just they are not getting it done quite as well as CSU at the moment… and they don’t have Denver.
3) Houston: A storied university … huge enrollment … ok academics. As Texas flounders and A&M and the SEC move into eastern TX … wouldn’t it make sense to increase the footprint in America’s 3rd largest (and most football crazy) metropolis?
4) Tulane: I love your analysis of Tulane. Yes, the upside is enormous. With a new stadium and the recruiting rich (and fun) environs of New Orleans- what conference would not like to have them on their slate? For the Big 12- this would be a really clever move.
Neutral:
1) Boise State: They have the best football brand out there … they are also a generation from being a Junior College. A tough sell to the Big 12, I am sure. That said, it is the Mountain West … a demographically exploding area in the US. Who knows where BSU will be in 10 in national prestige as a university.
2) BYU: They want into the Big 12. Athletically, it makes sense. Culturally, their appears to be some hesitation from college presidents.
Oversold:
1) Directional Schools: Really, Big 12? This is sad. Every direction school you mention is a glorified commuter university. They are also all third and fourth (and lower) fiddle in their respective states with apathetic alumni. I don’t get it. I certainly hope the college presidents of the like of KU, OU and TX would fight being in the same academic company as these schools.
2) Cincinnati: Basically, this option is what I would call the “WVU needs a friend” scenario. It is awkward, because I am not sure the WVU to the Big 12 experiment has been a success. Neither side of the pillow seems really happy with the other. So, basically … why add a third? Cincinatti is meh academically and athetically. Southern Ohio is not the future of the country.
Conclusion: Expansion, if it comes, I think will come from the South or West. My feeling is it will be West. I think CSU (if they get the stadium) plus either BYU, UNM, UH or Tulane would make lots of sense. If Big 12 expansion does not happen, it will be because (like many believe) none of its members believe the conference will exist in 10 years- so why try to think of the future? For my part, I hope this does not happen.
LikeLike
This morning (12/7/2014) on his Football Sunday show (which aired locally in New York on WFAN and nationally on CBS Sports Radio), Mike Francessa went on and on about how the Big 12 should be penalized for not having a championship game for its conference the way other conferences do, forgetting or not realizing the Big 12, with only 10 teams would have to add two more to be able to have a championship game, with BOTH Baylor and TCU left out with Ohio State moved up ahead of both after they destroyed Wisconsin last night in the Big 10 Championship game.
Since Baylor and TCU have BOTH been left out in favor of Ohio State for the Playoff, the question now how quick will the Big 12 respond by trying to get two more schools to get to 12 so they can have a title game? I would look if that happens for the Big 12 to reach out to BYU and Houston to join the Big 12:
In BYU’s case, they are the best-known school by far not already in one of the “Power Five” conferences. It also with give the Big 12 a western outpost it has not had since Colorado left for what is now the Pac-12.
In Houston’s case, they are a former member of the Southwest Conference, which in 1996 merged with what was then the Big 8 to become the Big 12, necessitated after Arkansas left the old SWC in 1992 for the SEC following a rash of violations by other schools that hampered Arkansas at that time. Houston was one of the schools left out in the merger. Bringing them in would fill a void left when Texas A & M left for the SEC, so it would make sense there.
LikeLike
So, A conference co-champ cannot play for a National Championship, That would be wrong on all levels. They get two more games, and would be National Co-Champions if they win would they have to split the trophy, because a Co-Champion is better than a National Champion.
Why don’t the committee have Alabama have a bye and Florida State play TCU and Oregon play Ohio State. Then the winners meets Baylor, I believe based on the strength of schedule they would be favored. Then you have basically a play in game to the final 3 spots. Like
Baylor VS winner of OSU and Oregon
TCU plays FSU and Alabama plays the winner
TCU vs Alabama
Baylor VS OSU
Championship
TSU vs Baylor
Now that is a Big Twelve Title Game…
LikeLike
And after they win their respective bowl games why don’t the Big 12 set up a title game between TCU and Baylor
ALL MONEY GOES TO CHARITY TO REBUILD SOMETHING
LikeLike
The game could be played the day after the national championship game.
LikeLike
Pingback: College Football Playoff and Big 12 Expansion Rumors: Cincinnati and… Memphis? | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Getting a Grip on Big 12 Rumors: Dec 10 Edition | FearTheWave.com
Pingback: Bad Blood within the Big 12: Oklahoma President Wants Expansion and What it Means for the Big Ten | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Frank, it is completely ridiculous for you to have UCF and USF graded the same on a Football evaluation. UCF has won 4 conference titles(2 CUSA, 2 AAC) and 1 BCS bowl game(vs. Big 12 Champ Baylor) in the last 8 years, have the 8th most FBS wins since 2012, in fact beat BYU just last season, and regularly average 35,000 per game. I’m not saying they are quite on Boise Sate level, or have he tradition of BYU, but if Cincy gets a 30 for football so should UCF and that would put them at a score of 80 and a more logical 2nd choice.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Return of Conference Realignment: Summer of Big 12 CYA Expansion | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Big 12 Expansion Edition of The Bachelor: First Rose Ceremony Elimination | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Where in the World is Carmen San Diego State? Mapping Out Big 12 Expansion Strategies – FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT